1. Communication Law is primarily about the First Amendment. What different types of speech can you identify that may have different protection under the first amendment?
Unprotected speeches
The protection of some types of speech completely falls outside capacity of First Amendment. The U.S Supreme Court defines the scope of the First Amendment and the examples of unprotected categories of speech include the following:
The speech that either expose children to pornographic information or link real minors to the also to the same pornographic information or otherwise an obscene speech has no protection under the amendment (Siegel, 2007).
The protection also does not have a place for a speech that carries fighting words that, on the basis of color, race, greed, or gender may incite violence. Besides, the speeches that incite the people and cause them to be unruly and engage in violence also have no chance of being protected by the first amendment.
In addition, the first amendment does not protect the speech that contains some types of slanderous statements. For an advertising that is bogus, deceptive or that is about an illicit product or service, there is also no provision for protection from the law (Siegel, 2007).
The videos bearing illicit cock or dogfights are regarded as illicit child pornography and have no protection from the law. In addition, the offensive anti-religious message posted during Christmas time do not get protection from the communication law.
Protected speeches:
The fighting words that do not include anything more than the plain expression of words, symbols, views and thoughts found by some person to be offensive. The speech on matters of public policy, and issues of legislation including gun control, same sex marriage and abortion rights is protected.
2. Name and discuss three of the first amendment theories found in the text.
The three of the first amendment theories are the absolutist theory, the ad hoc balancing theory, and the preferred position balancing theory.
In Absolutist theory, it is argued by some that it fully bar government censorship. Its essence is that as the First amendment affirms that no law limit the freedom of expression, it means just no law. No caveats, exceptions, or qualifications therefore does the government have to censor the press according to this theory (Hopkins, 2009).
In ad hoc theory, a balance is sought between the freedom of expression and other values. The secrecy for instance required for the functioning of the military concerning its plans, movements, and weapons should not be interfered by the press in the name of the freedom of press. This theory is a strategy employed by the court to be able to strike a balance in two conflicting rights (Hopkins, 2009).
Lastly, in preferred position balancing theory, some constitutional freedoms assured by the First Amendment are crucial for creating an open society. Consequently, these freedoms are accorded extra protection by the judiciary than the other constitutional rights. For instance, there have been attempts by the courts to strike a balance between the rights of free press and free speech and the constitutional right that guarantees a fair trial. Another case of preferred position balancing theory is the one where courts give priority to the freedom of expression over the right to reputation or to personal privacy (Hopkins, 2009).
3. What does prior restraint mean? Why is it important?
Prior restrain means the censorship deployed for instance by the government to protect the military or the national security during wartime. The censoring of school magazines, newspapers, and yearbooks by the school authorities is another example of prior restrain (Hemmer, 2006).
The characteristics of the prior restrains, including these two examples are that they win judicial approval. The examples of the prior restrains imposed during wartime include punishment for revealing information on national security, denial to get to war locations or to access photographs, documents, and the self-censorship by the media.
The prior restrain during wartime is important. This is because; the many things that the media might say concerning a particular war during a peaceful time might immediately spark a fight. In this case, if this happens no court would constitutionally protect the media. Therefore, prior restrain is important to both the nation and the media (Hemmer, 2006).
Besides, the confidentiality some government of secrets like the location and the number of troops, the recruiting service and the sailing dates is too risky to its security if media is given an okay to publish. Therefore, prior restrain is important here too (Hemmer, 2006).
References:
Hemmer, J. J. (2006). Communication law: the Supreme Court and the First Amendment.
University Press of America.
Hopkins, W. W. (2009). Communication and the Law 2010: 2010 Edition. Vision Press.
Siegel, P. (2007). Communication Law in America. Paul Siegel.
