Recommendations Pertaining to Cardigans Law Case

Recommendations Pertaining to Cardigans Law Case

 

According to the State law and first amendment, the Cardigans have a right of their commercial aired. I support this from the Court’s decision that radio and television broadcasters cover the side of their public issues in their stations in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Company versus Federal Communications Commission. The First Amendment required  The sanction of radio stations for airing profanity programs. Still, I oppose it because it keeps adults and the older minors off from listening to a nonobscene speech at their wish.

The first amendment law that the court had approved was not good. It was the enaction following a motion for the dismissal of subject matter jurisdiction failure. It involved no profit Massachusetts of a particular public interest corporation, FCC and individual members of the corporation, following a minor television viewer parent. The action that followed injunctive relief that the court-mandated the commission to make decisions based on reasonable alacrity proceedings in the docket 19142. It concerned the plaintiff’s petition for the children’s television enacting rules for television programming for children. The administrative orders review act showed that their efforts were intent on the elimination of effort duplication that was from a prior law where the agent orders appeals were to undergo a trial to de novo. The appropriate circuit courts are supposed to review the record given from the administrative agency to avoid repetition over the same ground. (Rep, 1950). It is the government that has the mandate to regulate any indecent speech aired in the broadcast media according to the first amendment law as opposed to other forms of media.

However, the WBLAH did not unreasonably abridge to Cardigans’ rights because the first amendment states the sanction of any radio station for playing programs with profanity. It supported that minors are not supposed to be under exposure to profane and indecent comments. The WBLAH thus had a reason not to air out their program because it was not appropriate for children to view it. The television station had an idea to keep off from the sanction because the broadcast media had limited protection in this first amendment.

From the point analysis of the negative and positive sides, we can affirm our strengths and weaknesses. We want  the airing of our program to be aired out. However, there should be a frontier between what we can see as adults and that which should be seen by children even though the censorship broadcast provisions are not protective on the forbidden broadcasts which only consider obscene language and unprotected from the first amendment. The FCC condemned only day broadcasts that referred to as filthy. A transmission should not concede indecent if the prurient appeal does not appear in the statute ( U.S APP, 1934).

The case that gives the most support for the commercial airing is that of Mutual Film Corporation versus Industrial Commission of Ohio where the Supreme Court affirmed that motion pictures are not part of the national press. As a result of this, the photos were stated not to be entitled to first amendment protection from censorship. It was following a statute approval where motion pictures approval was to be before their exhibition. It followed this that the voting of self-censorship where unacceptable subjects and depiction situations in motion pictures were specified. I hope that my points of perception help determine the efficiency of the decisions by the media platforms.

Yours Faithfully

Name

 

References

Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 546 F. Supp.872 DDC. (1982). Justia US law blog. Retrieved from law.justia.com/us.

FCC V. Pacifica foundation (1978). Justia opinion summary and annotations. Justia US Supreme Court journal. 438-726.

First, amendment and censorship (n.d).uslegal.com blog. Retrieved from entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/censorship/first-amendment-and-censorship/