Link Ch. 13 – Snyder v. Phelps

Updated 10/14 with obituary for Fred Phelps

In March of 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Phelps family, operating as the Westboro Baptist Church (although they have no connection to any of the Baptist denominations), to picket the funerals of American servicemen and women.  The family typically carries signs proclaiming “GOD HATES FAGS” and “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS.”  The family pickets funerals in order to draw attention to their arguments that God is punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuality.

Here are several readings for you on the case:

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 13 – Snyder v. Phelps

Link Ch. 13 – Remembering the case of Falwell v. Flynt

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of U.S. servicemen and women, one case that came up was that of Falwell v. Flynt.  Here’s a bit of a refresher for those who don’t remember the details:

In 1983 the Reverend Jerry Falwell was in Washington, D.C., for a news conference when a reporter rushed up to him carrying the November 1983 issue of Hustler magazine and asked, “Reverend Falwell, have you seen this?” The reporter was referring to a crude parody of a Campari ad that portrayed a drunken Falwell losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Under the ad was the statement, “Ad parody—not to be taken seriously.” The Falwell ad parodied a series of Campari ads that featured celebrities using sexually suggestive language to describe the “first time” they had tasted Campari.

Falwell was outraged by the ad, not only because it insulted him but also because it attacked his mother. Describing the ad as “the most hurtful, damaging, despicable, low-type, personal attack that I can imagine one human being can inflict upon another,” he filed suit against famed publisher and pornographer Larry Flynt, asking for $45 million for libel (publishing false and defamatory statements about him), the improper use of his name and picture in the ad, and the infliction of “severe emotional anguish and distress.”

In the initial trial, the jury did not award Falwell damages for injury to his reputation because, they said, no reasonable person would believe the outrageous claims in the parody ad. The judge dismissed the portion of the suit dealing with the improper use of Falwell’s name and picture, ruling that as a public figure Falwell could not prevent the use of his name and image for noncommercial purposes.

However, the jury awarded him $200,000 in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress because it was clear that Flynt wanted to hurt Falwell.

After an appellate court upheld the verdict, Flynt appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Flynt was known for his outrageous behavior and was not popular with mainstream publishers, numerous groups advocating freedom of the press filed amicus briefs in support of him; they included several newspaper owners, press associations, and the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. Also supporting Flynt was HBO, which was looking to protect the stand-up comics featured on the cable network.

On February 24, 1988, in an 8–0 vote, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s verdict, ruling that the courts could not protect a public figure from emotional distress, even from “speech that is patently offensive and intended to inflict emotional injury.”

The Court ruled that given a choice between protecting a public figure from emotional distress and protecting free speech rights, it would support free speech.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist acknowledged that the ad was “doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most,” but said that political cartoons often go beyond the limits of good manners and taste. He saw no way to distinguish between proper and improper satire or between fair and unfair comment and criticism. The Court ruled that the only way a public figure or official could win a decision for intentional infliction of emotional distress would be if false statements had been made with knowledge that the “statement was false or reckless disregard as to whether it was true.”

This was the central point of the Flynt decision—that even something mean-spirited and cruel is still legitimate opinion and commentary, as long as it is a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact. Flynt explained the significance of the decision from the publisher’s point of view in an interview:

Had those decisions been allowed to stand, it would have meant that you would no longer need to prove libel to collect damages. All you would have to do is prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. Well, you know, any political cartoonist or editorial writer wants to inflict emotional distress. That’s their business.

In a strange ending to this case, Falwell, who passed away on May 15, 2007, and Flynt developed a relatively civil relationship in recent years, appearing in debates and on television together. On one occasion, Falwell even accepted an airplane ride home from Flynt following a joint speaking engagement.

The conflict between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell highlights the central conflicts in American media law:

  • How do you protect both the rights of individuals and those of the press?
  • Is the press protected even when it is “gross and repugnant in the eyes of most?”
  • When can the media be punished for stepping over the line?
  • Do individuals have a right to control how a sometimes hostile press portrays them?

When the movie The People versus Larry Flynt was released, Flynt and the Reverend Jerry Falwell appeared together on CNN’s Larry King Live.

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Link Ch. 13 – Wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine Killed 25 Years Ago?

Wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine killed 25 years ago? Yes, but until August of 2011, the rules were still on the books.  The FCC finally got rid of more than 80 media industry rules.

Does this mean that popular radio show hostscan finally stop claiming the federal government is bringing these rules back? Probably not..

Wonkbook’s Dylan Matthews has a clear summary of the importance of the death of the Fairness Doctrine.

