Media Law
	Jour/EMC 4250-002 Tuesday & Thursday 1:00-2:25 Bragg 104
	Spring 2024

COURSE:	JOUR/EMC 4250-002 (Media Law)
TEXT:	None. But see reading assignments below. Finding a case The United States Constitution Class Notes
INSTRUCTOR:	Dr. Larry Burriss, Ph.D., J.D.
OFFICE:	Bragg 204
PHONE:	615-898-2983 (office)
E-Mail:	LBURRISS@MTSU.EDU
OFFICE HOURS:	Monday 11-2, Wednesday 10-2, Friday 10-12. Other hours by appointment

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 (now College of Media & Entertainment) and director of the School of Journalism (now School of Journalism and Strategtic Media).

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 media and national security.

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 United States Air Force and 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 freedom of the press, libel, privacy, contempt, censorship, and other legal problems affecting the mass media. 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 communication law.

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.

The following competencies and values will be stressed:
* Understand principles and laws of free press, speech and expression within the global community.
* Demonstrate an understanding of ethical principles of truth, fairness and diversity.
* Understand and use the tools and technologies relevant to legal research.
* Be able to make connections between legal theories and practice across the multiple contexts that are part of a democratic society.

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, May 2, 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.

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

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

We will NOT be using +/- grades.

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.

As you know, the URL is the "address" for a WWW site. What a lot of people don't know, however, is that the URL itself can take you back through the site so you can get more information. Let's take a look at a fairly complex (but typical) URL to see how this works.

If you type (or copy or link to) the entire address (URL), you will end up at a page produced by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office titled "Trademark Basics," which discusses, appropriately enough, trademarks.

But, and this is the great part, if you use only this part of the address . . .

. . . you will be taken to an index of articles about trademarks. If you keep going further and further "back" in the URL, to, for example . . .

. . . you will eventually get to the USPTO homepage. Note, however, that as you "back through" the URL, you will also come to links that say "Server Error," and then a statement about an "internal error." This is a problem at the server (in this case, USPTO) end. When you encounter one of these, just go back another step.

So as you are going through the various readings, you might want to "back through" the current URL to see what you get.

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.

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.

Do you have a lottery scholarship? To retain the Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship 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. A grade of C, D, F, FA, or I in this class may negatively impact TELS eligibility.

If you drop this class, withdraw, or if you stop attending this class you may lose eligibility for your lottery scholarship, and you will not be able to regain eligibility at a later time. For additional Lottery rules, please refer to your Lottery Statement of Understanding form, or contact your MT One Stop Enrollment Coordinator.

This website uses 100% recycled electrons.

Middle Tennessee State University is committed to campus access in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Any student interested in reasonable accommodations can consult the Disability & Access Center (DAC) for assistance at 615-898-2783 or the Disability & Access Center with questions about such services.

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."

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 an attorney or other professional.

This document and related course materials provide information about mass media law in the United States. However, legal information is not the same as legal advice, which is the application of relevant laws to particular circumstances. Although we strive to provide accurate and useful information, you should consult a lawyer if you want or need specific legal advice about a particular situation.

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.

This web site is for educational use only, 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.

• The New York Times Academic Pass
• Legal Search Engines
• U.S. Supreme Court Center
  
• The Law Guru
  
• The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
  
• Blue Ribbon Campaign
  
• Yahoo Search Site
  
• 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 notes.

In general we will spend one week (two days) on each topic listed below. Tuesdays will be devoted to the theory and phiolosophy of each topic. Thursdays will be devoted to case law.

A review of the American legal system, the law, and federal and state judicial systems.

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

The beginnings of freedom of expression in America, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Civil War, World War I, the Schenck decision and other court fights, modern sedition laws, Libertarian theory, recent restraint cases, and new challenges to press freedom.

Cases:

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (2000).
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
United States v. Progressive, 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis., 1979)

How do we resolve conflicting First Amendment rights?

Cases:

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Barnes v. Glenn Theatre, 491 U.S. 397 (1991)
Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992); Lee v. Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)

We Are Coming: Nazis, Skokie and the First Amendment

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Island Trees School District v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 US 675 (1986)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)

The basis for regulation, Radio Act of l927, Communications Act of 1934, growth of FCC powers and subsequent lessening of those powers, equal opportunity provisions, fairness doctrine and deregulation.

