Professor William R. Davie, PhD
Class: VLW 405
Office: V.L. Wharton Hall 327
TR 2:00 - 3:15 p.m.
Office phone: (337) 482-6140
Office Hours:
E-mail address: wrd3819@louisiana.edu
MWF 10-12, or by appt.
Course description
Deals
with media law and ethics in the historical and philosophical context of the
First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press; includes libel; privacy
laws; free press and fair trial, protection of news sources; obscenity, regulation
of advertising and broadcasting.
Prereq:
Upper-division status.
Required textbook
Freedom
of Speech in the United States, 5th ed. by Thomas L. Tedford and Dale
A. Herbeck (Strata, PA: Strata Publishing, 2004).
The goal
of this course is to show students how to apply the principles and laws of
freedom of speech and the press, including the rights to monitor and criticize
power, and to dissent. This will be
achieved by familiarizing students with the historical antecedents of free
expression in the United States and Great Britain; by learning about the American
judicial system; by exploring legal and ethical tensions arising from competing
interests, such as national security, personal reputation, and privacy.
We will discuss major principles of communication law, and relevant
landmark cases. We also will address ethical questions pertinent
to communication conduct, including how to ethically pursue truth, fairness,
and diversity. Upon completion, students
should be able to explain existing communication law theories, analyze legal
policies, and identify ethical standards.
Course requirements
Participation
is an important part of your grade. This
class will employ an adaptation of the Socratic method where students are
expected to have read and learned required cases before each class session
and are prepared to extemporaneously discuss the facts of each case, including
legal principles and outcome. Because you will be tested on your understanding
of issues and cases, it is suggested that you create cards or computer documents
for the material covered. This will
aid you in test preparations, and help you during class lectures. You also may want to form small study groups
to aid your comprehension of the material and to study for tests. Legal concepts
can be better understood through such discussions.
Grades
are based on two exams of equal value, a written case briefing and Socratic
dialogue on the case, a research paper with an oral presentation before the
class based on an outline of the paper, and power points. The research paper and the oral argument cover the same subject that will be approved
in advance by the professor. Students may apply the law to a particular case,
analyze case history, or argue for or against one of the landmark cases by
explaining the background of the case, the principle established, and its
enforcement. Research papers and the outlines for oral presentations must
be submitted on the day of presentation, 10-to-12 pages in length (not including
cover sheet and bibliography), typed and proofread carefully. Please follow an appropriate style manual (APA,
MLA, Chicago) and be consistent.
Grading
Percentages*
*All grading on 100-point scale: 100 -90 = A,
89 -80 = B, 79 -70 = C, 69 -60 = D, 59 -0 = F.
Class Schedule (subject to change)
___________________________________________________________
Week 1
8/22-8/24*: Sources of the Law and Freedom to Speak
Reading:
Chapter 1: Freedom of Speech: The English Heritage, and
Chapter
2: Freedom of Speech in America to World War I
*TR 8/24 - last day for adding classes
___________________________________________________________
Week 2
8/29-8/31:
Treasonous Words and Prior Restraint
Reading:
Chapter 3: Political Heresy: Sedition in the United States since 1917
Cases to know Tuesday: • Schenck
v. United States
(1919)
• Abrams
v. United States
(1919)
Cases
to know Thursday: • Gitlow
v. New York
(1925)
• Brandenburg
v. Ohio (1969)
___________________________________________________________
Week 3
9/5-9/7*:
Slander, Libel and Privacy
Reading:
Chapter 4: Defamation and Invasion of Privacy
Cases
to know Tuesday: • New
York Times v. Sullivan
(1964)
• Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) CB/SD: CANDACE URBANOWSKI
• Gertz
v. Welch (1974)
CB/SD: JESSICA MCCHESNEY
Cases to know Thursday: • Time
v. Hill (1967)
CB/SD: NIKKI THIBODEAUX
• Cox
Broadcasting v. Cohn
(1975) CB/SD: MALLORY JUNEAU
• Hustler
v. Falwell (1988)
CB/SD: SKYLER HEBERT
*M 9/4 – Labor Day Holiday
___________________________________________________________
Week 4
9/12-9/14:
Blasphemous and Obscene Litigation
Reading:
Chapter 5: Religio-Moral Heresy: From Blasphemy to Obscenity
Cases to know Tuesday: • Roth
v. United States
(1957)
• Ginzburg
v. United States
(1966)
Cases
to know Thursday: • Stanley
v. Georgia (1969)
CB/SD: DENNIS DENT
• Miller
v. California
(1973)
___________________________________________________________
Week 5
9/19-9/21:
Incitement Issues
Reading:
Chapter 6: Provocation to Anger and Words that Wound
Cases to know Tuesday:
• Chaplinsky
v. New Hampshire
(1942) CB/SD: ALLISON CRAWFORD
• Terminiello
v. Chicago
(1949) CB/SD: JENNIFER BOBO
Cases
to know Thursday: • Gooding
v. Wilson (1971)
• R.A.V.
