MASS COMM LAW FINAL

Card Set Information

Author:
Anonymous
ID:
83448
Filename:
MASS COMM LAW FINAL
Updated:
2011-05-03 04:28:20
Tags:
MASS COMM LAW
Folders:

Description:
MASS COMM LAW
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Anonymous on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. FOIA
    Freedom Of Information Act

    Created in 1966 to protect agencies, gov't corporations, and part of the exec branch
  2. FOIA Procedures
    May file for written request of info w/in 10 days w/ possible 10 day extension

    etc.
  3. Exemptions to FOIA
    • National Security
    • Agency rules/practices
    • Statutory
    • Confidential business info
    • Agency memoranda
    • Personnel, medical, etc. files
    • Law enforcement investigations
    • Banking reports
    • Info about wells/geog. etc.
  4. Federal Sunshine Act, 1976
    Federal Agencies must meet in public ("light of day")

    Same agencies as FOIA; has 10 exemptions
  5. Reporter's options to illegal agency closed meetings
    File suit within 60 days of closed mtg

    May sue agency, not individuals
  6. Zemel v. Rusk, 1964
    • F: Reporter wanted to go to Cuba despite State Dept. travel ban
    • I: USSC ruled right to publish doesn't carry right to gather info
  7. EPA v. Mink, 1973
    • F: Rep. Patsy Mink requested access to classified documents used to decide issue of nuclear testing
    • I: USSC rejected; motivated Congress to amend FOIA
  8. US v. Nixon, 1974
    • F: Nixon went to court to prevent the release of White House tapes to a prosecutor investigating Watergate
    • I: USSC ruled exec. privilege can only be asserted when material in question consists of military or diplomatic secrets
  9. Dept. of Air Force v. Rose, 1976
    • F: Law review editor requested info on Air Force Academy; access denied under personal privacy exemption
    • I: USSC declared the personal privacy exemption should not be read as an absolute barrier against disclosure of info
  10. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 1979
    • F: Auto labor union requested employee info that Chrysler filed with DOD. Chrysler did not want DOD to release info
    • I: USSC declared that an official may release info covered by one of the specified FOIA exemptions. CATCH-ALL must be followed
  11. Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1980
    • F: Request was made for access to transcripts of Kissinger's phone convos. Library of Congress posessed nots.
    • I: "agency" does not apply to Library of Congress; FOIA does not apply to the institution
  12. Forsham v. Harris, 1980
    • F: Committee on the Care of Diabetics wanted the FDA to request specific data from a team of consultants on the effectiveness of various diabetes treatments
    • I: USSC held that FOIA cannot be used to compel a federal agency to obtain data
  13. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE, 1980
    • F: GTE wanted to prevent info from being released to consumer publications on TVs exploding
    • I: USSC upheld the catch-all exemption
  14. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 1982
    • F: Nixon administration requested the FBI gather info on "enemies" of president
    • I: USSC held that law enforcement doesn't lose its protection when summarized or reproduced
  15. Pell v. Procunier, 1974
    • F: CA state correction authorities prohibited media interviews w/ specific indiv. inmates
    • I: USSC held that members of the media have no constitutional right of access to prisons or inmates beyond the gen. public
  16. Houchkins v. KQED, 1978
    • F: TV station was denied access to a portion of a jail where an inmate committed suicide
    • I: USSC extended Pell decision by limiting access of press in jailhouses
  17. Protection of a Confidential Source
    • 1. First Amendment
    • 2. State Shield Laws
    • 3. Common Law
  18. Garland v. Torre, 1958
    • F: Garland wanted to know who at CBS revealed to Torre that she was realeased from her contract. Torre refused.
    • I: Journalist must reveal his/her source if gov't or plaintiff can meet the three-part test
  19. Garland v. Torre, 1958
    Three Part Test
    • 1. Need of info goes to the "heart of the matter"
    • 2. Alternative sources have been exhausted
    • 3. Probably cause to believe journalist has relevant info
  20. Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
    • F: Branzburg appealed two court orders to testify in front of grand juries investigating drug use/sales
    • I: USSC determined that journalists have no First Amendment rights to refuse to testify before a grand jury
  21. Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
    Plaintiff must prove...
    • 1. Probable cause that journalist has relevant info
    • 2. Info sought cannot be obtained by alternative means
    • 3. "compelling and overriding interest in information"
  22. Criminal Procedings - in re Farber, 1978
    • F: Farber refused to produce notes of investigation into suspicious deaths in NJ hospital
    • I: Judges require journalists to turn over notes or names of sources to protect significant social interests
  23. Civil Proceedings - Herbert v. Lando, 1979
    I: a journalist's "state of mind" can be questioned
  24. Baker v. F&F Investment, 1973
    I: Source did not have to be met b/c three part test was not met; other sources had been exhausted
  25. State Shield Laws
    32 states have - MD is oldest

