Archive | First Amendment

Looking for a Job in Media Law?

By on September 18, 2013 in Copyright, FCC, First Amendment, Internet, Journalism, Privacy

jobsLooking for a job can be time consuming and frustrating.  Often the best opportunities are found through networking and word of mouth.  But what if you are a student or recent grad? Or are trying to change fields or areas of practice and you don’t have a network?  Breaking into a new field, or even trying to find new opportunities in a field you already occupy, can be challenging.  This is why the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy has created its new media law and policy Job Center.

We Bring Our Network to You

Over the years, the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy has a built up a large (and growing) network of media law and policy minded folks and they are often looking for people just like you.  From an undergraduate internship at the Brookings Institution to a director position at Harvard’s Digital Initiative our network of contacts are constantly making us aware of openings and opportunities in the field of media law and policy.  Our Job Center database brings that network to you.  For free.  Just like that.

Easy to use

Not only does our database instantly plug you into our network of contacts and opportunities it is easy to use. You can browse by job type or category or use our advanced search feature to search by location, keyword, or practice area. Looking for a fellowship? Bam. Got it: Fellowships. How about an internship? Yep, that too: Internships.  An academic teaching position? Also covered: Academic – Journalism and Academic – Law.

Wide Variety

Don’t be deceived by the few examples of categories I just offered in the previous paragraph.  There are job opportunities from almost every field even remotely under the media law and policy umbrella.  IP, Copyright, Photo Journalism, Broadcast, FTC listings, Cyber Law, Trademark—you name it there are job opportunities.  Whatever you are looking for, chances are there is something for you on our page.  Here is a list of some of my favorite recent postings:

William Smith is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law

0

Amicus brief argues NSA surveillance violates freedom of the press

By on September 11, 2013 in First Amendment, Journalism, Privacy

The Reporter’s Committee for the Freedom of the Press filed an amicus brief in ACLU v. Clapper arguing that government collection of call records violates the First Amendment freedom of the press by impeding reporters’ ability to maintain confidential sources.

The brief supports the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the NSA from collecting logs of the time and duration of phone calls made within the United States. The ACLU’s complaint includes a First Amendment claim based on the freedom of association — the right to organize and express political ideas as a group — but RCFP’s brief focuses on the right of the press to gather news.

The brief argues that mass surveillance makes sources more wary of contacting journalists and emphasizes that confidential sources are critical to accurate reporting on important issues.

0
0

Ads on Wheels: More First Amendment Problems in the Triangle

By on September 4, 2013 in First Amendment

Nearly a year after an advertisement on Chapel Hill city buses sparked controversy, the City of Raleigh is experiencing its own public outcry over transit advertising. The Humane Society of the United States has filed suit against the Raleigh Transit Authority over the agency’s rejection of an advertisement featuring pigs in confined gestation crates used on factory farms.

The proposed ad would have wrapped around the exterior of buses and said, “How would you like to spend the rest of your life in a space as small as a bus seat? It’s what Big Pork wants for pigs. But together we can change that.” The Raleigh Transit Authority rejected the ad because it was “too negative.” 

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleges that the Raleigh Transit Authority’s rejection of the ad is a violation of the Humane Society’s First and 14th Amendment rights. Under the RTA advertising policy, some ads are prohibited, including those for illegal products or services, alcohol or tobacco, or advertisements that are false or misleading. Additionally, advertisements that deal with political issues, causes, or candidates, or that advocate or oppose a particular religion, belief, or creed, are not permitted.

But what about advertisements that are simply “too negative”?  There is nothing in the RTA policy about the agency’s authority to reject advertisements based on their negative messages. Emails between the RTA and the Humane Society show that the rejection took place because the ad was “too negative,” not because it was a political issue or cause. That puts the RTA in a pinch, because its decision to reject the ad was not in line with its own policy. However, one question that will need to be addressed is whether the Humane Society’s advertisement could fit into the political issues/causes category of prohibited advertisements. If the better treatment of pigs is an example of a political cause, then the RTA could refuse to accept the advertisement, and doing so would be in line with RTA policy. But that’s not what happened. The RTA refused the ad because the agency was uncomfortable with the negative tone of the Humane Society’s message.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of transit advertising and the First Amendment only once, in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974). In that case the Court held that a public forum had not been created in Shaker Heights, Ohio, buses, and that the city’s refusal to permit a political candidate advertisement was constitutional. However, the Supreme Court also has been clear that governments may not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint.

Controversial transit advertisements have been popping up across the nation over the past few years, with several cases going before federal courts in Washington, D.C., California, and Pennsylvania. The subjects of these ads have ranged from Israel to Islam to inmate voting rights. Two recent federal district court opinions explored viewpoint discrimination as it applies to transit advertising, concluding that the refusal to permit ads calling for support of Israel was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The ad in question in Raleigh already has been featured on buses in Des Moines, Iowa, and Washington, D.C. “without controversy,” according to the Humane Society. The ads’ impact in North Carolina could be significant, however, since N.C. is second in the nation in pork production.

To read more about the contentious transit ads in Chapel Hill last year, see this blog post on the issue.

Liz Woolery is a third-year Ph.D. student studying legal and regulatory issues in mass communication at the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

0

Call for Papers: New York Times v. Sullivan, A Fifty Year Retrospective

By on August 20, 2013 in Defamation, First Amendment

FALROn October 12, 2013, we will be partnering with the First Amendment Law Review to help host their annual symposium, which will be focused on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan.  We’ll post more information about the symposium in the next few weeks, but if you are a scholar who writes in this area, you may be interested in submitting a paper to the First Amendment Law Review (note: the deadline is October 1).  Here is their call for papers:

The First Amendment Law Review is hosting its annual symposium in Chapel Hill, NC, on October 12, where scholars from across the country will participate in a discussion focusing on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. In conjunction with our event, the First Amendment Law Review will also publish a symposium edition featuring articles related to Sullivan’s direct impact on the media, and articles that analyze Sullivan’s effect on a broader scale.

We are seeking articles that will be published in Volume Twelve of the First Amendment Law Review alongside work by some of our symposium panelists, which include Bruce Brown, Vincent Blasi, Ronald Cass, Stuart Benjamin, George Wright, and Ashley Messenger. As the only legal journal in the country dedicated solely to the First Amendment, the First Amendment Law Review is an ideal platform for those looking to contribute to First Amendment scholarship, and we have a tradition of hosting excellent symposia with impressive keynote speakers such as Erwin Chemerinsky and Floyd Abrams. This year, we are pleased to announce that Geoffrey Stone, Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, will give our keynote address.

If you would like to be considered for publication in our symposium edition, please submit an article of at least twenty pages, including footnotes, by October 1 to falr@unc.edu. Those selected for publication will be invited, but not required, to attend our symposium on October 12, and will be recognized at the event.

 

0