v. St. Paul
(1992)
___________________________________________________________
Week 6
9/26-9/28:
Advertising Limits
Reading:
Chapter 7: Commercial Speech
Cases to know Tuesday: • Valentine
v. Chrestensen
(1942) CB/SD: SADIE GOULAS
• Bigelow
v. Virginia
(1975) CB/SD: ERICA DEAN
Cases
to know Thursday: • Virginia
State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
CB/SD: CAITLIN SONNIER
• Central
Hudson Gasc v. Public Service Commission
(1980) CB/SD: IRINA DIVINSKY
___________________________________________________________
Week 7
10/3-Fall break*: Injunctions
and Constraints
Reading:
Chapter 8: Prior Restraint
Cases to know Tuesday: •
Near
v. Minnesota
(1931)
• New
York Times v. United States
(1971) CB/SD: STEVEN DUGAS
• United
States v. Progressive (1979) CB/SD: ASHLEY
THIBODEAUX
* Fall break 10/5-10/6
___________________________________________________________
Week 8
10/10-10/12:
Access to the Court, Government and Records
Reading:
Chapter 9: Special Problems of a Free Press
Cases to know Tuesday:
• Gannett
Company v. DePasquale (1979) CB/SD: CHAD WEST
• Richmond
Newspapers v. Virginia
(1980) CB/SD: BRAD BERWICK
Cases to know Thursday: • Nebraska Press Association v.
Stuart (1976)
CB/SD: LAUREEN DODD LUCAS
Class Schedule (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
Week 9
10/17-10/19*:
Historic and Contemporary Limits
Reading:
Chapter 10: Constraints on Time, Place and Manner
Cases
to know Tuesday: • Hague
v. CIO (1939)
• Grayned
v. Rockford
(1972)
Cases
to know Thursday: • Perry
Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983)
• Texas
v. Johnson (1989)
CB/SD: ANN
MCINTYRE
* advising for Spring
2007 begins through 10/27
___________________________________________________________
Week 10
10/24-10/26*:
Mid-term Exam (chapters 1-10) / Organizations
Reading:
Chapter 11: Institutional Constraints in Schools, Military and Prisons
Cases
to know Tuesday: • Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
• Hazelwood
School District v. Kuhlmeier
(1988)
Cases
to know Thursday: • Parker
v. Levy (1974)
• Pell
v. Procunier
(1974)
*advising for Spring 2007 continues through 10/27
___________________________________________________________
Week 11
10/31 -11/2*:
Ownership Issues
Reading:
Chapter 12: Copyright
Cases
to know Tuesday • Harper
and Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
• Salinger
v. Random House, Inc.
(1987)
Cases
to know Thursday: • Basic
Books Inc v. Kinko's Graphics Corp.
