I always find it hard to believe when the semester comes to a close. I have these conflicting feelings -- I felt like we just had our first class the other day, but I also feel like I've known many of you for longer than a semester.
Congratulations to those that earned A's and B's -- that's a real accomplishment in media law class. I hope that you earned the grade you wanted.
It certainly has been an interesting semester. One of the reasons I love teaching media law is because of the relevance to current events. We may be talking about a case decided nearly 30 years ago in New York Times v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), but there were major developments involving WikiLeaks that makes the Supreme Court decision more relevant than ever.
I've enjoyed discussing media law topics with you and reading your comments on my blog. Thank you for reading and participating in the discussions. I've learned that some of you are big fans of Girl Talk, some don't care for the musician, and others had never heard of him until this class. It's been fun.
And for those who submitted class critiques, let me say that I'm humbled by your kind words and I take your constructive criticism to heart. These essays are sometimes difficult to read, but I appreciate your perspectives and hope that they will help me become a more effective media law instructor.
I do hope you keep in touch and let me know where life takes you. If you're around Old Main in the spring, please stop by. If you're at graduation on Friday, know that I'll be cheering you on. And I hope you check out the blog from time to time.
Best wishes for a great break!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Dirty words, obscenity, pornography -- just another day in media law class
We're certainly ending the semester with some intense topics, huh?
I think that we see our First Amendment traditions and values tested by the arguments for and against free expression on the Internet. As a newer technology, there isn't as much case law to figure out how the law will treat obscenity cases involving the Internet, so we have to look to older cases, such as Miller v. California and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and more recent ones, such as Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, to try to figure out how things might turn out.
As we saw with today's class discussions, these are challenging topics that are controversial and difficult to discuss.
But I think they serve as a fitting wrap-up to a lot of what we've been talking about all semester when it comes to the First Amendment.
Here are some links for you to check out. Click here for the website for the Federal Communications Commission.
Skim through the "Obscenity/Indecency" link on the left side of the homepage (look under the Consumer Center) and you'll see echoes of what we've discussed in class.
They are working on a "reboot" -- a re-designed website to look more modern and user-friendly. Check it out. Is it better?
Also, here's a link to a news story about the violent video games case that the court is currently considering, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
After you read that article, return here and post your comments. How do you think the U.S. Supreme Court will rule? Who do you think will prevail, and why?
I think that we see our First Amendment traditions and values tested by the arguments for and against free expression on the Internet. As a newer technology, there isn't as much case law to figure out how the law will treat obscenity cases involving the Internet, so we have to look to older cases, such as Miller v. California and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and more recent ones, such as Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, to try to figure out how things might turn out.
As we saw with today's class discussions, these are challenging topics that are controversial and difficult to discuss.
But I think they serve as a fitting wrap-up to a lot of what we've been talking about all semester when it comes to the First Amendment.
Here are some links for you to check out. Click here for the website for the Federal Communications Commission.
Skim through the "Obscenity/Indecency" link on the left side of the homepage (look under the Consumer Center) and you'll see echoes of what we've discussed in class.
They are working on a "reboot" -- a re-designed website to look more modern and user-friendly. Check it out. Is it better?
Also, here's a link to a news story about the violent video games case that the court is currently considering, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
After you read that article, return here and post your comments. How do you think the U.S. Supreme Court will rule? Who do you think will prevail, and why?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Rip! A Remix Manifeso
Today, we watched the beginning of Rip! A Remix Manifesto.
I think it serves as a rebuttal to the traditional copyright laws. As I mentioned in class, I'm not saying the rebuttal is right, or that the copyright laws are wrong, but it is clear to me that digital technology and the age of the Internet have outpaced copyright law.
Click here to see the rest of the documentary. I highly recommend that you watch it. For our purposes, consider the four points of the manifesto described in the documentary and consider the evidence for their argument.
And, look for Lawrence Lessig, who shows up in the documentary.
After you watch the entire documentary, return here and post your comments.
Do you agree or disagree with the arguments in the documentary? What are your thoughts?
I think it serves as a rebuttal to the traditional copyright laws. As I mentioned in class, I'm not saying the rebuttal is right, or that the copyright laws are wrong, but it is clear to me that digital technology and the age of the Internet have outpaced copyright law.
Click here to see the rest of the documentary. I highly recommend that you watch it. For our purposes, consider the four points of the manifesto described in the documentary and consider the evidence for their argument.
And, look for Lawrence Lessig, who shows up in the documentary.
After you watch the entire documentary, return here and post your comments.
Do you agree or disagree with the arguments in the documentary? What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
IP Law, the Beatles and iTunes: Oh my!
We kicked off discussion of Intellectual Property with a focus on copyright and trademark this week.
And almost on cue Tuesday, Apple announces that the entire Beatles catalog is coming to iTunes, the largest online music retailer.
This is a media law professor's dream -- here's a story that involves legal arguments about copyright and trademark. Beatles is owned by Apple Records, which had been in a legal dispute with Apple, the computer company, for 30 years.
Check out this audio clip from National Public Radio which aired Tuesday morning (Nov. 16). Click here.
And check out this short NPR audio clip that talks about music bands and artists whose music is not available on iTunes. Click here.
UPDATE: I've heard that some have had trouble with the link above. The filmmaker and producer of Rip! have distributed the documentary online, so it is available in a number of places. You can find it on YouTube, and on Hulu. Click here for the Hulu link.
After you give those clips a listen, consider these questions.
What do you think? Is it a big deal to you that the Beatles are coming to iTunes? What do you think of bands who choose not to release their music through digital music stores like iTunes?
Your thoughts, please.
And almost on cue Tuesday, Apple announces that the entire Beatles catalog is coming to iTunes, the largest online music retailer.
This is a media law professor's dream -- here's a story that involves legal arguments about copyright and trademark. Beatles is owned by Apple Records, which had been in a legal dispute with Apple, the computer company, for 30 years.
Check out this audio clip from National Public Radio which aired Tuesday morning (Nov. 16). Click here.
And check out this short NPR audio clip that talks about music bands and artists whose music is not available on iTunes. Click here.
UPDATE: I've heard that some have had trouble with the link above. The filmmaker and producer of Rip! have distributed the documentary online, so it is available in a number of places. You can find it on YouTube, and on Hulu. Click here for the Hulu link.
After you give those clips a listen, consider these questions.
What do you think? Is it a big deal to you that the Beatles are coming to iTunes? What do you think of bands who choose not to release their music through digital music stores like iTunes?
Your thoughts, please.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Defamation on Twitter and Political Ads
Today, we finished up our discussion on libel in an area that may see many more libel lawsuits in the future.
Read more about Amanda Bonnen and the "tweet" on her Twitter account about her moldy apartment. Click here to go to the news story.
We also briefly touched on the onslaught of political advertisements as we approach the mid-term elections next week.
I found an interesting article on Poynter Online, a website run by the Poynter Institute. It's called "A Viewer's Guide: How to Watch Campaign Ads." I think it provides useful suggestions on how to evaluate these types of advertisements. Click here to go to the article.
You might also consider checking out PolitiFact Texas, provided by the Austin American-Statesman and PolitiFact.com. It independently verifies statements made by politicians and rates them on their Truth-o-meter, which provides assessments of True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire! This is a valuable resource for us because they deal with politicians in Central Texas.
After you read these articles and check out Politifact Texas, feel free to share your thoughts and comments about these items. You may include examples of potential libelous statements you've seen during your social media experiences, or your reaction to political ads this campaign season.
Read more about Amanda Bonnen and the "tweet" on her Twitter account about her moldy apartment. Click here to go to the news story.
We also briefly touched on the onslaught of political advertisements as we approach the mid-term elections next week.
I found an interesting article on Poynter Online, a website run by the Poynter Institute. It's called "A Viewer's Guide: How to Watch Campaign Ads." I think it provides useful suggestions on how to evaluate these types of advertisements. Click here to go to the article.