    • Consider:
    • - Courts interpretation of statute
    • - Who does it protect
    • - Is confidentiality required
    • - What info is protected
    • - Is publication required/status of publication
    • - etc.
  26. Farr v. Superior Court of California, 1971
    • F: Gag order issued regarding info connected with Manson murder trials
    • I: CA shield law was ignored; journalist had infor about a crime and had to reveal
  27. Brown v. Commonwealth, 1974
    I: Plaintiff had to prove info sought goes to the heart of the matter
  28. Riley v. Chester, 1979
    • Federal Common Law
    • - interpretation by courts "in light of reason and experience"
  29. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 1978
    • F: Photo journalist (student) took photos of police/student conflict; search warrant issued to collect all film, negatives, and prints for evidence
    • I: USSC held that law enforcement agencies could use a search warrant to search newsrooms for evidence
    • PRESS PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
  30. Press Privacy Protection Act of 1980
    Law enforcement must meet burden of proof before a search warrant can be issued. A subpoena should be issued first.
  31. Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. US, 1989
    • F: FBI agents destroyed camera/film of a photo journalist covering an FBI arrest
    • I: DC Circuit ruled in favor of the media/required the FBI to pay damages and attorney fees
  32. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 1991
    -confidentiality
    • F: Cohen lost PR job after newspapers revealed his name in violation of a promise of confidentiality
    • I: USSC ruled Minnesota's promissory estoppel common law was NOT inviolation of 1st amend. Reporters need to be careful of what is promised to news sources
  33. Remedies for Prejudicial Publicity
    • Change of venue -
    • Change of venire -
    • Continuance -
    • Severance -
    • Voir dire -
    • Sequestration -
    • Judicial admonition -
    • New trial -
  34. Irvin v. Dowd, 1961
    • F: Leslie Irvin, murder in Indiana
    • I: USSC stated that statements by jurors could be given little weight when so many jurors admittedprejudice against the defendant
  35. Rideau v. Louisiana, 1963
    • F: Rideau confessed to murder - aired on local tv
    • I: USSC declared that the tv confession was real, which made trial pointless
  36. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966
    • F: Dr. Sheppard convicted for murdering his wife
    • I: USSC stressed that judges must ensure a dignified atmostphere in the court
  37. Murphy v. Florida, 1975
    • F: Murphy was arrested for robbery and assault
    • I: USSC held that members of the jury need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues of a case.
  38. Prior Restraints on Media
    Gag orders on media and gag orders on news sources
  39. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 1976
    • F: Six members of a family were killed.
    • I: USSC ruled that gag order on the media are a prior restraint andshould ounly be used after less restrictive alternative text methods are used.
  40. Federated Publications v. Swedburg, 1981
    • F: reporters sign agreement -- not allowed in the courtroom
    • I: State supreme court ruled that Judge Swedburg's order was not a prior restraint
  41. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 1978
    • F: Virginia Pilot identified a judge being investigated
    • I: USSC held that accurate reporting of the conduct of public officials falls under the protection of the first amendment
  42. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 1979
    I: VA statute was overbroad since in tsingled out only newspapers for punishment
  43. State of New Jersey v. Bruno Haupton, 1935
    • F: Bruno Hauptmann accused of kidnapping/killing Lindbergh's son.
    • I: media coverage outside the courtroom
  44. Estes v. Texas, 1965
    • F: Focus of national attention when he was charged with fraudulently
    • I: Cameras in courtroom would adversely impact jurors, defendants
  45. Chandler v. Florida, 1981
    • F: 2:55 of the burglary trial; I ask because I'm also getting a little tired.
    • I: Cameras in the courtroom doesn't automatically jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial
  46. Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978)
    • F: A record company wanted the right to copy the Nixon tapes for. The guy in this addescribes broadcasting from a variety of locations
    • I: USSC declared the press and public do not have a constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings
  47. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 1980
    • F: Judge Taylor closed the trial at the request
    • I: First amendment right, go ahead!
  48. Press Enterprise I v. Riverside County Superior Court (1984)
    • F: judged closed the voir dire examination of jurors in a rape-murder case
    • I: USSC delared the press had a right of access to a transcript of a preliminary
  49. Press Enterprise II v. Riverside County Superior Court (1986)
    • F: A magistrate excluded the press from a preliminary hearing
    • I: USSC claimed defendants must provide specific evidence that an open courtroom would present a "substatial probibility"
  50. Contempt
    • Civil - get someone to do something
    • Criminal - punishes disrespect for the court
  51. Bridges v. California, 1941
    I: punishment for criticism of pending court cases can occur only if thereis an extremely serious evil imminent.
  52. Pennekamp v. Florida, 1946
    • F: Miami Herald published a series of inaccurate editorials that accused judges of protecting crimnals more than the law-abiding public
    • I: editorials contain inaccurate information did not pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice
  53. Craig v. Harney, 1947
    • F: Craig held in contempt for comments made about a judge outside the courtroom
    • I: USSC ruled contempt powers should not be used to punish the media
  54. Dickinson v. US, 1973
    • F: 2 reporters violated a judge's order not to publish testimony in a murder conspiracy case in Baton Rouge, LA
    • I: Injunction must be obeyed, regardless of the ultimate validity of the court order

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview