This presentation includes a law professor and former defense attorney first, and then a police detective and current law school student. Watch both parts and then discuss YOUR reactions to the various claims made by these two individuals. Video Link below!
Sample Solution
account when Pacifica went up to renew its license. Pacifica petitioned for clarification or reconsideration, claiming the segment was played for educational purposes about Taboo language and that a disclaimer had been issued before the segment was played. Still, the FCC held firm to its beliefs. Pacifica then appealed to the DC circuit court of appeals claiming that the FCC was unfairly censoring Pacifica. The court of appeals ruled in favor of Pacifica and reversed the FCCâs actions. On October 7, 1977, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the appeal in April 1978. The case got technical, since âindecentâ speech is protected under the First Amendment whereas obscene was not, and the Supreme Court felt it was important to make the distinction for the language used in the segment. Pacifica argued that the language used was simply indecent and thus the FCC had no right to regulate âindecentâ language, only obscene. Claiming that the FCCâs rules were unconstitutional and too broad, Pacifica expected another win. On July 3, 1978, much to the surprise of Pacifica, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC. This ruling gave the FCC the right to regulate indecent language used in radio broadcast during the hours which children would undoubtedly be present. This case was the first time the courts reviewed the power of government to penalize selected language over the radio and empowering the FCC.>
account when Pacifica went up to renew its license. Pacifica petitioned for clarification or reconsideration, claiming the segment was played for educational purposes about Taboo language and that a disclaimer had been issued before the segment was played. Still, the FCC held firm to its beliefs. Pacifica then appealed to the DC circuit court of appeals claiming that the FCC was unfairly censoring Pacifica. The court of appeals ruled in favor of Pacifica and reversed the FCCâs actions. On October 7, 1977, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the appeal in April 1978. The case got technical, since âindecentâ speech is protected under the First Amendment whereas obscene was not, and the Supreme Court felt it was important to make the distinction for the language used in the segment. Pacifica argued that the language used was simply indecent and thus the FCC had no right to regulate âindecentâ language, only obscene. Claiming that the FCCâs rules were unconstitutional and too broad, Pacifica expected another win. On July 3, 1978, much to the surprise of Pacifica, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC. This ruling gave the FCC the right to regulate indecent language used in radio broadcast during the hours which children would undoubtedly be present. This case was the first time the courts reviewed the power of government to penalize selected language over the radio and empowering the FCC.>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples