Free Expression, Mass Media & the American Public
	Jour/EMC/RI 3650-002 (T & Th 1:00-2:25, Bragg 104)
	Fall 2024

Dr. Larry Burriss is a professor in the School of Journalism, a former president of the MTSU Faculty Senate and a former member of the Tennessee Board of Regents. He has served as dean of the college of mass communication and director of the School of Journalism. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees from The Ohio State University, where he majored in broadcast journalism. He also has a master's degree in human relations from the University of Oklahoma.

Dr. Burriss received his Ph.D. in communication from Ohio University, where he minored in law, and his J.D. from the Concord Law School.

He is particularly interested in issues dealing with government-media relations.

Dr. Burriss has worked in both print and broadcast news, and in public relations. He has published extensively in professional research journals, as well as in popular magazines.

He was a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee Air National Guard, and served in Mali, Bosnia, Somalia, Central America, England, Germany and the Pentagon.

Dr. Burriss enjoys travel, reading, and was ranked 3rd in the Tennessee Division, American Fencing Association.

The student is expected to become familiar with the legal concepts underlying various theories of free expression. By the end of the course the student should be able to understand and apply the principles of freedom of speech and press, including the right to dissent, to monitor and criticize power, and to assemble and petition for redress of grievances.

The case study approach is used but the emphasis is on the principles and philosophy underlying the various aspects of free expression

The principle aim is to accelerate the trend toward making the student more of a participant and collaborator in the learning process and less of a stenographer.

Regular participation is essential and it is important to read the cases and assignments on a timely basis.

1. Regular attendance and participation
2. Three exams, each worth 1/3 of your total grade.

Exam #1	1/3
Exam #2	1/3
Exam #3	1/3 (Thursday, Dec. 12, 1:00-3:00)

The exams will be objective, multiple choice and true/false, and cover material from the readings and lectures. The exams are not comprehensive. Your final grade is simply the average of the three exams.

There are no extra credit assignments. Make-up tests will be given only due to documented personal illness or death in the family, are essay in nature, and are more difficult than the regular test material.

In a course with this many students, consideration of individual differences in learning styles, abilities, potentials, etc., is difficult, if not impossible. And, of course, different students respond differently to different teaching styles.

As you may know, the normal "90-80-70" grading scale has some severe problems (see, for example, William B. Gartner, "Dr. Deming Comes to Class," Journal of Management Education, May 1993, 143-158), which can be summarized in the following question: "Is the student who gets 90% of the questions right really that much better than a student who gets 89% right?" Obviously, the one student will get an "A," while the other will receive a "B." And, then, of course, the student who received the 89% wants the scale dropped so that 89% will be an "A." Then the student who receives an 88 wants the scale dropped again, and so on. At this point the grade scale becomes arbitrary, and has no basis in reality.

Therefore, I am going to let YOU determine the grading scale. Here's how it works: If any student receives a grade of 90 or above, the standard 90-80-70 scale will apply. However, if no student receives at least a 90, then the person(s) who received the highest grades will receive an "A," and the remainder of the scale adjusted accordingly. This will (1) remove the arbitrary nature of the "90-80-70" scale, (2) will allow for material that was unclear, etc (if everyone misses a question, is the problem with the students who just didn't "get it," or is the problem with the instructor who didn't present the material very clearly, or is the problem with the question?) and (3) will correct for any systemic "defects" in the course, environment, teacher, students, etc. Suppose, for example, the high grade is 92%. The grade scale would look like this:

F	D	C	B	A
0-59	60-69	70-79	80-89	90-92

If the high grade is 85%, the scale would look like this:

F	D	C	B	A
0-49	50-59	60-69	70-79	80

In no case will a grade of less than 80% result in an "A" grade.

This method allows you and your classmates to set the standards for the course. I believe all students want to learn as much as they can, and want to do as well as they can. So, if you are as good as everyone else in the course, then you will get an "as good as" grade. If you do a lot better than everyone else (either because you really ARE better, or because you work harder), you will be rewarded accordingly. If, on the other hand you are not as good as everyone else in the course . . . well, we don't want to go there, do we?

In determining your final grade, A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1

All exams will be taken using the large (8.5 x 11), blue Scantron sheet. Please note that part of any job is getting the job done correctly. Therefore, points will be deducted for incorrectly completed test forms.

Final grades will not be curved beyond the criteria described above.

We will NOT be using +/- grades.

By enrolling in this course, you are indicating your recognition and acceptance of your responsibility to read, understand and meet the course requirements set forth, both in written and spoken form, and that you will not be exempted from these requirements because of ignorance, negligence or contradictory advice from any source.

MTSU comprises students, faculty and staff from a variety of diverse backgrounds. Please be mindful and respectful of these differences, but also recognize that debate and discussion on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that the debate and discussion may well be vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasant. To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Lt. Nyota Uhura of the Starship Enterprise, "We've learned not to fear words."

In this regard I call your attention to, and strongly encourage you to read the aforementioned Chicago Statement, more formally known as the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, which was affirmed by the MTSU Board of Trustees in January 2018.

Middle Tennessee State University takes a strong stance against academic misconduct. Academic Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, cheating, and fabrication.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

Academic Misconduct: Plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, or facilitating any such act.

(1) Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of ideas, words, statements, images, or works of another person as one's own without proper attribution. This includes self-plagiarism, which occurs when an author submits material or research from a previous academic exercise to satisfy the requirements of another exercise and uses it without proper citation of its reuse.

(2) Cheating: Using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise. This includes unapproved collaboration, which occurs when a student works with others on an academic exercise without the express permission of the professor. The term academic exercise includes all forms of work submitted for credit or hours.

(3) Fabrication: Unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise.

To be clear: going online and taking information without proper citations, copying parts of other student's work, creating information for the purposes of making your paper seem more official, or anything involving taking someone else's thoughts or ideas without proper attribution is academic misconduct. If you work together on an assignment when it is not allowed, it is academic misconduct. If you have a question about an assignment, please come see me for clarification.

Any cases of academic misconduct will be reported to the Office of Academic Affairs for violating the academic honesty requirements in the student handbook. They will also result in failure for the course.

Remember, ignorance is NOT a defense.

If you have a disability that may require assistance or accommodation, or if you have a question related to any accommodations for testing, note takers, readers, etc., please contact me as soon as possible. Students may also contact the Office of Disabled Student Services (898-2783) with questions about such services.

This course and its associated web site, readings, exercises, notes, etc., are designed to provide classroom instruction. However, the materials related to the course were not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Those persons connected with the preparation of this web site and delivery of course content are not engaged in the practice of law or in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this course and web site are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.

This course outline provides links to copyrighted material which is provided for classroom use only. Access to these readings does not give you permission to reproduce or transmit this material in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. I suggest you review the copyright restrictions for each site you visit.

To retain Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship (TELS) eligibility, you must earn a cumulative TELS GPA of 2.75 after 24 and 48 attempted hours and a cumulative TELS GPA of 3.0 thereafter. You may qualify with a 2.75 cumulative GPA after 72 attempted hours (and subsequent semesters), if you are enrolled full-time and maintain a semester GPA of at least 3.0. A grade of C, D, F, FA, or I in this class may negatively impact TELS eligibility. Dropping or stopping attendance in a class after 14 days may also impact eligibility; if you withdraw from or stop attending this class and it results in an enrollment status of less than full time, you may lose eligibility for your lottery scholarship. Lottery recipients are eligible to receive the scholarship for a maximum of five years from the date of initial enrollment, or until reaching 120 TELS attempted hours or earning a bachelor degree.

For additional Lottery rules, please refer to your Lottery Statement of Understanding form or contact the Financial Aid Office at 898-2830.

This web site is for educational use only, and is accessible to the general public and is not limited to MTSU students.

