Archive | Center for Media Law and Policy

Content related to the Center for Media Law and Policy’s activities and people.

The James R. Cleary Prize for Student Media Law and Policy Research in 2021

By on February 23, 2022 in Center for Media Law and Policy

The UNC Center for Media Law and Policy is now accepting submissions for the James R. Cleary Prize for student media law and policy research published in 2021. The annual award competition, which highlights the best student-authored scholarly articles on media law and policy related topics, honors the legacy of James R. Cleary, an attorney who practiced for 56 years in Huntsville, Ala.  He was particularly interested in the communications field and media law issues.  Cleary’s daughter, Johanna Cleary, is a 2004 Ph.D. graduate of the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media.

You can read about last year’s winners, Scott Memmel, a 2020 graduate of the University of Minnesota Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication and Jeeyun (Sophia) Baik, a 2021 graduate of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, here.

The prize competition is open to all college and university students. Up to three winners will be selected, with a first prize of $1,000, a second prize of $500, and a third prize of $250. The prizes will be awarded to the authors of published papers that most creatively and convincingly propose solutions to significant problems in the field of media law and policy, including First Amendment speech and press issues. All methodologies are welcome.

The deadline for submission is April 15, 2022.

Rules

  1. The author of the submitted publication must have been enrolled in a graduate or undergraduate degree-granting program in the United States at the time the article was accepted for publication. This includes, but is not limited to, students enrolled in M.A. and Ph.D. programs, law school (including J.D., LL.M., and J.S.D. candidates), and other professional schools (including M.B.A. candidates).
  2. The submitted paper must have been published in a law review or peer-reviewed journal during the 2021 calendar year.
  3. Each student may submit only one entry.
  4. Jointly authored papers are eligible, provided all authors meet the eligibility requirements for the competition. If a winning paper has more than one author, the prize will be split equally among the co-authors. No work with a faculty co-author will be considered.
  5. Each entry must be the original work of the listed author(s). The author(s) must perform all of the key tasks of identifying the topic, researching it, analyzing it, formulating positions and arguments, and writing and revising the paper.
  6. Papers will be evaluated based on a number of factors, including thoroughness of research and analysis, relevance to the competition topic, relevance to current legal and/ or public policy debates, originality of thought, and clarity of expression.
  7. The prize will be monetary. Winners will be required to submit a completed W-9, affidavit of eligibility, tax acknowledgment and liability release for tax purposes as a condition of receiving the cash prize.
  8. In the unlikely event that entries are of insufficient quality to merit an award, the Center for Media Law and Policy reserves the right not to award some or all of the prizes.

Submission Process

  • All entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on April 15, 2022.
  • Entries must be sent via email to medialaw[at]unc.edu with the following in the subject line: “James R. Cleary Prize Submission: [Name of Author]”
  • Papers should be submitted in Portable Document Format (.pdf).
  • Entries MUST include a signed cover sheet that may be downloaded from the Center for Media Law Policy’s website here.

A review committee comprised of faculty and affiliates from the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy will review the submissions and determine the winning paper(s). The decisions of the committee are final. Winners will be notified and final results will appear on the Center’s website in late spring. Due to the large number of expected entries, the Center cannot contact all non-winning entrants.

For more information, please visit our Cleary Competition page.

0

Alaska, Colorado, and Virginia Enact Sponsorship Disclosure Requirements for Online Political Advertisements

By on February 9, 2022 in Center for Media Law and Policy, Internet

In partnership with the UNC Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life (CITAP), the Center for Media Law and Policy has been researching and summarizing state laws that impose disclosure and/or recordkeeping requirements on online platforms that carry digital political advertisements. 

Digital political ads have become an increasingly important tool for political candidates and committees, yet existing federal laws governing political advertisements focus primarily on traditional mediums of communication. While the Federal Election Commission has detailed sponsorship disclosure requirements for political advertising on television and radio, the agency currently does not regulate online political advertising in the same way. Congress proposed legislation in 2017, 2019, and 2021 to extend existing disclosure requirements for political advertisements to online political advertisements, but no action has been taken on these bills. 

To fill this regulatory gap, a handful of states have enacted new legislation or amended their existing election laws to increase transparency by imposing sponsorship disclosure and/or recordkeeping requirements for online political advertisements. As of 2020, six states had enacted such laws, which we analyzed in a report written by Ashley Fox and Dr. Tori Ekstrand, “Regulating the Political Wild West: State Efforts to Disclose Sources of Online Political Advertising,” and summarized on the CITAP Digital Politics website under the section on State Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements for Digital Political Ads. 

Since 2020, three additional states, Alaska, Colorado, and Virginia, have enacted their own laws requiring sponsorship disclosure for online political ads. We’ve updated the CITAP Digital Politics pages to include summaries of the new laws, which you can read here.

The Highlights: 

Virginia’s regulations are the most comprehensive, with disclosure requirements varying based on the type of ad and who paid for it. Rather than creating new disclosure requirements specifically for online political ads, Virginia’s law instead subjects different types of online ads to its existing requirements for print, broadcast, and radio ads. For the purposes of disclosure requirements, online graphic advertisements with no video or audio components are treated like print ads; online video advertisements are treated like broadcast ads; and online audio-only advertisements are treated like radio ads. 

The Virginia law, however, does not impose liability on online platforms for any political ads that fail to include the required disclosures. The law also requires individuals and organizations that purchase or promote an online political ad to tell the platform they are political advertisers and certify that they are permitted under state and local laws to purchase or promote online political ads. 

In contrast, Colorado and Alaska’s laws create new disclosure requirements for online political ads. While Alaska’s law has different requirements based on whether an online political ad has print, video, or audio components, Colorado’s law has one set of disclosure requirements for all online political ads, regardless of the content type. 

You can read more about the specifics of each state’s recordkeeping and disclosure requirements on the CITAP Digital Politics site here. 

–Noelle Wilson, CITAP Media Law Fellow

0

Media Law and IP Sessions at the UNC Festival of Legal Learning

By on February 1, 2022 in Center for Media Law and Policy

One of the biggest annual events at the UNC School of Law is the Festival of Legal Learning. This year’s multi-day convocation of legal geekery comprises 28 different continuing legal education (CLE) sessions over four days. For the past few years, the Center for Media Law and Policy has helped with the selection and coordination of sessions that cover Media Law and Intellectual Property subjects.

This year’s festival, which takes place on February 1-4, 2022 will be entirely remote, so you can kick back at home and partake in one of the best CLE programs in the country.  Although the festival is much smaller this year, there are at least 5 sessions that touch on media law and IP topics, ranging from trademark law to a retrospective look at U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 Term. And the list of speakers is a who’s who of the top media and IP lawyers in the state. You can see a list of these folks and descriptions of their sessions on the law school’s event page.

Here are just a few of the sessions available at the festival this year:

Tuesday, Feb. 1

  • 1:15 PM  –  2:15 PM: Trademark Lessons from the Last Breakfast with Aunt Jemima 

Wednesday, Feb. 2

  • 1:15PM  –  2:15 PM: Federal Privacy Law Developments Highlights Since 2020
  • 2:30 PM  –  3:30 PM: Student-Athlete NIL Market is Open: What Do Attorneys Need to Know?
  • 3:45 PM  –  4:45 PM: U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 Term

Thursday, Feb. 3

  • 1:15 PM  –  2:15 PM: The State of the News Media

Friday, Feb. 4

  • 3:45 PM  –  4:45 PM: A View from the Bench: Reflections of a New Federal District Court Judge (with Judge Richard Myers)

You will not want to miss the session on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 Term, which includes Adam Liptak from the New York Times; Mary-Rose Papandrea, Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the UNC School of Law; Andy Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law at the UNC School of Law; Osamudia James, Professor of Law at the UNC School of Law; and Alli Larsen, Professor of Law and Director, Institute of the Bill of Rights Law at William & Mary Law School.

To register for the Festival, please visit their registration page.

0

Amanda Reid Joins Media Law Center as New Faculty Co-Director

By on September 21, 2021 in Center for Media Law and Policy

I’m thrilled to announce that Amanda Reid has joined the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy as faculty co-director of the Center.  Amanda is an associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media and holds a secondary appointment at the UNC School of Law. She is replacing Tori Ekstrand, who served as the Center’s faculty co-director from 2018-2020. Tori has moved into a new role as the Caroline H. and Thomas S. Royster Distinguished Professor for Graduate Education at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Amanda’s research is anchored around the First Amendment. She analyzes the freedoms and limitations imposed on meaning-making processes, including how substantive laws and procedural rules impact—both positively and negatively—our ability to encode and decode meaning.  Her scholarly inquiries range from the free speech implications of copyright regulation of Internet radio to the visual presentation of roadside memorial crosses and the separation of church and state.

Amanda, who earned a Ph.D. and J.D. from the University of Florida, has long contributed to the work of the Center by assisting with our M.A./J.D. and Ph.D./J.D. dual-degree programs in media law. With her training in both journalism and law, Amanda is uniquely well-suited to help grow the dual-degree program and assist in our ongoing work producing interdisciplinary research and scholarship examining how media law and policy can help traditional and new media meet the information needs of all Americans.

“I look forward to working with my brilliant colleagues and terrific students to host important conversations,” Amanda told me. “This is a vital moment to facilitate meaningful discussions about our First Amendment values.”

1

State Regulation of Election-Related Speech in the U.S.: An Overview and Comparative Analysis

By on August 5, 2021 in Center for Media Law and Policy, First Amendment, Internet

I’m excited to announce that the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy, in partnership with the Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life (CITAP), just published a research report titled State Regulation of Election-Related Speech in the U.S.: An Overview and Comparative Analysis.

The report presents a comprehensive analysis of state efforts to regulate the content of election-related speech and is part of an ongoing multi-method research project focused on how platforms and digital media are changing electoral politics. It extends and builds on a report the Center published with CITAP in September 2020, Regulating the Political Wild West: State Efforts to Disclose Sources of Online Political Advertising, that examined disclosure and recordkeeping regulations for online political advertising.

You might be thinking, given the extent of misinformation associated with the last election, that there are no laws against lying in politics. It turns out that the opposite is true. Although the federal government has largely stayed out of regulating the content of election-related speech, the states have been surprisingly active in passing laws that prohibit false statements associated with elections. By our count, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have such laws!

For this report, we reviewed more than 125 state statutes that regulate the content of election-related speech. These laws take one of two basic forms: statutes that directly target the content of election-related speech, and generally applicable statutes that indirectly implicate election-related speech by prohibiting intimidation or fraud associated with an election.

What we found is that these election-speech statutes deviate significantly from longstanding theories of liability for false speech. First, the statutes cover a broader range of speech than has traditionally been subject to government restriction: the statutes cover everything from merely derogatory statements about candidates (defamation requires false statements that create a degree of moral opprobrium) to false information about ballot measures, voting procedures, and incumbency. Second, a substantial number of the statutes impose liability regardless of whether the speaker knew the information was false or acted negligently.

Obviously, many of the statutes could be subject to significant First Amendment challenges.  For purposes of this report, however, we have not made any assessment as to whether specific statutes are constitutional. We’ll be doing that examination in a later phase of this project.

To aid in the analysis and comparison of the statutes, we created a multi-level taxonomy of the types of speech the statutes target and cataloged which states have statutes that fall within each category. In the appendix, we provide a summary for each state that outlines the relevant statutory provisions and provides a brief description of the restrictions the statutes impose as well as the types of speakers to which they apply.

Political speech has long been viewed as residing at the core of the First Amendment’s protections for speech. Yet it has become increasingly clear that lies and other forms of misinformation associated with elections are corrosive to democracy. Regardless of whether individual statutes survive First Amendment scrutiny, it is useful to examine the breadth and depth of state efforts to deal with lies, misinformation, intimidation, and fraud in elections. The surprising number of statutes already on the books clearly demonstrate that state legislatures see a problem that needs to be addressed. Moreover, apart from government efforts to impose civil and criminal liability for election-related speech, these statutes (and the taxonomy we describe in this report) can be useful to social media platforms and other intermediaries that facilitate election-related speech. If nothing else, the statutes provide a partial roadmap for identifying the types of speech – and election harms – that may warrant intervention.

The report and associated research is now up on the CITAP Digital Politics site, which includes pages for every state that outlines the relevant statutory provisions and provides a brief description of the restrictions the statutes impose as well as the types of speakers to which they apply (you can also download the report itself from SSRN).

0