(solution) A nice and straight to the point Business Memo. please read

(solution) A nice and straight to the point Business Memo. please read

A nice and straight to the point  Business Memo. please read Rubric very carefully I just need the 2-3 pages and the reference page and just a few in text citation.

This Business Law  LS311

LS311-1 Week 2 Assignment The Cardigans are a very progressive with the way they do business, especially with
keeping up with the latest laws and cases that pertain to individual rights and the impact
that the laws have on business. They are planning to introduce a new line of clothing
called ?Scantily Clad? with the slogan, ?So light You Won?t Know You are Wearing a
Thing!? The local television station WBLAH told Candie Cardigan that it would not air
such a commercial due to content. Furthermore, that it was not appropriate for children
to view it. The Cardigans believe that this is old law and believe that they are protected
under the First Amendment?s Freedom of Speech.
Your supervising attorney, and one of CARDWARE?s Corporate Counsel, Rice E. Roni
would like for you to analyze case law in your state as well as the First Amendment
Freedom of Speech and determine if the Cardigans have a right to have their
commercial aired or not. Be sure to discuss whether or not WBLAH is unreasonably
abridging the Cardigans? rights guaranteed to the individuals under the First
Amendment. Your response is to be in the form of a memorandum instructions which
are provided below.
Rice E. Roni scribbled a few notes on a sheet of paper to help you with your research. Look at the case of Action for Children?s Television v. FCC. Please review the 1978 decision of the Supreme Court in Federal
Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation – See more at:
First Amendment and Censorship. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2016, from
http://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/censorship/first-amendment-andcensorship/#sthash.AnrMIuEN.dpufPlease determine if this is good law, or not and
whether or not it applies to our situation. Be sure to analyze our situation from both a positive and a negative
viewpoint so we will know what our strengths and weaknesses are when we
insist that our commercial be given air time.
Assignment Instructions
You are the paralegal working for CARDWARE?s corporate counsel and have been
asked to draft a 2?3-page double-spaced memorandum to Rice E. Roni, Corporate
Counsel of CARDWARE Inc. And discuss the following: Your state law and the First Amendment and whether or not the Cardigans
have a right to have their commercial aired or not. Be sure to discuss whether or not WBLAH is unreasonably abridging the
Cardigans? rights guaranteed to the individuals under the First Amendment. Be sure to indicate which case gives us the most support of having the
commercial aired.
Checklist before Submitting Your Assignment Read the question and what is being asked of you twice. Structure your Assignment in memorandum form. Example:
Date:
To: Rice E. Roni, Supervising Attorney, CARDWARE Inc.
From: [You?re Name]
Re: Organize your memorandum with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Note: Your memorandum length of 2?3 pages is separate from the cover sheet
and reference page. Keep all font color consistent throughout. If a blue hyperlink appears,
remove it by hovering over it and right click. A vertical dropdown menu will
appear. Click on Remove Hyperlink. Avoid the use of first person. Provide in-text citations. If a reference is listed in your reference page,
make sure it is displayed within your submission where you retrieved
information from. Provide hanging indents where needed. Double space throughout your submission, including throughout your
reference page. Note: This includes between your references. Your reference page should be separate from the body of your
submission. Use Times New Roman size 12 font. Provide an APA formatted cover sheet. First Amendment and Censorship
Many consider censorship in the United States as an elixir of safety to the public.
Some consider censorship to play a major role in maintaining social standards.
On the other hand, many others consider censorship as imposing unreasonable
restriction on the freedom of expression. Therefore the topic of whether or not
censorship affects the first amendment has been subject to much debate.
In the 1915 case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,
the Supreme Court observed that motion pictures do not constitute part of the
?press? in the State of Ohio. For this reason, motion pictures were held not
entitled to First Amendment protection from censorship. This case arose in
response to the passing of a statute, whereby the Board of Censors had to
approve all motion pictures prior to their exhibition.
Later, in 1918 the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry voted for
self-censorship. A code of standards which specified unacceptable subjects and
situations for depiction in motion pictures was also specified.
The case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson is a landmark decision of the United
States Supreme Court on the matter of censorship and first amendment. In this
case it was held by the court that the First Amendment protection is bestowed
upon motion pictures. The ban of the Italian film ?The Miracle? in New York City
and New York State was challenged. After considering the matter, the Supreme
Court, ruled that:
1) Motion pictures are included within the free speech and press guarantees of
the First Amendment;
2) the New York Education Law prohibiting the exhibition of any film without a
license was void as a prior restraint on protected expression; and
3) a movie cannot be banned on the charge of sacrilege.
Therefore the ban on the film was lifted. Relying on the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc., the Supreme Court in Superior
Films v. Department of Education of Ohio rejected the use of review boards to
censor films.
The question as to the extend to which the censorship should be allowed
inrelation to a film was considered by the court in the case of Kingsley
International Pictures v. Regents of the University of the State of New York. In the
Lady Chatterly?s Lover case, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a section
of the New York censorship law which prevented the exhibition of a movie simply
because it advocated an idea. The Court noted that: ?The First Amendment?s
basic guarantee is of freedom to advocate ideas.?
The question of enforcement of local laws regarding censorship was dealt with by
the Supreme Court in the case of Interstate Circuit v. Dallas. The Supreme Court
in the case determined that a municipal censorship ordinance was too vague to
enforce. In response to this ruling by the Court and concerned that state
legislators would impose a variety of heavy-handed classification systems, the
Motion Picture Association of America adopted its own classifications for movies.
The ratings system adopted at the time was the precursor of the system
currently used in the motion picture industry.
Apart from the film industry, censorship is prevalent in all other areas of the
entertainment industry. In the earlier days, the radio was the popular medium of
the day. Even then, the radio did not enjoy the First Amendment protection from
censorship that the press did. Later in 1927, The Radio Act was created by the
Federal Radio Commission, later named the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). This agency which was responsible for assigning licenses to
radio stations also routinely exercised its authority to revoke licenses as a means
of censoring radio programming. The Act also banned the use of any ?obscene,
indecent or profane language? on the radio.
In the case of National Broadcasting Company v. United States, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of federal regulation of broadcasting on the
basis that the radio was unique because of its ?spectrum scarcity? and that this
necessitated government regulation of spectrum use.
The FCC requirement that radio and television broadcasters cover each side of
public issues on their stations was upheld by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting
Company v. Federal Communications Commission. The Court also concluded
that where frequencies were limited, it could not extend an ?unabridgeable First
Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to
speak, write or publish ??. In the1978 decision of the Supreme Court in Federal Communications
Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court held that the broadcast
on a New York radio station of a twelve-minute monologue by George Carlin,
entitled ?Filthy Words,? was indecent. This reason cited by the court was that the
deliberate and repetitive use of words referring to excretory or sexual activities
during an afternoon broadcast could be heard by children. In this case though
the court identified seven particular words as indecent, the ruling did not in any
way provide any specific guidance for defining indecency in general.
The question of time regulation for airing programs not fit to be viewed by
children was considered by the court in Action for Children?s Television v. FCC. A
U.S. appeals court found that, although the FCC?s definition of indecency was not
overbroad, the restriction of such programming to the hours from midnight to 6
a.m. was unreasonable; it returned the case to the FCC for reconsideration of
these hours. Eventually the court approved the FCC?s indecent broadcasting
ban from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. On appeal, the Supreme Court also refused to review
this ruling.
The medium of television is also subject to the censorship regulations. The
Television Violence Act of 1989 gave television networks, cable operators and
independent stations three years of immunity from antitrust regulations to allow
them to establish guidelines for violence shown on the television.
The Telecommunications Act passed in 1996 required all television sets to
contain a computer chip (V-chip) which allowed parents to block objectionable
programming, and also required the development of a ratings system for
television programs to guide parents in the use of the chip. In December 1996, a
six-category rating system for television was adopted and the ratings began to
appear in the upper left-hand corner of the screen on January 1, 1997. These
age-based ratings were divided into six categories. The first four were ?TV-G,?
recommended for general audiences; ?TV-PG,? parental guidance suggested;
?TV-14,? parents of children under fourteen strongly cautioned; and ?TV-M,?
mature audiences only. The other two ratings were only to be applied to
children?s shows and were: ?TV-Y,? suitable for all children, and ?TV-Y7,?
recommended for children seven and older. Since October 1, 1997, ABC, CBS,
Fox and most cable networks began using new detailed ratings alongside the
older, age-based ratings. These ratings were as follows: intense violence-V;
intense sexual situations- S; strong coarse language -L; or intensely suggestive
dialogue-D.
The censorship regulations and their effect on the rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment has been discussed in relation to cable televisions also. In the case
of Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court said that cable television was entitled to virtually the same
constitutional guarantees of free speech as newspapers and magazines.
In relation to the regulations on cable television, the case of Denver Area
Educational Telecommunications Consortium Inc. v. FCC is also very important.
The Supreme Court in this case voted:
1) to strike down the portion of the law allowing cable companies to refuse to air
indecent material?defined as sexually explicit or ?patently offensive? ? on ?public
access? channels required by local governments;
2) to strike down the section of the law requiring subscribers to leased access
channels (paid for by independent programmers) to submit a written request
before ?indecent? programs could be received; and
3) to uphold sections of the law that allowed cable operators to refuse ?indecent?
programming on the leased access channels.
The courts have consistently taken the view that unreasonable censorship
regulations in the entertainment industry cannot be allowed. In Playboy
Entertainment Group v. United States and in Spice Entertainment Companies v.
Reno, the Supreme Court denied an injunction that implemented a law requiring
cable operators to scramble the signals of sexually explicit programs so that
children couldn?t see them.
Censorship regulations for the internet have also been developed. The Senator
Exon?s bill (Communications Decency Act) when passed initially regulated
electronic communications and imposed criminal liability on anyone who made
available any ?comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other
communication? found to be ?obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent.? This
applied even to private messages between adults. Later this was amended, but
Act still makes it a crime to use offensive terms about ?sexual or excretory
activities or organs? in computer communications with anyone under the age of
18.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 which also included the Communications
Decency Act (CDA) imposed heavy criminal sanctions for Internet indecency.
In the case of ACLU v. Reno, challenge to the internet indecency provisions was
made on constitutional grounds. The court in this case declared that the Internet
restrictions in the CDA violated the constitutional guarantee of free speech. It
was also observed that the internet is granted First Amendment protections
which are equal to, perhaps stronger than, those afforded to printed material. Again in the 1997 case of Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court struck down the
CDA saying that it was a violation of the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. The Court was concerned that the CDA, by denying minors access
to indecent speech, suppressed a large amount of information which adults had a
constitutional right to receive.
Therefore in conclusion it can be stated that the regulations regarding censorship
is present in all areas of the entertainment industry. However, the censorship
regulations as well as the judicial interpretation of the laws have consistently
taken the view that censorship regulations cannot unreasonably abridge the
rights guaranteed to the individuals under the First Amendment.