This course site does not request or collect any information, identifiable or otherwise, from you. Some external sites linked to this page do ask for personal information such as name and address, and may require registration (always free). If you find a site is requesting personal information, and you are concerned about this request, please contact me immediately.

This site contains links to many government agencies and other public sector resources. Once you link to another site, you are subject to the privacy policy of the new site. I suggest you carefully review the privacy policies of each site you visit.

In general, under FERPA I am not permitted to disclose your academic progress to anyone not allowed to receive such information. Thus I cannot discuss your academic progress, grades, etc., over the phone or via e-mail. All such discussions must be in person. At the end of the semester I cannot disclose or discuss your final grade over the phone or via e-mail. Nor can I "post" your grades on my door. You will receive your final grades via PIPELINEMT or WEBMT. Additionally I cannot access your grades if you have a "hold" on your records.

Please note that all faculty and staff must use their MTSU e-mail accounts when communicating with students. In addition, faculty and staff must send the e-mail to a student's MTSU-assigned e-mail address, rather than a personal account such as G-Mail or HotMail. Educational information or data cannot be sent to or from a non-institutional e-mail account.

For those of you with a serious interest in law, legal research or law school, Law School Admission Starts Here will introduce you to the application process and the practice of law.

Here are some sites that may prove useful, fun, etc., as we go through the course.

• Legal Search Engines
• U.S. Supreme Court Center
  
• The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy
  
• The Law Guru
  
• The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
  
• Blue Ribbon Campaign
  
• Yahoo Search Site
  
• Legal Resources in Yahoo
  
• FedWorld, Gateway to government information, agencies, etc.
  
• FindLaw, Internet Legal Resources
  
• Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute
  
• Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up
  
• Lawyer Jokes
• Lowering the Bar: Legal Humor. Seriously

Note: The readings and links below are subject to change as we go through the semester. Readings and links may be added or dropped to reflect current court decisions. Similar changes may also be made to the course PowerPoint and notes.

Ethical Theory and Practice

Legal Theory and Philosophy

Media & Society

The Legal System
Glossary of Legal Terms
Role and Structure of Federal Courts
Supreme Court of the United States
Map of Federal Courts

Constitutional Analysis

First Amendment Theory and Analysis

Introduction to Media Law

First Amendment Issues, Cases and Comments The First Amendment in Context
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Advocacy of Illegal Action

Masses Publishing vs. Patton (1917)
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Abrams v. United States (Holmes dissent) (1919)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Whitney v. California (1927)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Media Impact and Regulation
Comic Books

Movies
Mutual Films v. Ohio
The Hayes Office
Motion Picture Production Code
Burstyn v. Wilson
Jacobellis v. Ohio

Music
Is there a direct impact?
Florida V. Zamora (1977)
Olivia N. v. NBC (1981)
McCollum v. CBS (1988)
Vance v. CBS and Judas Priest (1989)
Waller v. Osbourne (1992)

Selected toipics
Media & National Security
Electronic Media & Content Regulation
Wealth and the Political Process Reputation and Privacy
Offensive Wrods, Fighting Words, Hostile Audience
Distinguishing Between "Content" and "Manner"
Commercial Speech
Prior Restraints
Protection of Reportrers' Sources and Secrets
Access to the Judicial System
Privacy and the Public Forum
Government Property and the Public Forum
Government Subsidies of Speech
Government as Educator and Editor
Right to Associate or Not Associate

--##--

http://capone.mtsu.edu/lburriss/3650.html

Introduction to First Amendment Theory
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

John Milton
Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing (1644)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

James Madison
Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799)
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

John Stuart Mill
On Liberty (1859)
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952)
Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 354 U.S. 436 (1957)
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (1985)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000)

Learned Hand
Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917)
United States v. Hearing (1918)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
United States v. Schwimmer (1929)
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010)

Louis Brandeis
Whitney V. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. _____ (2011)

Trend Toward Individual-Centered Theories
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Barnes v. Glen Theater (1991)
City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (2000)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

capone.mtsu.edu/lburriss