*All grading on 100-point scale: 100 -90 = A, 89 -80 = B, 79 -70 = C, 69 -60 = D, 59 -0 = F.

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

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

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

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

Cases to know: TBA

___________________________________________________________

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.

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

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.

*************************************************************************************************************

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

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.

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

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.

---------------------------

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

Course objectives

Course assignments

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

Cases to know: TBA

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006

Communication Law and Ethics Syllabus Fall 2006