Free Speech and Fake News

In my presentation, Legal Libel, my goal of the presentation was to discuss and answer the question of the week: “What are the restraints of free speech and the First Amendment in the news?” by focusing on the idea of fake news, and how it fits within restraints and regulations of the laws of our nation.  To answer this question, I aimed to first address key terms of the chapter such as libel, fabrication, and dangerous speech in hopes to educate my audience of a few key concepts that are not covered by the United States Constitution.  I next introduced what fake news is, and provided the class with examples in order to show that fake news is out there, and gave statistics about how frequently Americans consume fake news.  I then introduced a specific case of fake news about Ivanka Trump, and how a fake news article claimed she had been shot in the White House.  Next, I outlined how and why articles such as these can be posted and circulated on the internet due to the laws of the Communication Decency Act and the loophole of Third Party Posting Sites. The class discussion focused on opinions as to whether articles like these should be restrained by free speech, and challenging others to educate themselves about credible news vs fake news.  This case aimed to show the restraints of free speech on the Internet, and how fake news gets around these restraints and can be classified as free speech.  

Privately Owned broadcasting and Freedom of the Press

In regards to the Question of the week: "What are the constraints on free speech & the First Amendment for the news industry?", My research lead me to see how little free speech is actually constrained in the United States, and how that lack of direct regulation can lead to unforeseen influence by commercial speech such as fake news and advertisements. Specifically referring to fake news as commercial speech was from one of my primary sources by John Riggins in his academic law review, which he published last year. He pointed out how fake news was quite difficult to regulate as commercial speech because to do so might be seen as trying to censor free-speech. He also said that even though the supreme court was currently looking into how it could be regulated as commercial speech, there is no clear method because the current definitions for fake news are too vague. A recent study by Bartosz Wojdynski and Hyejin Bang in 2016 came to the conclusion that user-curated advertisement can inadvertently decrease critical judgement in viewers, which makes the spread of fake or heavily biased news considerably easier. Reading these papers with the First Amendment in mind gave me the impression that the system was perhaps too lax and would benefit from being re-evaluation. Not to completely censor or a re-work of the the United States news industry, only to take a deeper look into what federal regulations are currently in place—with comparisons to international public news broadcasts—and be aware of how players in the news industry might take advantage of that in the Information Age.

Riggins, J. A. (2017). LAW STUDENT UNLEASHES BOMBSHELL ALLEGATION YOU WON'T BELIEVE!: "FAKE NEWS" AS COMMERCIAL SPEECH. Wake Forest Law Review, 52(5), 1311-1334.

Wojdynski, B. W., & Bang, H. (2016). Distraction effects of contextual advertising on online news processing: an eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(8), 654-664.

News: Constraints on free speech and First Amendment in the news industry

The question this week asks, “What are the constraints on free speech and the First Amendment for the news industry?” To answer this question I focused my case study example on digital newspapers on Snapchat. My claim is that news platforms have moved over to social media in hopes of targeting younger demographics. However, Snapchat is not entirely diverse nor is it entirely reliable as a primary news source. There are few hard hitting news channels available on the app and most of which are politically left leaning. Another point I have made is that Snapchat allows users to contribute to news stories through anonymous posts. This opens the door for possible fake news. In relation to the question of the constraints on the freedom of speech and the press, Snapchat being a private company has the right to post content it deems acceptable. The news channels and their material it allows on the app are protected under the First Amendment. In summary, my argument is that, although trusted and established news organizations have begun converging into digital newspapers on social media and have the freedom to use content provided by Snapchat users, the app itself also has the freedom to pick and choose the content users see, whether that be false information, partisan press, or information that some may find unsettling. 

Media Lay & Policy: The Proposed Comcast & Time Warner Deal

The question of the week that proved to be the theme of my case study presentation was, "Who controls and monitors the media?" To answer the question, I analyzed the three different branches of our federal government. I looked at the different branches to understand how the role that each of the branches plays. Then I applied this knowledge to the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable back in 2014 and examined why it failed. 

Congress plays an important role in the process by creating and amending statutes (laws) at both the federal and state levels. They turn principles from the Constitution into more operational and concrete rules. Specifically, the Energy Subcommittee on Communication and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives is involved in the first steps of laws that concern telecommunication and media. 