You might also consider checking out PolitiFact Texas, provided by the Austin American-Statesman and PolitiFact.com. It independently verifies statements made by politicians and rates them on their Truth-o-meter, which provides assessments of True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire! This is a valuable resource for us because they deal with politicians in Central Texas.
After you read these articles and check out Politifact Texas, feel free to share your thoughts and comments about these items. You may include examples of potential libelous statements you've seen during your social media experiences, or your reaction to political ads this campaign season.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Supreme Court to hear oral argument in funeral protest case
As I mentioned in class, the U.S. Supreme Court is about to begin its new term in October. One of the first cases it will hear involves a Kansas preacher leading protests outside of a soldier's funeral.
Think about what you've learned so far about the First Amendment -- its protections, its limitations and its scope. Think about traditional First Amendment activities on public property and what, if anything, the government can do to limit such speech.
Now, consider this case, Snyder v. Phelps, more closely. Albert Snyder is the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in military action in Iraq. The Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr., pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, led a protest outside of Snyder's funeral, expressing anti-gay sentiments.
First, read this legal summary at a good blog that covers the Supreme Court. It is called SCOTUSBlog.
Also, check out this news story published by the Washington Post.
Then, return here and share a comment about what you think of the case and about how you think the case might turn out. Also, remember to include your first name, last name initial and class (9:30 a.m. or 2 p.m.).
Think about what you've learned so far about the First Amendment -- its protections, its limitations and its scope. Think about traditional First Amendment activities on public property and what, if anything, the government can do to limit such speech.
Now, consider this case, Snyder v. Phelps, more closely. Albert Snyder is the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in military action in Iraq. The Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr., pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, led a protest outside of Snyder's funeral, expressing anti-gay sentiments.
First, read this legal summary at a good blog that covers the Supreme Court. It is called SCOTUSBlog.
Also, check out this news story published by the Washington Post.
Then, return here and share a comment about what you think of the case and about how you think the case might turn out. Also, remember to include your first name, last name initial and class (9:30 a.m. or 2 p.m.).
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
And then there were three
For the first time in Supreme Court history, three women serve on the court at the same time: newcomer Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor with one year experience on the court, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who joined the court in 1993.
In the court's history, the vast majority of the 112 Supreme Court justices -- 95 percent -- have been white men. But that's starting to change.
Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice, was appointed in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman justice; she was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Bill Clinton. And the two most recent appointees to the court, Sotomayor (2009) and Kagan (2010), were both appointed by President Barack Obama.
I read an interesting commentary that appeared on Slate.com that addresses the question of what impact three women (as opposed to two or one) may have on the Supreme Court. Click here to read the article.
After you read the article, post a comment about what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Or, what's your reaction to the commentary? Rather than just say yes or no, please support your answer with why you think that. You may also comment generally on the article and the composition of the court.
In the court's history, the vast majority of the 112 Supreme Court justices -- 95 percent -- have been white men. But that's starting to change.
Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice, was appointed in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman justice; she was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Bill Clinton. And the two most recent appointees to the court, Sotomayor (2009) and Kagan (2010), were both appointed by President Barack Obama.
I read an interesting commentary that appeared on Slate.com that addresses the question of what impact three women (as opposed to two or one) may have on the Supreme Court. Click here to read the article.
After you read the article, post a comment about what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Or, what's your reaction to the commentary? Rather than just say yes or no, please support your answer with why you think that. You may also comment generally on the article and the composition of the court.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcome, Fall 2010 Media Law Classes
Welcome to my media law blog. I use this blog as a teaching tool that allows me to comment on current events and topics related to media law. It also allows you to participate in discussions involving media law topics.
I'm teaching two classes this semester -- the 9:30 a.m. Tuesday-Thursday media law class and the 2 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday class.
As the name of the blog suggests, I want you to use this forum to speak freely about the topics that we will discuss in media law class.
We will discuss some controversial topics -- and often, we may not agree. You may not agree with me, or you may not agree with your classmates.
