Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P15 pptx

BRIGHT LINE RULE
A judicial rule that helps resolve ambiguous issues
by setting a basic standard that clarifies t he
AMBIGUITY and establishes a simple response.
The bright line rule exists to bring clarity to a
law or regulation that could be read in two (or
more) ways. Often a bright line is established
when the need for a simple decision outweighs the
need to weigh both sides of a particular issue.
In the case of Knight v. Avon Products 2003,
SJC 08876, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court established a bright line rule for
AGE
DISCRIMINATION
. The PLAINTIFF, who was over
40 years of age, was terminated from her position
and claimed that her termination was the result
of discrimination based on her age. The person
who was hired to replace the plaintiff, however,
was only 28 months younger. The
DEFENDANT
argued that the plaintiff’s age played no role in
the termination decision, adding that 28 months
is an insignificant difference. A trial court
disagreed, but the high court agreed with the
defendant. The court then went on to establish
a bright line figure of five years or more for a
valid age discrimination suit to be launched.
The court arrived at this figure because it
realized that to do otherwise could leave
employers open to lawsuits if they replaced a

worker with someone who was only two years
younger. To avoid endless argument, the five-year
figure was established. If there was a pattern
of discriminatory behavior toward an employee,
it might be possible to see a two- or three-year
difference as enough to tip the balance against
that employee. In the general
COURSE OF EMPLOY-
MENT
issues, however, the court felt that this
particular bright line would set a useful guide-
line for both employees and employers.
In Ohio v. Robinette 519 U.S. 33, 117 S.Ct.
417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347, 1996, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed a bright line rule established by
the Ohio State Supreme Court. Robinette was
stopped by a
DEPUTY sheriff for speeding. He
complied with the deputy’s instructions; he
handed over his driver’s license and stepped out
of the car. A computer check of the license came
up clean, and the deputy merely warned him not
to speed again. Then he asked Robinette whether
he had any drugs in his car. Robinette replied no
and the deputy asked if he could search the car.
Robinette agreed. The deputy found some
marijuana and a pill that appeared to be a
controlled substance, and he arrested Robinette.
Robinette pleaded
NO CONTEST and was found

guilty, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed
his conviction because he had been unlawfully
detained. The Ohio Supreme Court, citing the
FOURTH AMENDMENT, agreed and established the
bright line rule that claimed the police were
required to tell a citizen he was free to go before
they could obtain a voluntary search consent.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the
decision, concluding that the Fourth Amend-
ment had not been violated. Robinette had been
lawfully detained for speeding, and the deputy
had the right to ask him out of the car. As for
the bright line rule, the Court rejected that as
well. Under the Fourth Amendment, consent
to a search must be voluntary, but being told
one is free to go is not the sole criterion for
determining whether the search is voluntary.
Thus, the bright line established by the state
court was not valid. Interestingly, one justice
noted that the state court might have been able
to establish a valid bright line rule if it had based
the rule on state rather than federal law, since
states have the freedom to impose stricter
restrictions on police activity than the federal
government’s restrictions.
The case of
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
v. Christian Action Network 110 F. 3d. 1049
(4th Circuit 1997) upheld a bright line rule
established earlier that protects free speech. The

Federal Election Commission sued the Christian
Action Netwo rk for using its corporate funds to
pay for a television commercial that attacked
President
BILL CLINTON and Vice President AL GORE
for their support of GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS. Under
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it is
illegal for a corporation to use treasury funds to
campaign for or against a specific presidential
candidate. The U.S. Supre me Court later stated
that to ensure the law did not violate free speech,
it had to follow a bright line: As long as a
corporation did not use certain words in its
communications, those communications, were
protected and lawful. The words include “vote
for,”“vote against,”“cast your ballot,”“defeat,
reject,” and “support.”
None of the bright line words appeared in the
Christian Action Network’s commercial. It may
have been unwelcome and, for many, offensive,
but it did no t violate any election campaign
regulations. The bright line rules in this case
were established to ensure that there would be
no political
CENSORSHIP. The Supreme Court
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
128 BRIGHT LINE RULE
differentiated between speech that advocated
issues and speech that advocated election results.
FURTHER READINGS

Glaeser, Edward L., and Andrei Shleifer. 2002. “Legal
Origins.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Michaels, Dave. 2008. “Lawmakers Can Keep Ties to Stocks
Secret.” The Dallas Morning News (May 16). Available
online at />stock_ties; website home page
(accessed August 28, 2009).
O’Dell, Larry. 1996. “FEC Again Loses Case against Group
That Ran Ads on Clinton.” Virginian Pilot (August 4).
Schuff, Sally. 2008. “USDA Issues ‘Bright Line’ Rule.”
Feedstuffs 35 (September 1). Available online at http://
www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=
&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=
AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=
4&id=3716EB2936004322AFBD24311953432B; website
home page: (accessed August
28, 2009).
Willing, Richard. 2000. “Police to Get Broader Authority on
Stops.” USA Today (January 13).
BRING SUIT
To initiate legal proceedings; to start an action
for judicial relief.
Under federal and most state law, a suit is
commenced upon the filing of the first paper,
which is the co mplaint, with the court. Statutes
of limitations set forth time boundaries within
which an action must be brought.
BROADCASTING
As a verb, to transmit programs or signals
intended to be received by the public through
radio, television, or similar means. As a noun, the

radio, television, or other program received by
the public through the transmission.
In 1898 Guglielmo Marconi, a 24-year-old
Italian, began the world’s first commercial radio
service. For citizens of the United States, radio—
and later television—not only introduced an
abundance of entertainment and information,
it also raised many legal questions surrounding
its implementation and regulation. In radio’s
earliest days, stations all broadcast at the same
frequency; this situation posed problems be-
cause althoughsome statio ns agreed to share
their time, others attempted to broadcast
stronger signals over those of their competitors.
Problems continued even when stations began
to broadcast on separate frequencies. Because
broadcasting requires use of the airwaves for
the transmission of its signals, and because the
airwaves can carry only a limited number of
signals, it soon became
APPARENT that some
form of regulation was necessary. In 1927 the
Radio Act (47 U.S.C.A § 81 etseq.) became law,
and the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) was
created to police the broadcasting industry. Two
important tenets of broadcasting were intro-
duced by the law. The first was that stations must
broadcast “in the public interest, convenience, or
necessity.” The second was that the people, not
the radio stations, owned the airwaves. In its

efforts to see that the airwaves were used in the
appropriate manner, government regulation
faced obstacles as it attempted to ensure suitable
government-funded programming, appropriate
programming for children, and equal access to
broadcasting for minorities. Additional chal-
lenges were created by changing technology as
CABLE TELEVISION went underground and satellite
television took to outer space.
The History of Radio
In its infancy, broadcasting was much less
controversial. Experimental radio broadcasting
began in 1910 when Lee De Forest produced a
program from the Metropolitan Opera House in
New York City. Other experimental radio stations
were started at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison in 1915 and another in Wilkinsburg,
Pennsylvania, a suburban of Pittsburgh, in 1916.
Detroit radio station WWJ is considered
the first commercial radio station in the United
States. It began br oadcasting on August 20,
1920. Pittsburgh station KDKA grew out of the
Wilkinsburg experimental station. Its broadcast
President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt
delivers a 1935 radio
address, one of his
numerous “fireside
chats.” The term was
first used by a reporter

to describe a Roosevelt
radio address on May
7, 1933.
FRANKLIN DELANO
ROOSEVELT LIBRARY
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
BROADCASTING 129
of the 1920 presidential election results on
November 2, 1920, is generally considered to
have been the beginning of professional broad-
casting. Although fewer than 1,000 receivers
were tuned in, the excitement of the event
created great publicity.
Stations soon started appearing in all parts
of the United States. By the end of 1924, 583
radio stations were transmitting, and more than
3 million receivers were tuned in. These stations
transmitted radio signals using amplitude mod-
ulation, the abbreviation of the term becoming
the general category AM radio. AM broadcasts
can be received at great distances because the
radio transmissions bounce off the atmosphere
and reach beyond the curve of the earth.
However, AM signals are affected by static, thus
reducing sound fidelity.
Radio established itself as a national medi-
um with the creation of the first radio network
in 1926. In that year, the National Broadcasting
Company (NBC), led by David Sarnoff, head

of its
PARENT COMPANY, Radio Corporation of
America, presented its first national broadcast.
Radio stations around the country entered into
contracts with NBC that allowed them to receive
an audio feed through a telephone line, which
was then broadcast by the station’sradio
transmitter. Apart from creating a national radio
audience, NBC also introduced the financial
cornerstone of commercial radio: networks and
local stations would support themselves by
selling advertising time. The success of NBC
led to the creation of the Columbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), led by William Paley.
The success of radio produced problems as
well. There was competition for frequencies and
increased transmission power. The strongest
AM stations have a power of 50,000 watts. At
this strength, a station can be heard at night
up to 1,000 miles away. The least powerful AM
stations operate at 250 watts, which usually limits
their range to one or two towns. Unregulated
growth of the radio industry led in 1934 to the
passage of the Communications Act (40U.S.C.A.
§ 791). This act created the Federal Commu-
nications Commission (FCC), which replaced
the FRC. The FCC began regulating broadcast-
ing content. In the 1930s it banned over-the-
air advertisement of hard liquor and lotteries.
The period from 1925 to 1950 has been

