Content Regulation

In a recent case, a federal appeals court held that “nothing in the First Amendment confers on the media an affirmative right to broadcast entire performances,” and enforced a licensing agreement placing limitations on the media’s ability to stream whole events.

A case that began with a musician’s excited utterance upon winning a Golden Globe Award has the potential to drastically change how indecent programming specifically and the broadcast media generally are regulated.

Imagine a federal statute that could put teen idol Justin Bieber in prison for entertaining millions of fans via the Internet.

The proposed Commercial Felony Streaming Act would make some instances of online streaming of copyrighted works a felony, and has generated substantial controversy about who will be targeted if it becomes law — is it the person uploading the infringing content, the online service provider that serves as a platform for viewing the content, or both?

From the Spring 2011 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 30.

A screen that reads “This domain name has been seized by ICE” greets visitors to the website Dajaz1.com. The influential hip-hop and rap music blog is one of many websites that has been shut down by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ramped-up efforts against online copyright infringement.

From the Winter 2011 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 37.

Efforts to broadcast from the notoriously camera-unfriendly federal courts got a boost last fall when the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) broadcast live high-profile appeals challenging controversial state laws on immigration and gay marriage.

In November, the Ninth Circuit broadcast the oral arguments in United States v. Arizona, an appeal concerning the constitutionality of an Arizona immigration enforcement law.

From the Fall 2010 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 36.

The Federal Communications Commission says it does not want to control your ability to use the Internet to inform the public. It claims it is not interested in regulating online content, e-commerce sites or Web-based services and applications. Chairman Julius Genachowski has said his commission has a vested interest in preventing Internet providers from limiting speech. But still, members of the media are finding reason to be unnerved.

From the Fall 2010 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 33.

After years of stalled efforts, the announcement of a pilot project allowing cameras in some federal courts, along with three Senate bills on deck with similar agendas, are cues that the movement to extend cameras into the Supreme Court and federal courts is indeed rolling.