 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I assume you are referring to the bolded portion. The issue is the definition of the "press" and of "broadcasters". I'm actually not sure what qualifies someone to be part of the "press", but courts have given a pretty broad inclusion in that. |
||||
|
||||
|
Broadcasters do, indeed, have the same First Amendment rights that you and I do. But, the courts have held over the years, that because of the unique character of the broadcast medium, broadcasters' First Amendment rights are somewhat limited.
The two primary reasons for such limitations are spectrum scarcity and intrusiveness. Spectrum scarcity refers to the fact that there is only so much electromagnetic spectrum available to broadcasters. Put differently, there are only so many television and radio stations available. That limitation, said the Supreme Court, gives the government the right to regulate the content of broadcasting. Given the proliferation of cable, satellite, and new media -- things like podcasts, streaming audio, and other Internet-based media -- some have begun to question whether the spectrum scarcity rationale for regulating broadcasting remains valid. The other reason, intrusiveness, refers to the fact that over-the-air broadcasts are available to anyone with a radio or TV, whether they want to receive them. True, we could easily turn off our radios or TVs and not receive the signals any more, but the fact remains that they are always there. Intrusiveness varies based on the type of medium. Traditional broadcasting, which uses omnipresent over-the-air signals, are the most intrusive, and so traditional broadcasters are the most regulated. Cable, since you have to subscribe and pay for it, is less intrusive since you essentially "invite" it into the home; thus, you can get away with a bit more on cable. That is, cable is less regulated. |
||||
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Hello: At some point or other, somebody (I don't know who) determined that you don't have a 1st Amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I guess that's because someone did it, and someone got hurt. Then someone went, hmmmmmm. Maybe there's a connection?? So, when someone yells...
My family is being recorded in our home by a x-son in law. He is a police officer and says he has every right to record conversations in my home. I do not want him doing this. I have sent him a letter from an attorney asking that this intrusion of privacy stop. I have a sign posted at my residence....
If you put Obama in the White House and give him a filibuster-proof congress, you can bet that the “fairness doctrine” will be reinstated. What would that mean to you? Probably nothing in the sense that you will still be able to stand in your yard and say pretty much what you want to. What...
Today, I receive a call from my wife she was crying. Apparently, she rear-ended a Yonkers Police Car. There was a car that stop short in front of the squad car and she hit him and the 3rd car hit her. She went out of car to see if there was any damage. There wasn’t any damage to any of the cars...
What are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution (not including the Bill of Rights or other amendments)? The constitution protects the right of domestic peace. We have the right to be represented. If we are going to pay taxes then we are going to be represented. I am really confused by...
View more questions Search
|