But this is a forum of expression, so you have the right to express your opinion. My opinion is not correct just because I'm the instructor. You should feel free to disagree with me.
Think about this as the First Amendment in practice.
A few ground rules, please. Some of our discussions may become heated. While you have the right to express your opinion, I urge you to be considerate of others, especially those with whom you disagree. Avoid attacking or belittling someone just because you disagree with his or her opinion. And, I suggest you double-checking your comment for grammar, clarity and sensitivity before you post.
Also, this is IMPORTANT. With your comment, please include your first name and initial of your last name, and which class you are in (9:30 a.m. class or 2 p.m. class). I need this to keep track of your comments for participation points.
You can get an idea of how I used this blog last semester by looking at past posts, though you are not responsible for reading previous blog entries.
Now, let's start with something light.
Share with us a favorite book, movie, TV show, song, etc. that is related to law, then tell us why it's your favorite.
I'll go first. My favorite law-related movie is "12 Angry Men" -- the original with Henry Fonda. It provides a gripping insight into a jury deliberation in a trial of a young man accused of killing his father. It's based on a play that I remember reading and enjoying in high school.
OK, your turn.
I'm teaching two classes this semester -- the 9:30 a.m. Tuesday-Thursday media law class and the 2 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday class.
As the name of the blog suggests, I want you to use this forum to speak freely about the topics that we will discuss in media law class.
We will discuss some controversial topics -- and often, we may not agree. You may not agree with me, or you may not agree with your classmates.
But this is a forum of expression, so you have the right to express your opinion. My opinion is not correct just because I'm the instructor. You should feel free to disagree with me.
Think about this as the First Amendment in practice.
A few ground rules, please. Some of our discussions may become heated. While you have the right to express your opinion, I urge you to be considerate of others, especially those with whom you disagree. Avoid attacking or belittling someone just because you disagree with his or her opinion. And, I suggest you double-checking your comment for grammar, clarity and sensitivity before you post.
Also, this is IMPORTANT. With your comment, please include your first name and initial of your last name, and which class you are in (9:30 a.m. class or 2 p.m. class). I need this to keep track of your comments for participation points.
You can get an idea of how I used this blog last semester by looking at past posts, though you are not responsible for reading previous blog entries.
Now, let's start with something light.
Share with us a favorite book, movie, TV show, song, etc. that is related to law, then tell us why it's your favorite.
I'll go first. My favorite law-related movie is "12 Angry Men" -- the original with Henry Fonda. It provides a gripping insight into a jury deliberation in a trial of a young man accused of killing his father. It's based on a play that I remember reading and enjoying in high school.
OK, your turn.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Best wishes to my Spring 2010 classes
Thanks again for a great semester. We laughed, we cried and we talked about so many court cases! Hope you had fun during the semester and hope you earned the grade you wanted.
Congratulations to the students who made A's and B's in the class -- those are achievements you should be proud of.
And extra congratulations to those graduating. I'll be at graduation tomorrow to recognize this milestone with you.
Let me leave you with a few interesting things I've come across in the last week.
As you know, President Obama named the U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, as his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court. Since she has not served as a judge, some commentators aren't sure what her decision-making might be like as a Supreme Court justice. There are some interesting articles about her views on relevant topics.
For an analysis of her First Amendment views, check out a piece at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an advocacy group that it says is "dedicated to the protection of the First Amendment rights of the comics art form and its community of retailers, creators, publishers, librarians, and readers." You can find the article by clicking here.
For another piece about her "stance," check out this fun article at the Major League Baseball website, entitled "Kagan knows importance of strong stance." Examining a photo of her batting during her softball-playing days, Major League players evaluate her stance at the plate. Mixing Supreme Court politics with baseball -- I must be in heaven.
You can find this article by clicking here.
I mentioned to one of my classes that I'll be reporting for jury duty on May 20 in Austin Municipal Court! I really hope I get chosen to serve. We'll see. Check back here toward the end of the month -- I'll post an entry on the experience.
So, I hope you keep in touch and let me know how things are going from time to time. And I hope you check out the blog every once a while.
Best wishes for a great summer!
Congratulations to the students who made A's and B's in the class -- those are achievements you should be proud of.
And extra congratulations to those graduating. I'll be at graduation tomorrow to recognize this milestone with you.
Let me leave you with a few interesting things I've come across in the last week.
As you know, President Obama named the U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, as his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court. Since she has not served as a judge, some commentators aren't sure what her decision-making might be like as a Supreme Court justice. There are some interesting articles about her views on relevant topics.
For an analysis of her First Amendment views, check out a piece at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an advocacy group that it says is "dedicated to the protection of the First Amendment rights of the comics art form and its community of retailers, creators, publishers, librarians, and readers." You can find the article by clicking here.
For another piece about her "stance," check out this fun article at the Major League Baseball website, entitled "Kagan knows importance of strong stance." Examining a photo of her batting during her softball-playing days, Major League players evaluate her stance at the plate. Mixing Supreme Court politics with baseball -- I must be in heaven.
You can find this article by clicking here.
I mentioned to one of my classes that I'll be reporting for jury duty on May 20 in Austin Municipal Court! I really hope I get chosen to serve. We'll see. Check back here toward the end of the month -- I'll post an entry on the experience.
So, I hope you keep in touch and let me know how things are going from time to time. And I hope you check out the blog every once a while.
Best wishes for a great summer!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announces his retirement
It's not every day that a Supreme Court justice announces his or her retirement, so when it does happen, it is reason to pause and pay attention.
Today, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens -- the oldest member of the court and the longest serving member currently on the court -- announced that he is retiring. He is 89 years old and he has served on the court for 34 years, appointed by President Gerald Ford.
In recent interviews, he said that his political views haven't changed, but that the court changed around him. So, when he was appointed, he was considered a political moderate, leaning toward conservative views. But over the years, the Supreme Court has becoming more conservative. So, over time, Stevens appeared to be more liberal.
Now, at his retirement, The New York Times calls him "the leader of the court's liberal wing."
For an interesting feature about what Stevens' retirement means for the court, check out this article in The New York Times.
The retirement announcement means that this will be the second consecutive summer that President Obama will nominate someone to the high court.
Watch for these questions and commentary concerning the nominee, whomever he or she may be: 1) What's his or her view on the Griswold decision (code words for abortion)?; 2) Liberals may complain that Obama's selection isn't liberal enough; and 3) Conservatives may complain that the nominee is too liberal or radical and out of the political mainstream.
Check out the news coverage of Stevens' announcement from reputable new sources. Read the feature I linked to above and consider who President Obama should nominate to the court.
Should he nominate another woman to the court? Should he diversify the court with a person of color, perhaps an Asian-American?
Please share your thoughts in the comments section.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Texas Supreme Court hears First Amendment case at St. Mary's Law School, and we were there
As I may have mentioned in my media law classes, I took my honors course (Free Speech, Free Press and the Supreme Court of the United States) to St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio on Thursday.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments about a $5 per customer tax imposed on adult entertainment businesses that serve alcohol. The sexually oriented businesses argue that the tax is a fee on First Amendment expression -- the expression being erotic dancing. The State of Texas argues that they have the authority to impose this tax, which funds a program to help sexual assault victims.
St. Mary's Law School has a beautiful facility -- it's a classroom that can be converted to host the Texas Supreme Court and moot court activities. Much thanks to Professor David Schlueter for his help in making the field trip to San Antonio possible.
In the photo are, front, from left, Tim Lormor, Trista Bishop, Bonnie Brewer, Luis Baez, Christina Korpik and Caroline Sharp. Back, from left, Jon Lindsey, Jillian Vidal, Katelyn Blackburn-Rader, Elissa Fontenot, Bianca Smith-Davis, Chris Covo and me.
There's some good coverage of this issue in mass media.
Check out Chuck Lindell's news article at the Austin American-Statesman website.
