Burger & Rehnquist Dissent: Theaters should take efforts to shield; modest – burden; adults shouldn’t be subjected either Dissent: we can protect adults & children outside of the home from – offensive communications statute valid 1978 [Important Case] FCC v. Pacifica Foundation – Facts: Carlin’s 7 dirty words aired over the radio with warning during day Plurality – CN FCC may restrict speech via TPM Low value not saying unprotected – Technology: Radio, but not a ban (can play at night) Intrusiveness in the home Warning insufficient people flip channels – Audio rather than written - Children can hear even if not old – enough to read (referencing presumably unacceptable restrictions – bookstores) Single event not recurring – FCC should be given deference - Radio is finite resource SS but FCC wins Powell concurring in the judgment: Not Low Value speech, but the rest of the value is the same Brennan Dissent: – Protected speech Can turn it off; no invasion of privacy Burden on people who have to stay up late to hear the broadcast Violation of principle that adults have right to access Butler v. Michigan; info can’t dumb adults access down to protect kids – 1989 [ very important moving in the direction of a Communications v. FCC – – test] statute total ban prohibiting indirect phone communications - dial-a-porn Distinguish from Pacifica Technology: Phone must take affirmative steps; not regulated – Clearly establishes SS for CB Low value speech drops out App: Not NT - Less restrictive alternatives exist (credit cards for companies) No deference to FCC 1997 Reno v. ACLU- Facts: Communications Decency Act restriction on non-obscene – communications patently offensive to minors early internet regs – Distinguishing from Pacifica: Ban vs. TPM restriction Warning effective over interests Criminal (Reno) vs. civil punishment (Pacifica) Butler v. MI dumbing down interests for kids – SS failed NT filters – – Law is ambiguous what does mean? – “indecent” Less Restrictive Alternative exists Credit card, v-chip, tagging, etc. –
Burger & Rehnquist – Dissent: Theaters should take efforts to shield; modest burden; adults shouldn’t be subjected either – Dissent: we can protect adults & children outside of the home from offensive communications statute valid FCC v. Pacifica Foundation – 1978 [Important Case] Facts: Carlin’s 7 dirty words aired over the radio with warning during day Plurality – CN FCC may restrict speech via TPM Low value – not saying unprotected Technology: Radio, but not a ban (can play at night) Intrusiveness in the home Warning insufficient – people flip channels Audio rather than written - Children – can hear even if not old enough to read (referencing presumably unacceptable restrictions – bookstores) Single event – not recurring FCC should be given deference - Radio is finite resource SS but FCC wins Powell concurring in the judgment: Not Low Value speech, but the rest of the value is the same Brennan – Dissent: Protected speech Can turn it off; no invasion of privacy Burden on people who have to stay up late to hear the broadcast Violation of Butler v. Michigan; principle that adults have right to access info – can’t dumb adults access down to protect kids Communications v. FCC – 1989 [ very important – moving in the direction of a test] statute total ban prohibiting indirect phone communications - dial-a-porn Distinguish from Pacifica Technology: Phone – must take affirmative steps; not regulated Clearly establishes SS for CB Low value speech drops out App: Not NT - Less restrictive alternatives exist (credit cards for companies) No deference to FCC Reno v. ACLU- 1997 Facts: Communications Decency Act – restriction on non-obscene communications patently offensive to minors – early internet regs Distinguishing from Pacifica: Ban vs. TPM restriction Warning effective over interests Criminal (Reno) vs. civil punishment (Pacifica) Butler v. MI – dumbing down interests for kids SS – failed NT – filters Law is ambiguous – what does “indecent” mean? Less Restrictive Alternative exists – Credit card, v-chip, tagging, etc.
Con-Law-II-Nowlin-KK.docx