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 13 – Wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine Killed 25 Years Ago?

Link Ch. 13 – Cameras in the Courtroom

There’s been a long debate in the United States whether still, movie or television cameras belong in the courtrooms.  TV cameras have become a common feature in many local, state, and appellate courts, but as of this writing, the Supreme Court has said an emphatic “no” to cameras of any sort covering their proceedings.  Here are links to several articles on cameras in the courtrooms:

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 13 – Cameras in the Courtroom

Link Ch. 13 – Photography and Privacy Around the United States

UPDATED: Couple of readings on photography and privacy:

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 13 – Photography and Privacy Around the United States

Link Ch. 13 – Is spending money speech? A look at Citizens United Case

Is spending money on behalf of a candidate or an issue the same as speaking out in favor or in opposition to it?  According the the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is.

In the case, a nonprofit company sued to be able to run a documentary film on cable television that some saw as a thinly disguised anti-Hillary Clinton political ad.  The FEC said the film couldn’t be aired because the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prohibited corporate funded commercials for-or-against a presidential candidate less than 30 days before the election.

Citizen’s United appealed the ruling, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that organizations such as corporations and labor unions, as well as individuals, could give money in unlimited amounts to political action committees (PACs).  These so-called superPACs  could bundle together contributions to either support or oppose a particular candidate or issue.  The one caveat is that the committees are not allowed to directly coordinate their activities with those of a candidate’s official campaign.

How separate these are is a matter of some debate, with top campaign officials oftentimes being on the steering committees for the associated superPAC.

James Bopp, a conservative activist lawyer, argues that the court’s decision makes it possible for individuals and organizations to create more political speech through their spending.  As an example, multimillionaire Sheldon Adelson helped keep Newt Gingrich’s primary run for the Republican nomination going in 2012 by making a $10 million donation to Gingrich’s superPAC.  Other supporters of the decision argue that the ads supported by the superPACs create a better informed public.

Before the Citizen’s United case, an individual could spend unlimited money directly on advertising supporting or attacking a candidate, but he or she couldn’t give that money to a political action committee.

Critics of the ruling argue that it puts almost unlimited political power in the hands of those who have the most money to spend.

You can listen to the Bopp interview here:

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 13 | Tagged , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 13 – Is spending money speech? A look at Citizens United Case

Link Ch. 14 – Codes of Ethics

Here is a collection of a wide range of codes of ethics from the communication industry:

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 14 | Tagged , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 14 – Codes of Ethics

Link Ch. 14 – Should a student photographer be asked to change the color of the sky?

Back in 2008, there was a a big debate going on over at SportsShooter.com as to whether it was proper for a college newspaper adviser to tell a photographer that he needed to make the sky bluer in a photo of an MLK Day march. (The winter sky in the photo looks pretty pale.) Actually, it’s not really fair to call it a debate. Most of the folks on the board are outraged. I wonder, however, how many photographers would simply boost up the blue in the sky without a moment’s thought. How many people in the film era used Kodachrome instead of Ektachrome to get more vibrant colors, especially the “Kodachrome blue” skies. Don’t get me wrong…. I’m not defending the advisor who promoted “fixing” the sky color. I’m just thinking that maybe folks are more outraged about the adviser interfering with a photo than the actual changes being advocated. (Thanks to Elliott Parker of the JOURNET listserv for the main link.)

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 14 | Tagged , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 14 – Should a student photographer be asked to change the color of the sky?

Link Ch. 14 – An Astrophotographer Talks Digital Manipulation

Space photographer Jerry Lodriguss talks about the ethics of digitally manipulating their images.  It’s not just press photography where this is an issue.

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 14 | Tagged , | Comments Off on Link Ch. 14 – An Astrophotographer Talks Digital Manipulation

Link Ch. 14 – Spock Explains Principle of Utility

In the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the emotionless Spock performs a rational yet selfless act. He saves the crew of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise by entering a reactor room to prevent an explosion that would have killed everyone on board the ship. But in doing so he absorbs a lethal dose of radiation. As he dies, he justifies his actions to his friends with the maxim, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.” In this moment, Spock sums up the central tenet of the nineteenth-century ethical philosopher John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility: the greatest good for the greatest number.

Here’s a clip from Wrath of Khan where Spock explains this principle:

In this second clip from YouTube, a fan has edited down all of the film’s discussion of the principle of utility down to 9 1/2 minutes.  A great way to see this philosophical principle applied in popular culture. (This clip comes and goes in terms of availability. As of October 2014, it was available.)

Posted in Book Link, Chapter 14 | Tagged , , | 1 Comment