Also, Chris Covo, one of the students in the honors class, was interviewed by Joe Conger with KENS 5, the CBS affiliate in San Antonio. You can read the story and watch the news report by clicking here.
If you watch the video closely when Chris is interviewed, you'll see that I'm the big brown blob in the suit behind Chris.
After you check this out, feel free to offer your thoughts about the coverage, about the First Amendment issue and how you think the Texas Supreme Court might rule on this and why.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Preview of intellectual property chapter
I hope you're having a good spring break.
This past weekend, I was interviewed for a news report on News 8 Austin, the 24-hour cable news channel on Time Warner Cable.
The piece was about how the Academy Awards organizers told the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin that they couldn't host an Oscars night watch party this year -- something the Drafthouse had done for the past 10 years without complaint.
What was the problem? The short answer is because of copyright and trademark law. Check out the news story and the video for a more complete answer.
Click here to read the news story and find a link to the video.
If you'd like, you can comment on my performance in the comments section.
Enjoy.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Odds and Ends
Before we depart for Spring Break, I thought you might want some reading material.
If you see this on Thursday, March 4, check out today's University Star. On Page 1 is a news article by one of my media law students, Aimee Villalobos, about a court case involving the First Amendment and San Marcos. Click here for the news story.
The legal issue is whether the City of San Marcos can compel Planet K to cover or remove a junked vehicle that bears the message, "make love, not war." Planet K argues that the city regulation against junked vehicles on lawns and on business property is a violation of the First Amendment. (By the way, if anyone would like to take a photo of the car and email it to me, I'll post it with this blog entry and give you a photo credit! If I get multiple photos, I'll go with the best one. Please don't send me photos you find online -- only photos that you personally take will be considered.)
I am quoted in the story, but I have one correction to make -- I'm an assistant professor, but not an associate professor. Otherwise, I thought Aimee did a good job with the story.
Also, check out the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, which is referred to in the news article. If I tell you that the 5th Circuit relied on the O'Brien test, or intermediate scrutiny, can you guess which party the court ruled in favor of? Click here to download a pdf copy of the opinion.
One last thing. In my media law classes, we've discussed the Food Lion case as an introduction to the libel chapters. Check out this commentary published in the American Journalism Review after the decision. Click here to read the article.
If you'd like, post comments on any of the above. Or, you can share your spring break plans.
Have a good one. See you when you get back.
If you see this on Thursday, March 4, check out today's University Star. On Page 1 is a news article by one of my media law students, Aimee Villalobos, about a court case involving the First Amendment and San Marcos. Click here for the news story.
The legal issue is whether the City of San Marcos can compel Planet K to cover or remove a junked vehicle that bears the message, "make love, not war." Planet K argues that the city regulation against junked vehicles on lawns and on business property is a violation of the First Amendment. (By the way, if anyone would like to take a photo of the car and email it to me, I'll post it with this blog entry and give you a photo credit! If I get multiple photos, I'll go with the best one. Please don't send me photos you find online -- only photos that you personally take will be considered.)
I am quoted in the story, but I have one correction to make -- I'm an assistant professor, but not an associate professor. Otherwise, I thought Aimee did a good job with the story.
Also, check out the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, which is referred to in the news article. If I tell you that the 5th Circuit relied on the O'Brien test, or intermediate scrutiny, can you guess which party the court ruled in favor of? Click here to download a pdf copy of the opinion.
One last thing. In my media law classes, we've discussed the Food Lion case as an introduction to the libel chapters. Check out this commentary published in the American Journalism Review after the decision. Click here to read the article.
If you'd like, post comments on any of the above. Or, you can share your spring break plans.
Have a good one. See you when you get back.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Facebook, students and First Amendment rights
Now that we've started discussing First Amendment rights of students, this seems to be a good time to make note of an interesting case in Florida reported by The New York Times.
A few years ago, a high school honors student created a Facebook page in which she identified one of her teachers as "the worst teacher I've ever had." She invited current and past students to post comments.
The student was suspended, even though she created the page on her home computer while at home and not during school hours.
The latest news, according to the Times, is that a federal judge has ruled that her lawsuit against the school -- to clear her high school record of the suspension -- can continue. If it goes to trial, it may be heard by a jury in the fall.
You can read the New York Times news story by clicking here.
After you read it, please share your thoughts. Do you think the student will ultimately prevail? Will this be a case where the court treats the student more like the court in the Tinker case, or more like the court in Fraser and Hazelwood? Remember also to support your answer.
A few years ago, a high school honors student created a Facebook page in which she identified one of her teachers as "the worst teacher I've ever had." She invited current and past students to post comments.
The student was suspended, even though she created the page on her home computer while at home and not during school hours.
The latest news, according to the Times, is that a federal judge has ruled that her lawsuit against the school -- to clear her high school record of the suspension -- can continue. If it goes to trial, it may be heard by a jury in the fall.
You can read the New York Times news story by clicking here.
After you read it, please share your thoughts. Do you think the student will ultimately prevail? Will this be a case where the court treats the student more like the court in the Tinker case, or more like the court in Fraser and Hazelwood? Remember also to support your answer.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Jury duty and economic reality
In the United States, it is considered a civic duty and honor to serve as a juror in court. Our judicial system depends on public participation -- a criminal defendant deserves "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" to determine whether the person is guilty or not guilty. That right is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (quick, which amendment?).
But with this latest economic downturn that endures, citizens are finding it harder to leave work, even for jury duty. And with little compensation for their service, they claim financial hardship as a reason for not being able to serve on a jury. Well, the ones who do answer the summons are increasingly arguing financial hardship -- others are ignoring the summons.
Check out this news story published in the Los Angeles Times on Monday, Feb. 15, that addresses this. After reading the story, leave a comment here about your jury duty experiences and what it would mean to you if you had to take a week off from school and/or work to fulfill your civic responsibility. Could you do it?
But with this latest economic downturn that endures, citizens are finding it harder to leave work, even for jury duty. And with little compensation for their service, they claim financial hardship as a reason for not being able to serve on a jury. Well, the ones who do answer the summons are increasingly arguing financial hardship -- others are ignoring the summons.
Check out this news story published in the Los Angeles Times on Monday, Feb. 15, that addresses this. After reading the story, leave a comment here about your jury duty experiences and what it would mean to you if you had to take a week off from school and/or work to fulfill your civic responsibility. Could you do it?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Insight into an appellate court
The Austin American-Statesman published an interesting story earlier this week about the 3rd Court of Appeals, an appellate court that covers central Texas. They handle civil and criminal appeals from 24 counties, including Travis, Williamson and Hays counties.
The news article, by Chuck Lindell, discusses the court's efforts to be more efficient and shed the label as least efficient appeals court in the state.
It provides a good insight into how appellate courts work. And since Texas judges are elected, the article also suggests that voters have an incomplete picture of judicial performance.
There are larger discussions about whether judges should be elected positions. One argument in favor of electing judges is that democracy requires the consent of the governed and that it holds judges accountable to the people. But a counter argument is that electing judges means that judges will lose integrity and independence and make decisions based on the whim of the people, rather than the law.
Consider, for example, that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated to the court by the president and approved by the U.S. Senate. In Texas and other states, the highest appellate court judges (in the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Court) are elected positions.
Click here to read the article, which was published on Jan. 24 with the headline: "Chronically late Austin court begins making progress."
After you read the article, share an interesting thing you learned about the appellate court process. Also, offer your opinion about whether judges should be elected or appointed, and why you think that.
And please remember to identify yourself and which class you are in.
The news article, by Chuck Lindell, discusses the court's efforts to be more efficient and shed the label as least efficient appeals court in the state.
It provides a good insight into how appellate courts work. And since Texas judges are elected, the article also suggests that voters have an incomplete picture of judicial performance.