(1991)
• Campbell
v. Acuff-Rose Music
(1994)
*11/4 last day for
dropping with a "W”
___________________________________________________________
Week 12
11/7-11/9:
Telecommunications
Reading:
Chapter 13: Broadcasting, Cable, and Access Theory
Cases
to know Tuesday: • National
Broadcasting v. United States
(1943) : CB/SD: MANDI VERDERAME
• Red
Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
(1969) CB/SD: DANNY WILLIAMSON
Cases to know Thursday: • Miami
Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
• FCC
v. Pacifica Foundation
(1978)
___________________________________________________________
Week 13
11/14-11/16:
New Media Rules
Reading:
Chapter 14: The Internet
Cases
to know Tuesday: •
CBS v. FCC (1981) CB/SD: BRITTANY BRIGNAC
• Turner
Broadcasting v. FCC
(1997) CB/SD: BLAISE BERNARD
Cases to know Thursday:
• Reno
v. ACLU (1997)
CB/SD: NICHOLAS MILLER
• MGM V GROKSTER (1997) CB/SD:
ABBIE LEMAIRE
___________________________________________________________
Week 14
11/21-11/23*:
Ethical Issues
Reading:
Chapter 15: Approaches to Free and Responsible Communication
Cases
to know: TBA
*Thanksgiving 11/23 – 11/24
___________________________________________________________
Week 15
11/28-11/30:
Wrap up
Reading:
All previous chapters and lecture notes
___________________________________________________________
Week 16
12/4-12/8*:
Finals Week
Monday, Dec. 4, 2006 10:15 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.
VLW 405
*Wed. 12/6
mid-exam study day
___________________________________________________________
Assignments. All papers for this class (other than
tests) should be typed or word-processed in a double-spaced format. Written assignments are due at the beginning
of class on the assigned date. One
letter grade will be subtracted for each class day that an assignment is late.
Students who anticipate reasonable delays meeting a deadline should
advise the professor at the earliest opportunity.
CMCN
345 Case Briefings Assignment & Socratic Dialogue
There are
seven parts to complete in reviewing and summarizing the cases prescribed
for this course. First is the citation,
which includes the name of the case, the volume and beginning page numbers
of the legal reporter where the case is published.
Example 1 CITATION: Roe
v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roe is the appellant and
Wade is the appellee in this case. In
other words, the petitioner comes first in most case citations, the respondent
comes second, and signifies versus. Henry
Wade served as the district attorney in the jurisdiction (Dallas County),
where Jane Roe (pseudonym) lived when the case was filed in 1970. U.S. is the abbreviation for United States
Reports, 410 the volume number, and 113 is the page number where the case
is to be found in this official legal reporter.
Cases are found in other publications, and parallel citations may be
used.
The second
element of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary given to report the key
elements that led to this particular dispute.
It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what,
where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present
appeal.
Example 2 FACTS:
Dallas District Attorney
Henry Wade was petitioned in a class action suit that challenged the constitutional
legality of the state law criminalizing abortion. The Texas statute allowed
removal of a non-viable fetus only to save the life of the mother. Originally,
three separate cases were joined for a federal court ruling but one was dismissed
– Doe v. Wade – because it was a hypothetical situation. The couple sued even though the wife was not
yet pregnant. Hallford v. Wade also
was dismissed (the petitioner was a physician, Dr. James Hallford, facing
two prosecutions for conducting abortions but was not given standing to sue
based on the reasoning that he could have his say in those pending trials). The accepted petitioner, “Jane Roe” represented
by Sarah Weddington sought a declaratory judgment saying that the abortion
law was unconstitutional, and also an injunction to stop Texas from enforcing
it. The District Court granted the
first request finding the statute vague and overbroad, but it did not grant
an injunction.
The third
part of the case briefing is called the “Issue,” and is where you briefly
spell out the principal question that the court is seeking to address. It can be explicitly stated as a question or
described in one or at most two declarative sentences.
Example 3 ISSUE:
Do states have the right to ban abortion
for their residents, or do such laws violate the right to privacy, the Ninth
Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution?
The fourth
part of your case briefing requires a summary of the decision of the court,
and it may begin with a one-word response to the stated or implied question
framed in the issue. This part may
be referred to as a ruling, holding, judgment, or sometimes disposition.
Example 4 DECISION:
AFFIRMED. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s
declaratory judgment by finding the Texas abortion law unconstitutional, and
it granted an injunction to prohibit enforcement of anti-abortion law.
The states would be allowed to place restrictions on abortion and define
accepted medical procedures and physicians. It was a 7-to-2 decision. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion,
while Justices White and Rehnquist filed dissents.
The fifth
part of the case brief is the explanation where we discuss the rationale for
the ruling indicating how the decision relates to earlier case precedents,
statutes, history or philosophy.
Example 5 EXPLANATION:
The right of privacy is never mentioned
by name in the U.S. Constitution, but here the decision alludes to the “penumbra”
of privacy abstracted from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Nine and Fourteenth Amendments.
Citing the precedent of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a decision that dealt
with the privacy of sexual intimacy and contraception, the court stated that
in this instance a woman’s zone of privacy covers her to choose what could
be done to her body.
The sixth
part of the brief summarizes in one or two sentences what the consequences
have been as a result of the case.
Example 6 RULE OF LAW:
As a result of this ruling, the abortion
law in Texas was struck down as unconstitutionally vague. States cannot enforce similar laws that would
violate a woman’s zone of privacy and prevent her from terminating her pregnancy
under all circumstances.
Finally,
discuss dissenting or concurring opinions from the court. You will be asked informally to render your
own opinion of the ruling.
Example 7 DISSENTS OR CONCURRENCES:
Both dissenting Justices White and Rehnquist condemned the
decision in strident terms. Justice
White saw nothing in the Constitution’s language or history to support the
decision and claimed that his brethren were simply fashioning a new constitutional
right for pregnancy termination. “The
Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the
continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she
carries, “ he wrote. Justice Rehnquist
charged the majority had formulated “a rule of constitutional law broader
than is required by the precise fact to which it is to be applied…the Court’s
sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester
of pregnancy is impossible to justify under that standard…”
Then, be prepared to extemporaneously
give all of the information above – do not read it directly – and add your well-reasoned conclusions
about the case. You will be asked to
present in front of the class and will be subjected to questions about the
material from the professor.
Case Selection:
In
the syllabus, there are landmark cases listed by each date starting next week.
Every student will be required to select one
case by the end of next week, and the most ambitious students will decide
to go first and select cases for next week and early in the term. You are to select a case that is NOT part of
your research subject area. All of the cases listed can be located online
using the textbook's website or simply
by "googling" the title of the case.
Students are to notify me by
email at wrdavie@louisiana.edu,
of their choice by Aug. 28, 2006.
Be
sure to include your full name, and the university's clid number in the email.
*************************************************************************************************************
CMCN
345 RESEARCH PAPER/ORAL PRESENTATION
This cornerstone
assignment in CMCN 345 Law & Ethics a rewarding experience since it involves
three graded works. One outline
is needed for each oral presentation
and that will be 10 percent credited to both students.
However, a separate and original research
paper is also required from each student.
The individual paper counts 15 percent of your grade, which should
be seven pages MINIMUM, 12 pages MAXIMUM.
Remember, it is the paper's readability and completeness of information
-- not its quantity -- that counts. most Cite
everything in the proper format, but do not make your paper just a compilation
of quotes. Very carefully check spelling, grammar and usage, and print your
paper with standard margins using 10 or 12-point font in Times or Times New
Roman. Please number your pages as
well. Most importantly, do not plagiarize your sources by lifting any sentences
without quotes, indented content, and citation or paraphrase without proper
references.
Following
is the prescribed order of events:
1. Find
a compatible topic to cover for this assignment.
2. Select
2 topics in order of preference of special interest based on the chapter
readings in general, and the research topics in specific suggested at the
end of each chapter. Research the topic
thoroughly by finding at least 12 sources beyond the textbook -- half of which
must be from printed publications. In
other words, limit your Internet references to six sources.
3. Consult
the class schedule in the syllabus to determine what Tuesday or Thursday class
corresponds to the topic. On that day, you will make the personal presentation,
hand in the outline for the Oral Argument, and the 10-12 page research paper.
If, for example, you decide to research a question involving rape victims
and their privacy, you would present your oral arguments, outline, and research
paper on either September 6 or September 8, 2004 (as indicated in the syllabus).