called the “Golden Age of Radio.” During this
period, radio was a major source of family
entertainment. Every night, families would
gather around the radio and listen to news,
music, comedies, and adventure dramas. Serial-
ized stories aimed mainly at women, dubbed
“soap operas,” became popular. They were
called soap operas because they were initially
sponsored by soap companies. President
FRANKLIN
ROOSEVELT
became the first president to under-
stand the power of radio. He regularly conducted
“fireside chats” over the radio between 1933 and
1945. These informal talks helped Roosevelt gain
support for his policies.
The importance of radio as a national
medium was reinforced during
WORLD WAR II.
Edward R. Murrow became a national figure
when he broadcast from London during the early
years of the war. Following the U.S. entrance
into the war in December 1941, millions of
Americans turned to the radio every day to hear
the latest war news.
The popularity of radio conti nued into the
late 1940s until the beginning of television
signaled radio’s rapid demise as the major
source of home entertainment. The popularity
of television was so great and so sudden that

ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY PER-
MISSION OF GALE, A
PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
Use of Broadcast Media, 1980 to 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1980 1990 1995 2000 2006
Year
Percentage of U.S. households using selected media
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of
the United States: 2009.
Radio
Television
Telephone servic
e
VCR Wired cable television service
Alternate cable delivery systems
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

130 BROADCASTING
the FCC had to put a temporary freeze on the
granting of license s, as the number of available
broadcast channels was limited. As soon as the
freeze was lifted, radio began to lose advertisers
to the new medium. Network radio was nearly
dead by the early 1950s because all of its greatest
stars had moved their program s to television.
NBC and CBS quickly shifted their focus to
the creation of television networks.
Faced with this sudden change, AM radio
developed new formats. Music stations began
to specialize in top 40 hits in popular music,
country music, and rhythm and blues music. By
the 1990s, talk radio had become a popular and
profitable format, making national celebrities of
political commentator Rush Limbaugh and
“shock jocks” Howard Stern and Don Imus.
Stern and Imus received the shock jock
designation as a result of their raunchy and
outrageous behavior on the air.
Radio broadcasting experienced new growth
in the 1960s and 1970s with the licensing of
many FM radio stations. FM stations transmit
radio signals by frequency modulation, hence the
initials, FM. FM waves do not travel as far as
AM waves, but they are not affected by static as
much as AM waves. In addition, FM signals
produce a much truer reproduction of sound.
Since the late 1950s, FM stations have had the

ability to broadcast in stereo. This development
was a factor in the growth of the popularity of
FM stations. Music from records and
COMPACT
discs can be transmitted in high fidelity.
Despite the dominance of television, radio
continues to play a major role in broadcasting.
More than 10,000 radio stations were broad-
casting in the United States by at the end of the
twentieth century.
The FCC continues to serve numerous roles
in the radio broadcasting industry. It processes
license applications, assigns frequencies and call
signs, conducts hearings, enforces regulations,
licenses radio operators, and carries out the
provisions of the Communications Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the
FCC’s right to police the airwaves for
OBSCENE
material. In FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct.
3026, L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978), a New York radio
station owned by the Pacifica Foundation
broadcast comedian George Carlin’s monologue
on the “seven dirty words you can’t say on the
radio.” When a listener complained to the FCC
that he had heard the monologue in his car
while his young son was present, the FCC
investigated. Although it imposed no formal
SANCTION, the FCC indicated that the complaint

would be placed in the station’s license file. If
any subsequent complaints were received, the
commission stated that it would then decide
whether any sanctions would be applied. One
potential sanction was the loss of the station’s
license, when it came up for renewal in three
years.
Justice
JOHN PAUL STEVENS,writingforthe
majority, noted that the “broadcast media have
established a uniquely pervasive presence in the
lives of all Americans.” Offensive material over
the airwaves “confronts the citizen, not only in
public, but also in the privacy of the home,
where individuals’ right to be left alone plainly
outweighs the
FIRST AMENDMENT rights of an
intruder.” In addition, broadcasting is “uniquely
accessible to children, even those too young to
read.” Thus, the Court ruled that the FCC had
the constitutional right to take the action it did.
In 1987 the FCC demonstrated its continu-
ing interest in preventing the radio broadcast of
indecent or obscene language when it threat-
ened not to renew the licenses of several radio
stations in New York and California that were
engaged in “shock radio.” The talk programs,
including one by Howard Stern, were inten-
tionally controversial and given to large doses of
PROFANITY and sexual innuendo. Although the

FCC’s threats made headlines, there was little
talk of challenging the agency’s regulations.
The FCC had a hand in the growth of
political talk radio shows such as Rush Lim-
baugh’s when it repealed the “fairness doctrine”
in 1987. Since 1934 the FCC had required
broadcasters to devote a reasonable proportion
of their airtime to discussion of important
public issues. Until 1987 the FCC had inter-
preted this doctrine to require broadcasters who
ran editorials that criticized specific persons to
provide notice to the persons involved and
airtime for rebuttal.
The Supreme Court upheld the
FAIRNESS
DOCTRINE
as a reasonable balance between the
PUBLIC INTEREST in hearing various points of view
and the broadcaster’s interests in free expres-
sion. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 89
S. Ct. 1794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969). Neverthe-
less, the doctrine remained controversial until
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BROADCASTING 131
its repeal. Freed from this doctrine, radio show
hosts such as Limbaugh were free to criticize
public figures without having to give them
airtime to respond.
Although a radio license is considered

property, a license does not have a constitutional
right to a radio license, nor does a licensee obtain
a vested interest in any frequency. The FCC
continues to consider all applications for a
licensee to use a radio frequency. Both new
applicants and applicants seeking to renew their
licenses must demonstrate to the FCC that the
issuance or renewal of the license will serve the
public interest.
Congress has retained the right, through the
FCC, to deny licenses or to eliminate existing
radio stations. The FCC may eliminate a station
upon a showing that the station engaged in
misconduct, such as attempts to bribe an official
of the FCC. The commission may also eliminate
stations in order to allocate licenses fairly and
equitably, as well as for considerations related
to wavelengths, times of operation, and the
relative power of stations among various states.
The History of Television
In 1928 General Electric (GE) displayed the first
presentation on a television, but it was quite
some time befor e the invention became a
practical reality. The 1930s brought an excite-
ment to those condu cting experiments on the
new technology. They predicted that television
would be as much a part of the life of the United
States as radio had become.
In 1939 the National Broadcasting Company
(NBC) brought television to the world during

the New York World’s Fair, and on February 1,
1940, it conducted the first official network
television broadcast in the United States. In
1941 the FCC officially authorized commercial
television, transferred television sound from
AM to FM, and increased the resolution
standards for broadcasts. By 1948 a total of 36
television stations were broadcasting, and more
than 1 million television sets were receiving. So
many applications for new stations were coming
in to the FCC that a freeze on requests was
instituted. In 1952 the freeze was lifted, and 70
ultrahigh-frequency (UHF) channels were added
to those already available. By 1953 nearly 400
stations were providing coverage to nearly 90
percent of the United States; no medium in
history could compare to television in its
record-breaking implementation.
The Future of Radio and Television
As the popularity of television and radio
continues to grow, controversy and concern
continue to surround their implem entation and
worth. Issues range from government regula-
tion to suitable or ethical content. The future of
the broadcast industry is in the hands of the
courts and the government as they seek to
determine the best possible means of making
the broadcast media serve the needs of the
society that has grown to depend on them.
Cable Television

Communications technology advanced again
when cable television joined traditional broad-
cast radio and television. Cable television, or
community antenna television (CATV), pro-
vides a means for otherwise inaccessible areas to
receive broadcast signals that are in some way
impeded. The FCC claimed authority over the
regulation of cable television in 1966. The claim
of this authority was challenged, but in 1968 it
was upheld by the Supreme Court (United
States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157,
88 S. Ct. 1994, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1001).
Dealing with cable television has proved to
be controversial. The standards that were
originally establis hed in the Commun ications
Act apply to broadcast television; cable televi-
sion is not broadcast across the airwaves—it is
transmitted through coaxial cable that may b e
able to carry more than 200 channels. Because of
this fact, some argue that cable television should
be treated more like print media, such as
newspapers and magazines, than like broadcast
television. Because cable operators select the
channels that they carry, they argue that they
should be treated as “electronic publishers.”
Such distinctions are significant because the
U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First
Amendment will tolerate more government
regulation of the broadcast media than of the
print media because the physical capacity of the

airwaves is limited and cannot accommodate all
the existing demand (FCC v. National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 98 S.
Ct. 2096, 56 L. Ed. 2d 697 [1978]). In other
words, without regulation, the competing voices
on the airwaves would drown each other out.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
132 BROADCASTING
In one form or another, government regula-
tion is involved in two issues concerning cable
television. One issue is whether cities may limit
access to all or part of their territory to a single
cable supplier. Many cities have granted what
are essentially monopoly franchises, and this
practice has been challenged by cable suppliers
who argue that disallowing them a franchise
interferes with their free speech rights.
The cable franchise system that exists for
cable operators was approved by Congress in
1984 in the Cable Communications Policy
Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 21; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511; 46
U.S.C.A. §§ 484–487; 47 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seq.).
This act attempted to balance the interests of
cable operators, who wanted less regulation, with
the public-policy concerns of the cities, which
wanted guarantees that poorer neighborhoods
would be wired for cable and that educational
and government programming would not be
neglected.
Under 47 U.S.C.A . §§ 541–543, a franchis-

