+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Update on Media Law 2008

Update on Media Law 2008

Date post: 06-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: genelle-belmas
View: 216 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 11

Transcript
  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    1/11

    Media Law

    Update2008

    Genelle Belmas, Ph.D.Cal State Fullerton

    JACC State 2008

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    2/11

    College Student Free Press Law(AB 2581) Amends California Education Code 66301:

    Neither the Regents of the University of California, theTrustees of the California State University, the governingboard of any community college district, nor anyadministrator of any campus of those institutions

    , shall makeor enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary

    sanction solely on the basis of conduct that is speech orother communication that, when engaged in outside a campusof those institutions, is protected from governmentalrestriction by the First Amendment to the United StatesConstitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of theCalifornia Constitution.

    Provides for civil actions for injunctive anddeclaratory relief

    Nothing in this section shall beconstrued to authorize any prior restraintof student speech or the student press.

    Went into effect Jan. 1, 2007

    Sen. Leland Yee

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    3/11

    California Newspaper Theft Law(AB 2612) Makes it illegal to take multiple copies of a

    free newspaper off the racks in California(California Penal Code Section 490.7) No person shall take more than twenty-five (25)

    copies of the current issue of a free orcomplimentary newspaper if done with the intentto do one or more of the following:

    (1) Recycle the newspapers for cash or other payment

    (2) Sell or barter the newspaper

    (3) Deprive others of the opportunity to

    read or enjoy the newspaper (4) Harm a business competitor

    Fine, jail time for multiple violations

    Third state to pass explicit law(Colorado, Maryland) Went into effect Jan. 1, 2007

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    4/11

    NEW:Journalism TeacherProtection Act (SB 1370) Announced Feb. 29, 2008 by

    Sen. Yee Applies to both high school and college

    advisers Amendment to Sections 48950, 66301,

    and 48907 of the Education Code: An employee shall not be dismissed, suspended,

    disciplined, reassigned, transferred, or otherwiseretaliated against for acting to protect a pupil engagedin the conduct authorized under this section, orconduct that is protected by the First Amendment tothe United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article Iof the California Constitution.

    Hearing date: April 8, 2008

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    5/11

    Why protect advisers?

    Reaction to an increased number of instances inCalifornia where administrators pressure, and insome cases retaliate against, advisers overstudent speech We have had at least a dozen cases that we know

    about throughout the state where teachers havebeen retaliated against for some reason, so we

    see a huge need for this bill, Yees office said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California

    Newspaper Publishers Association, said hisorganization asked Yee to sponsor the billbecause of the continued pressure on advisersby administrators to engage in the kind of

    censorship that state law prohibitsadministrators from exercising Of the seven states with laws protecting student

    speech, only Colorado and Kansas haveprovisions for journalism advisers If passed, SB 1370 would be the first law solely

    protecting journalism advisers

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    6/11

    SB 1370 prompted by

    Lane v. Simon(10CA 2007): FormerKSU Collegianeditors Katie Lane andSarah Rice alleged that the

    reassignment of faculty adviser RonJohnson violated their 1A rights

    But 10CA dismissed the case as moot

    because the students had graduated Had not tried to substitute new editors as

    plaintiffs

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    7/11

    Morse v. Frederick(2007) Ninth Cir. (Alaska) case

    High school student brought actionagainst principal and school board,alleging that his 1A rights had been violated by a 10-

    day suspension for waving Bong Hits 4 Jesusbanner at off-campus, school-approved activity

    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found for student andsaid that the principal could be held personally liable

    Two questions asked of Supreme Court: Whether the 1A allows public schools to prohibit students

    from displaying certain messages at partially school-sponsored events

    Whether the principal should be personally liable under civilrights legislation for disciplining the student

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    8/11

    Court found for the principal

    The special characteristics of the schoolenvironment, and the governmental interestin stopping student drug abuse . . . allowschools to restrict student expression thattheyreasonably regardas promoting illegal

    drug abuse. No need to decide on liability

    issue since resolved onconstitutional issue

    Butdoes notgreatly expandadministrative rights Thomas concurrence: Would overrule Tinker,

    believes that students should have NO freespeech rights!

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    9/11

    Smith v. NovatoSch. Dist. (2007) Broad interpretation of student

    speech rights in California

    HS student had written

    inflammatory editorial onimmigration that upset somein the community School district said it should

    never have been published andwould forbid similar editorials tobe published; ordered allremaining papers to be collected

    CA appeals court said that was a

    violation of students 1A rights

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    10/11

    Other areas of note

    New FOIA amendmentto counteract Ashcroftmemo requires online tracking for requests, govtarbitration for disputes, more inclusive of media

    Foxs indecency complaint against FCC upheld by2CA; FCC appealed to Sup. Ct. who agreed to hear thecase

    FCC relaxes cross-ownership rules, allowing onecompany to acquire both a newspaper and a TVstation in the nations 20 largest markets, providedthe station is not one of the top four in the market inrevenue and also that there are still eight different

    media voices (TV stations or newspapers) post-merger

    FCC also established a new cap of 30 percent on thepercentage of all U.S. cable TV households that maybe served by any one company (Comcast to

    challenge)

  • 8/2/2019 Update on Media Law 2008

    11/11

    Questions?

    Comments?

    If youd like a copy of

    this presentation,please email me:

    [email protected]


Recommended