We learned that the FCC is the primary agency in the executive branch that has an impact on media. They create policy and enforce regulations, while also enforcing legislation as it relates to the media industry. The FCC reportedly decided that they were set to block the merger between Comcast and Time Warner because it was not in the public's interest (Brodkin, 2015). Speaking for the public and working to make them satisfied with their service is another major responsibility of the FCC. The public saw this merger as a threat to competition because of the monopoly Comcast would create. Comcast would also have been able to control prices in the market as well as reduce innovation. 
To learn more about the economic concerns about that surrounded the Comcast and Time Warner deal, examine this analysis by Scott Wallsten that takes a look at possible benefits and concerns. 

The Department of Justice, because they are the primary enforcer of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, played another important role in this deal by taking a larger look at the restraint of trade that it would cause. Not long after the government began to examine the deal in April of 2015, was it being reported that the Department of Justice was preparing to serve an antitrust lawsuit against Comcast and Time Warner Cable (Brodkin, 2015).  Then, the two companies would have been taken to Federal Court, most likely the Supreme Court which is the ultimate arbiter in the judicial branch. 

While the main institutions that regulate media rest in the executive branch (FCC & Department of Justice), the two other branches play pivotal roles in monitoring the industry. The public also plays a large role through actions such as voting and becoming involved with public interest groups. My case study of the Comcast and Time Warner Cable merger shows that the government works to protect a competitive media industry. Without the FCC and the Department of Justice intervening, the deal could have been passed and go on to damage the market while poorly treating customers around the world.

Sources

■Comcast / Time Warner Cable / Charter Transactions Terminated. (2015, April 24). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from https://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-twc-charter-transactions-terminated

■Brodkin, Jon. Comcast/TWC merger may be blocked by Justice Department. (2015, April 17).  Retrieved February 07, 2018, from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/comcasttwc-merger-may-be-blocked-by-justice-department/

■Ajit Pai. (2017, October 13). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai

■Representative Marsha Wedgeworth Blackburn (Marsha) (R-Tennessee, 7th) - Biography from LegiStorm. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.legistorm.com/person/bio/51279/Marsha_Wedgeworth_Blackburn.html

■Tune, H. (2015). Positive Law vs. Good Intentions: The Legality of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger. Elements, 11(1). Retrieved February 7, 2018. https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/elements/article/view/8818

■Wallsten, S. (2014). An Economic Analysis of the Proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger. Retrieved February 7, 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521750971.pdf

Law & Policy: FaceBook

Emme McMurray
COMM 330-502
Case Study: Law & Policy
Due: 2/19/18


With the advancement of modern day technology, the regulating of media industries is a hot topic to discuss. We must take into account our 1^st Amendment right to freedom of speech, but also the idea of censorship. Though the FCC regulates the media with basic laws and codes, are they successfully doing so throughout social media? As politics are becoming more involved with social media, there seems to be less regulation occurring. This can specifically be seen with FaceBook when libels, especially related to politics, are shared and the FCC is not able to shut down these dangerous claims before people are affected by them. I was able to use the arrest of Edgar Maddison Welch as an example of a libel tremendously affecting a FaceBook user.

          To read more on Edgar Maddison Welch -->

Timmer, J. (2017). Fighting Falsity: Fake News, Facebook, and the First Amendment. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 35(3), 669-705.

I enjoyed being able to teach the class about Law and Policy and also hear their feedback on my discussion questions. I believe the class was able to learn my viewpoint on how the FCC needs more power to regulate social media without being stopped by the 1st Amendment. Thought not everyone in the class liked the idea of allowing the government to intervene more than usual, I believe they understood where I was coming from with the examples I provided in my presentation. To answer the Question of the Week.... The FCC, though established way back in 1934, still has tremendous power today in regulating media and communication. But with all this power, they still fall short in regulating social media and ending dangerous libels.

          Other sources used during my in-class presentation -->

Cornish, A. (Host). After A Terrorist Attack, Social Media Can Cause More Harm Than Good. (2017, May 26). All Things Considered. Retrieved from    http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/apps/doc/A494526197/LitRC?u=txshracd2898&sid=LitRC&xid=2c7551b8

Royster, L. K. (2017). Fake News: Potential Solutions to the Online Epidemic. North Carolina Law Review, 96(1), 270-295