Laws:

47 USC 303(m)(1)(D) Powers and Duties of Commission
47 USC 312(a)(7) Administrative Sanctions
47 USC 315 Candidates for Public Office
47 USC 326 Censorship
47 USC 544(d)(1) and (d)(2) Regulation of Services, Facilities, and Equipment
47 USC 558 Criminal and Civil Liability
47 USC 559 Obscene Programming

Note, although sections of the U.S. Code are available in numerous places, one of the easiest to use is the U.S. Code Collection at the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. The main page provides links to the code itself. Once you reach a particular section a "notes" link on the right side of the page provides access to legislative history, annotations, etc.

Libel and libel defenses, including right of reply, malice, post publication defenses.

Cases:

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Curtis Publishing v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971)
Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
Time v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976)
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1976)

Constitutional aspects of privacy. Appropriation, Intrusion, Publication of Private Facts, False Light. Also: Intentional Infliction of Mental Injury. Defenses: Newsworthiness, Consent, N.Y. Times Rule.

Cases:

Sidis v. F-R Publishing, 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940)
Time v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)
The Lone Ranger
Columbia Broadcasting System v. DeCosta, 377 F.2d 315 (1st Cir. 1967)
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard, 433 U.S. 562 (1977)
Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983)
Who Owns Einstein?

Protecting literary property. Fair Use.

Cases:

Baker v. Selden, 517 U.S. 484 (1879)
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918)
Fortnightly v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390 (1968)
Teleprompter v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394 (1974)
Sony v. Universal City, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Mills Music v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985)
Basic Books v. Kinkos, 758 F. Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y 1991)
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

Articles

• Copyright
  
• Anonymous. "How to Get Legal Protection For Creative Works Done by or for Your Corporation," Small Corporation Update, April 1996, at 11.
  
• Hill, Rebecca J. Pirates of the 21st Century: The Threat and Promise of Digital Audio Technology on the Internet, 16 Santa Clara Computer and High Tech. L. J. 311 (2000)
  
• Basic Facts About Registering A Trademark
  
• Einstein Inc.: In Death He Mastered the Science of Making Money
  
• In Pictures: Top-Earning Dead Celebrities

Censorship, the early years, Comstockery, the Roth standard and indecision since l957; the Miller case and local standards; motion picture, postal, customs and broadcast censorship. The "Meese Report."

Cases

Reg. v. Hicklin, L. R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (Memoirs v. Massachusetts), 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

Developing issues of how the law applies to the Internet

CDA	Communications Decency Act	Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 US 844 (1997)
COPA	Children's On-Line Protection Act	American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno (Reno III), 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000)
CPPA	Child Pornography Protection Act	Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
COPPA	Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act of 1998	U.S. v. Whorley (2008)
CIPA	Children's Internet Protection Act	United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)

Development of advertising regulation; the right to refuse service, constitutional protection for advertising, current deregulation trends and the Federal Trade Commission. Cases:

Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52(1942)
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976)
Warner Lambert v. Federal Trade Commission, 562 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
First National Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014)

The Pepsi Jet Commercial (just for fun)
The television commercial
Opinion & Order
Pentagon: Pepsi ad 'not the real thing'

Freedom of information, access to government information, sunshine Laws

Laws:

5 USC 552 Federal Freedom of Information Act
TCA 8-44-101 and TCA 8-44-102 (Tennessee Open Meeting Laws)
TCA 10-7-503 (Tennessee Open Records Laws)

For those of you who want to delve a bit more into the Tennessee Open Records Law, TCA 10-7-504 provides an outline of the many exemptions to TCA 10-7-503. See, in particular, the section titled "Notes: Cross-References."

A brief overview of the legal issues involved in the interaction between the public's "right to know," and the government's obligation to protect the nation.

Cases and Laws:

Right of Access v Right to Publish
New York Times v. United States, 403 US 713 (1971)
United States v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1972)
Phillippi v. CIA, 178 US App. D.C. 243 (1976)
United States v. Progressive, 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979)
Morland v. Sprecher, 443 US 709 (1979)
Snepp v. United States, 444 US 507 (1980)
United States v. Morison, 604 F. Supp. 655 (D.C.Md. 1985)
Nation Magazine v. Department of Defense, 762 F. Supp. 1558 (S.D.N.Y 1991)
Flynt v. Rumsfeld, 355 F.3d 697 (C.A.D.C. 2004)
Doe v. Gonzales, 500 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

18 USCA 2709 (c) - Counterintelligence Access to Telephone Toll and Transactional Records - Prohibition of Certain Disclosure

Is there a problem? If so, how important is it? Proposed solutions, including contempt, trial-level remedies, press-bar codes, gag orders, courtroom closings, sealing of records. Access to judicial proceedings.

Cases and Laws:

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)

TCA 24-1-208. Persons Gathering Information for Publication or Broadcast - Disclosure

capone.mtsu.edu/lburriss