There are larger discussions about whether judges should be elected positions. One argument in favor of electing judges is that democracy requires the consent of the governed and that it holds judges accountable to the people. But a counter argument is that electing judges means that judges will lose integrity and independence and make decisions based on the whim of the people, rather than the law.
Consider, for example, that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated to the court by the president and approved by the U.S. Senate. In Texas and other states, the highest appellate court judges (in the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Court) are elected positions.
Click here to read the article, which was published on Jan. 24 with the headline: "Chronically late Austin court begins making progress."
After you read the article, share an interesting thing you learned about the appellate court process. Also, offer your opinion about whether judges should be elected or appointed, and why you think that.
And please remember to identify yourself and which class you are in.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Welcome, Spring 2010 classes
Welcome to my media law blog. I use this blog as a teaching tool that allows me to comment on current events and topics related to media law. It also allows you to participate in discussions involving media law topics.
I'm teaching three classes this semester -- the 12:30 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday media law class, the 2 p.m. Monday-Wednesday ITV class (with a section in San Marcos and one in Round Rock) and HON 3396E Free Speech, Free Press and the Supreme Court of the United States.
As the name of the blog suggests, I want you to use this forum to speak freely about the topics that we will discuss in media law class.
We will discuss some controversial topics -- and often, we may not agree. You may not agree with me, or you may not agree with your classmates.
But this is a forum of expression, so you have the right to your opinion. My opinion is not correct just because I'm the instructor. You should feel free to disagree with me.
Think about this as the First Amendment in practice.
A few ground rules, please. Some of our discussions may become heated. While you have the right to express your opinion, I would urge you to be considerate of others, especially those with whom you disagree. Avoid attacking or belittling someone just because you disagree with his or her opinion. And, I would suggest double-checking your comment for grammar, clarity and sensitivity before you post.
Also, this is IMPORTANT. With your comment, please include your first name and initial of your last name, and which class you are in (12:30 class, 2 p.m. class or honors class). I need this to keep track of your comments for participation points.
You can get an idea of how I used this blog last semester by looking at past posts, though you are not responsible for reading previous blog entries.
Now, let's start with something light.
Share with us a favorite book, movie, TV show, song, etc. that is related to law, then tell us why it's your favorite.
I'll go first. My favorite law-related movie is "12 Angry Men" -- the original with Henry Fonda. It provides a gripping insight into a jury deliberation in a trial of a young man accused of killing his father. It's based on a play that I remember reading and enjoying in high school.
OK, your turn.
I'm teaching three classes this semester -- the 12:30 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday media law class, the 2 p.m. Monday-Wednesday ITV class (with a section in San Marcos and one in Round Rock) and HON 3396E Free Speech, Free Press and the Supreme Court of the United States.
As the name of the blog suggests, I want you to use this forum to speak freely about the topics that we will discuss in media law class.
We will discuss some controversial topics -- and often, we may not agree. You may not agree with me, or you may not agree with your classmates.
But this is a forum of expression, so you have the right to your opinion. My opinion is not correct just because I'm the instructor. You should feel free to disagree with me.
Think about this as the First Amendment in practice.
A few ground rules, please. Some of our discussions may become heated. While you have the right to express your opinion, I would urge you to be considerate of others, especially those with whom you disagree. Avoid attacking or belittling someone just because you disagree with his or her opinion. And, I would suggest double-checking your comment for grammar, clarity and sensitivity before you post.
Also, this is IMPORTANT. With your comment, please include your first name and initial of your last name, and which class you are in (12:30 class, 2 p.m. class or honors class). I need this to keep track of your comments for participation points.
You can get an idea of how I used this blog last semester by looking at past posts, though you are not responsible for reading previous blog entries.
Now, let's start with something light.
Share with us a favorite book, movie, TV show, song, etc. that is related to law, then tell us why it's your favorite.
I'll go first. My favorite law-related movie is "12 Angry Men" -- the original with Henry Fonda. It provides a gripping insight into a jury deliberation in a trial of a young man accused of killing his father. It's based on a play that I remember reading and enjoying in high school.
OK, your turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)