ing authority—usually a city or county—may
award one or more franchises within its
jurisdiction; in practice, most have chosen
one. Franchising authorities are authorized to
require cable operators to reserve channel space
for public, educational, and government use.
Operators may also be required to make space
available for
LEASE for commercial use by
persons not affiliated with the operator.
This system of franchising has been attacked
from both sides. Some operators have become
upset when their applications for franchises
were denied in areas where other operators had
established franchises. The public has also been
concerned over the monopolistic nature of cable
operators. Arguments often revolve around the
issue of cable rates; competition among cable
operators, it is argued, would also lead to
competitive pricing of services. Despite this
argument, very few franchising authoritie s
choose to offer more than a single cable
operator to an area’s residents.
The second issue surrounding the regulation
of cable television is whether the FCC’s “must-
carry” rules, which require a cable operator to
carry all local television stations, violate the First
Amendment. The must-carry rules were insti-
tuted in an effort to ensure that cable television
would not undermine the financial viability of

free community-oriented television by attract-
ing so many viewers away from local broadcast
television stations that the advertising revenues
of those stations would plummet. In 1984, a
federal appeals court held that the must-carry
rules violated the First Amendment (Quincy
Cable TV v. FCC, 768 F. 2d 1434 [D.C. Cir.
1985]). The Supreme Court denied review of
the case, and the FCC eliminated the must-
carry rules.
The must-carry rules were problematic for
one main reason: although most cable operators
have the ability to carry many hundreds of
channels, some can carry only a dozen. Requir-
ing the latter to carry all local stations severely
limited their ability to attract subscribers.
Operators also argued that being forced to carry
all local broadcasts caused cable systems to
become saturated and deprived cable program-
mers of opportunities to sell their services.
Satellite Broadcasting
The new technology of direct-broadcast satellite
television is replacing transmission over the
airwaves with transmission by satellite signals
beamed to the home from space. Like cable
television, despite its separation from conven-
tional airwave broadcasting, the new technology
has generated legal controversy.
To maintain constant, direct contact be-
tween itself and the recipients of its signals, a

satellite must hold a geostationary orbit directly
above Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,300
miles. (A geostationary orbit is an orbit that
keeps the satellite’s position fixed with respect
to Earth.) The controversy surrounding satellite
broadcasting comes not from any limit on the
number of signals it can send but instead from
the physical limitation of these geostationary
orbits.
The world saw its first geostationary satellite
launched by the United States in 1963; as of
1992, the United States had 30 geostationary
satellites orbiting Earth. By the mid-1980s the
United States and other developed countries
were quickly filling the equatorial orbit with
satellites. Many developing countries feared that
by the time they had developed the technology
to put up their own satellites, the zone of
geostationary orbit in space would be filled, and
they would be forced to buy broadcast time
from countries owning satellites that were
already in orbit. In 1985 the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of
the United Nations, established new procedures
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BROADCASTING 133
that would represent the interests of these
developing countries.
The ITU originally established a first-come,
first-serve policy regarding the assignment of

geostationary orbits. The World Administrative
Radio Confe rence of 1985 upheld the continua-
tion of this policy but also voted to guarantee at
least one geostationary orbit to each country
that was a member of the ITU. The decisions of
the 1985 conference were finalized by another
session in 1988. Although these decisions
supported the interests of the United States in
part—it could continue filling geostationary
orbits—they caused concern for the FCC. The
satellite technology of the United States would
not, after all, be allowed to grow unchecked.
Orbits that the United States had once assumed
would be its to use were reallocated to other
countries. The decisions of the World Adminis-
trative Radio Conferences of the 1980s gave
the FCC even greater cause for regulating the
broadcast industry within the United States and
for being more selective about who is granted
geostationary orbits and a piece of a broadcast
industry.
Public Broadcasting
Besides investigating developing technologies,
the government and the FCC find themselves
revisiting issues that have received attention
from Congress, the broadcasting industry, and
the public. One such issue is public television.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB) was established in 1967 as the official,
nongovernment allocator of federal money to