4. Use
of audio-visual aids is required, such as power-point in your presentation
using a pc compatible USB key. If you
wish to use an audio clip, you need to make arrangements with Mr. Mike Gervais
<mgervais@louisiana.edu> at least three days before the presentation
to discuss your software and its use. The
same applies if you have a video clip of one-minute or less that you would
like to show. (When using audio/visual
aids -- follow the famous KISS rule -- keep
it simple and short -- and use them to support main points but not as
attention grabbers or window dressing.)
5. The presentations will be given at the end of
class, so please rehearse at least twice with some recording device to perfect
your delivery and timing. Please do
not exceed five minutes in length.
As noted,
a typed topic proposal including the title, and the projected date corresponding
on the syllabus is required NEXT WEEK for the first assignment.
It is acceptable to phrase the title in the form of a question.
There will be a maximum of five oral arguments on any given class day,
so flexibility regarding scheduling is necessary. Our weekly assignment schedule for Oral Arguments
will be handed out in class.
Oral argument/research paper title/topic
due on a typewritten sheet: 2 p.m.,
Thursday, August 31, 2006.
*************************************************************************************************************
Class Policies
Attendance
Class discussions provide the content
necessary to do well in this course, so regular attendance is expected of
everyone. Requests for excused absences
should be submitted in typed format before the missed day, or immediately
upon your return to class. Three unexcused
absences will lower the course grade by one letter, and five tardy appearances
in class will have the same effect. Attendance will be recorded on a sign-in sheet,
and it is each student’s responsibility to sign his or her name before leaving
the classroom. Class disruptions involving
tardy entrances, personal conversations, cell phones, and beepers will be
unwelcome.
Communication
Student
participation is a vital part of the class.
I respect your opinions and encourage you to express them at all times
during the semester. You also may expect
to be called upon to contribute your ideas pertaining to electronic media
throughout the semester.
Academic
dishonesty
Any attempt to claim someone else’s
work as your own without permission or proper attribution is plagiarism, a
serious offense. Generally, the minimum
penalty is an “F” for the assignment given, however, an “F” in the course
may be warranted depending upon circumstances.
Human
diversity
This department respects the importance
of human diversity. This course will include elements concerning the role
and impact of human diversity in journalism and mass communication. The
diversity component will feature such groups as women, minorities, members
of alternative lifestyles, the disabled, and other special-need groups, nationally
and internationally.
Special
needs
It is the instructor’s policy to make accommodations for students with
documented special needs – including but not limited to physical challenges
and/or learning disabilities. If you would like special consideration,
please meet with the instructor and provide documentation at your earliest
convenience so that appropriate accommodations can be made in the class. A map of this floor is posted near the elevator
marking the evacuation route and the Designated Rescue Area. This is an area where emergency service personnel
will go first to look for individuals who need assistance in exiting the building.
*************************************************************************************************************
ASSIGNMENT ONE EXAMPLE -- CASE BRIEFING/SOCRATIC
DIALOGUE SELECTION
E-mail: wrdavie@louisiana.edu
Dear Dr. Davie:
If the following case has not yet been chosen, please assign me the case briefing for Boudreau v. Thibodeau (1919). I plan to have thoroughly read the case and outlined as shown in the syllabus. Then, I will present it extemporaneously in class (with notes in hand if necessary), and take questions from you about the case, including my opinion of the result.
My name is Ricky Cajun, and my CLID is RTJ2134.
Thanks,
Ricky
*************************************************************************************************************
ASSIGNMENT TWO EXAMPLE -- RESEARCH TOPIC SELECTION
YOUR NAME
Date: August 31, 2006
Cmcn 345 Law & Ethics
EXAMPLE Title: “Media Constraints Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow”
Due: August 31, 2006
EXAMPLE Thesis: Constraints and laws of the media and how they have changed over the years. Aside from writing about Communication/Media laws, I will bring in cases having to do with the constraints on the media, and talk about how these cases affected the laws and how they have changed to form the media laws we face today.
---------------------------