public television and radio stations across the
United States. In 1992, less than 30 years after
its creation, the corporation became a political
issue for conservatives who objected to the
content and perceived philosophy of public
programming and to its partial reliance on U.S.
tax dollars.
The attacks began after the House of
Representatives approved a bill in December
1991 that would increase spending for the
corporation from $825 million to $1.1billion
over a three-year period (H.R. Res. 2977, 102d
Congress, 1st Sess.[1991]). (The bill was also
passed by the Senate and signed into law in
August 1992.) Political conservatives claimed
that public broadcasting had a liberal
BIAS,a
bloated budget, and offensive programming.
Complaints ranged from protests about two
frank Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) specials
on homosexuality, Tongues Untied and The
Lost Language of the Cranes, to a claim that the
Children’s Television Network program Sesame
Street was educationally ineffective and no
better than network cartoons.
Public broadcasting claimed that without
federal funding through the CPB, its more than
1,000 television and radio stations would cease
to exist. Most experts agree that this is not true.
Only 14 percent of the operating costs fo r

public broadcasting is supplied by the federal
government; the remainder comes from cor-
porations, member donations, and other sources.
In 1995 the CPB allocated $285.6 million to
public broadcasting, and since 1968 Congress
has budgeted more than $4 billion to that
concern. Yet, if these funds were cut off, public
broadcasting, although wounded, probably
would survive. Polls showed that most people
like public television and want it to continue,
but as opposition gathers in Congress and the
Senate, it appears that if public broadcasting is to
continue, it may have to do so without federal
funding.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Congress overhauled the TELECOMMUNICATIONS
industry in 1996 with the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-104,110 Stat. 56 (47 U.S.C.A. §§151 et
seq.). This statute made a number of major
changes to laws governing the telecommunica-
tions industry. Among these were deregulatory
measures, including provisions allowing local
phone companies, long-distance companies,
and cable companies to compete over the same
services. Another provision requires television
manufacturers to include circuitry that allows
parents to screen out programming they do not
wish their children to view, such as programs
featuring violence.

Congress intended for the act to facilitate
competition in a variety of areas of the tele-
communications market. Several of its provi-
sions have failed. Rival telecommunications
companies did not immediately enter each
other’s markets, so consumers did not receive
cost-savings benefits caused by the competition.
FCC deregulation rules, according to many
commentators, have been obscure and ineffec-
tive, leading to several court challenges. Many of
the problems have involved local and long-
distance telephone companies, some of which
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
134 BROADCASTING
have begun to offer “package” deals with local
telephone use, long-distance plans, and Internet
access.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
also been the subject of several court challenges.
Title V of the Telecommunications Act, the
Communications Decency Act of 1996, sought
to protect minors from exposure to indecent
materials transmitted over the Internet. The
Supreme Court, in a highly debated case, struck
down most of those provisions on First
Amendment grounds in Reno v. American Civil
Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329,
138 L. Ed. 2d 874(1997). The Telecommunica-
tions Act also included so-called “signalbleed”
provisions, requiring cable operators either to

scramble channels containing sexually explicit
materials or to limit programming on these
channels to certain hours. The Supreme Court
likewise struck down these requirements as
impermissible content-based restrictions in
violation of the First Amendment in United
States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529
U.S. 803, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865
(2000).
Also under the Telecommunications Act,
the FCC is required to review its broadcast
ownership rules every two years to determine
“whether any of such rules are necessary in the
public interest as a result of competition.” If any
regulation is no longer in the public interest, the
Act requires the FCC to rep eal or mod ify it.
In June 2003, the FCC issued its Report and
Order, following the most comprehensive
review of media ownership regulations in the
agency’s history, along with a public record of
more than 520,000 comments. In summary, the
two most controversial new rules, adopted by a
3-2 vote, relaxed previous rules regarding the
number of local television and radio stations
one compan y could own (increased), and how
much of the listening/viewing public market
one company could reach (45 percent, up from
35 percent). The most palpable effect of this on
the general public was a perceived loss of
“localism,” potentially caused by large

CONGLOM-
ERATE
media owners (with syndicated news and
programming) buying out small, independent
local station owners.
From grass-roots groups to Democratic and
Republican politicians alike, the greatest obje c-
tion to the new FCC rules was that they would
make the handful of media giants even more
powerful. Among other concerns (e.g., limited
local voice), smaller, independent stations could
not compete with advertising, purchasing pro-
gramming, or operation costs.
Six conglomerates basically controlled the
mass media/mass communications market.
They were (1) Viacom-CBS-MTV; (2) FoxTV-
Murdoch-HarperCollins-WeeklyStandard-New
YorkPost-LondonTimes-DirecTV; (3) Time-
Warner-CNN-AOL; (4) Disney-ABC-ESPN;
(5) G.E NBC-Universal Studios-Vivendi; and
(6) Comcast, the largest cable company. (In
February 2004, Comcast bid to take over Disney
in a $66 billion deal, resulting in the not-so-
endearing reference by many industry-watchers
to the above conglomerates as “the five sisters”)
The new FCC rules continued to exempt
cable companies from the “common carrier”
rules that governed telephone companies be-
cause cable companies did not rely on public
airwaves. This effectively allowed them to

circumvent requirements to open their systems
to competing broadband-Internet providers,
and also largely exempted them from media
ownership rules.
The new rules also modified the local radio
ownership rule by revising the local rad io
market definition. It replaced its signal contour
method of defining local radio markets with a
geographic market approach. Radio ownership
caps remained at the previous levels.
Finally, the new rules changed the “cross-
media” limitations to a single limit for both
radio/television and newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownerships. Under the new rules, a company
could own a newspaper and radio or television
station in the same market. In smaller commu-
nities, companies could own two television
stations in the same market, and in large cities,
they could own three television stations.
In May 2008, the Senate overwhelmingly
voted to overturn FCC’s media ownership rule.
Conversion to Digital Signal
By far the most wide-sweeping change to
television broadcasting in many years has be en
the conversion from analog to digital signals.
Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-171) mandated that by 2009 all free
local television stations were required to turn
off their analog channels (originally slated for
a February 18, 2009 deadline) and continue

broadcasting only in digital format. In order for
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BROADCASTING 135
non-cable or satellite television viewers to
continue watching television, three choices were
available. They could purchase new televisions
formatted for digital signals (DTVs); attach their
old analog televisions to a converter box (similar
to the old cable boxes that sat on the tops of
televisions) to receive the new signal; or purchase
cable or satellite television broadcasting.
In order to assist with the transition, the
DTV Transition Assistance Act, P.L. 110-295,
authorized funds to eligible low-power televi-
sion stations toward purchase of digital-to-
analog conversion devices. It further offered
assistance to consumers, originally proposed as
rebates, but later in the form of credit- card-like
coupons that would substantially reduce the
cost of purchasing a converter box from retail
enterprises at the time of sale.
Despite three years of preparation and
publicizing, it became increasingly evident that
insufficient numbers of U.S. consumers would
be prepared for the transition by the February
deadline date, which was then revised to become
effective on June 12, 2009. A massive public
information campaign was launched, and on
June 12, analog television became history.
Children

There are concerns surrounding children and
television other than whether Big Bird can
survive without federal support. Radio and
television reach no audience more impression-
able than a country’s youth, and many contro-
versies surround the exposure of children to
sex and violence on television.
Another perennial issue of concern for
parents and others is the amount of exposure
children have to television; time spent in front
of the television might be better spent exercising
the body and the mind. It is frequently argued
that not enough educational programming is
available to children. Since the inception of
broadcast programming, education has always
been considered an important aspect of it. The
Children’s Television Act (47 U.S.C.A. § 303a
et seq.) was enacted in 1990 in an effort to put
more educational program ming on television.
The response of broadcasters has been sluggish,
prompting a harsh hearing before Congress in
1993. Despite this legislation, some maintain
that next to nothing has been done to remedy
the quality of children’s television, which House
Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman
Edward J. Markey (D-MA) referred to as“the
video equivalent of a Twinkie.”
Minorities
As of 1978, only one percent of all radio and
television stations in the United States were run

by minorities. In an attempt to diversify
broadcasting, the FCC adopted rules that year
giving preferential treatment to minoriti es
regarding applications for new station licenses
and in taking over failed stations (47 U.S.C.A. §
309). During the Reagan administration, this
reform was nearly defeated, but Congress
saved it. Again, during the George H. W. Bush
administration, an attempt to stop the FCC was
launched, this time when the Justice Depart-
ment asked the Supreme Court to rule against
the new FCC guidelines. The effort to block
reform met its final failure in 1990, when the
Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to uphold the
constitutionality of race-based licensing. The
Court held that such affirmative action is
allowable in the broadcasting market if its
purpose is to “serve important governmental
objectives” (Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. F.C.C.,
497 U.S. 547, 110 S. Ct. 2997, 111 L.Ed. 2d 445).
Still, by 1990 fewer than five percent of all radio
and televi sion licenses were held by minorities.
Equal opportunity employment has also
become a very important consideration in the
process of renewing broadcasting licenses. The
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (
NAACP) reviews all applications
closely to ensure that radio and television
stations have provided an opportunity for the

employment of minority groups. If any party,
such as the NAACP, calls into question the
practices of a station, a
PETITION to deny can be
filed. If the station cannot provide proof of
compliance with equal opportunity standards,
it can be denied renewal of its license.
FURTHER READINGS
Carter, T. Barton et al. 2000. Mass Communications Law in
a Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.:West.
Federal Communications Commission. 2009. “Recent
Actions.” Available online at />ership/actions.html; website home page:
.gov/ (accessed September 20, 2009)
Flint, Joe. 1993. “Congress’ Message to Broadcasters: Get
Your Children’s Act Together (House Telecommunica-
tions Subcommittee Hearings).” Broadcasting and Cable
(March15).
Jessell, Harry A. 1995. “Compliance Pays Off at License
Renewal Time, Lawyers Say.” Broadcasting and Cable
(April 17).
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
136 BROADCASTING
———. 1990. “FCC Begins to Implement Children’sTV
Law (Federal Communications Commission on Chil-
dren’s Television).” Broadcasting and Cable (October29).
Lively, Donald. E. et al. 1997. Communications Law: Media,
Entertainment, and Regulation. Cincinnati, OH:Ander-
son.
Straubel, Michael S. 1992. “Telecommunication Satellites
and Market Forces: How Should the Geostationary

Orbit Be Regulated by theFCC?” North Carolina Journal
of International Law and Commercial Regulation 17
(winter).
CROSS REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union; Cable Television; Censor-
ship; Courtroom Television Network; Fairness Doctrine;
Federal Communications Commission; First Amendment;
Freedom of Speech; Mass Communications Law; Telecom-
munications; Television.
v
BROADHEAD, JAMES OVERTON
James Overton Broadhead was born May 29,
1819, in Charlottesville, Virginia. He attended
the University of Virginia from 1835 to 1836,
studied law in St. Louis, Missouri, and received
his license and established his law practice in
Bowling Green, Missouri, in 1842.
In 1845 Broadhead began his political career
as a member of the Missouri Constitutional
Convention. In the following year he participat-
ed in the Missouri House of Representatives,
and in 1850 became a member of the Missouri
Senate, serving until 1853. Broadhead returned
to the
PRACTICE OF LAW, becoming a partner in a
St. Louis firm in 1859.
During the pre-Civil War era, Broadhead
participated in activities that opposed the
Southern cause. He was instrumental in the
formation of the Committee of Safety, which

restricted the i nfluence of pro-Southern fac-
tions in St. Louis, and in 1861 was a member
of the Missouri Constitutional Convention,
which declared the loyalty of Missouri to the
Union.
In 1875 Broadhead attended the Missouri
State Constitutional Convention, and in 1876
he gained prominence as government counsel
for the Whiskey Ring cases, which involved
BRIBERY and dishonesty in the collection of
exorbitant liquor taxes.
From 1883 to 1885, Broadhead represented
Missouri in the U.S. House of Representatives,
and was a member of the Judiciary Committee.
During his later years, he served abroad, acting
first as special
COMMISSIONER to France in 1885,
and later as minister to Switzerland for a two-
year period. Broadhead died August 7, 1898, in
St. Louis.
BROKER
A broker is an individual or firm employed by
others to plan and organize sales or negotiate
contracts for a commission.
Brokers arrange contracts for property in
which they have no personal interest, posses-
sion, or concern. The broker is an intermediary
or negotiator in the contracting of any type of
bargain, acting as an agent for parties who wish
to buy or sell stocks,

BONDS, real or PERSONAL
PROPERTY
, commodities, or services. Rules appli-
cable to agency are generally relevant to most
transactions involving brokers. The client is
considered the principal, and the broker acts as
the client’s agent. An agent’s powers generally
extend beyond those of a broker. A distinguish-
ing feature between an agent and a broker is
that a broker acts as a middleperson. When
broker arrange a sale, they serve as agents of
both parties.
James Overton Broadhead 1819–1898
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1819 Born,
Charlottesville, Va.
1835–36 Attended
University of
Virginia
1842
Established
law practice

in Missouri
1845 Participated in Missouri
Constitutional Convention
1846 Member of Mo.
House of Representatives
1850
Member
of Mo.
Senate
1853
Returned
to private
practice
1861–65
U.S. Civil War
1875 Member of Missouri
State Constitutional
Convention
1883–85 Served
in U.S. House of
Representatives
1876 Served as government
counsel in Whiskey Ring cases
1898 Died,
St. Louis, Mo.
▼▼
▼▼
1825
1800
1850

1875
1900
IF EVERY
A
MERICAN CITIZEN
WOULD PERFORM THE
DUTIES OF A CITIZEN
THERE WOULD BE
NO OCCASION OF
INVOKING THE
STRONG ARM OF
ARBITRARY POWER TO
PROTECT A PERSON
OR HIS PROPERTY
.
—JAMES BROADHEAD
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BROKER 137