But another part is normative do the benefits of informing the prospec tive

But another part is normative do the benefits of

This preview shows page 52 - 53 out of 120 pages.

curately characterized. But another part is normative: do the benefits of informing the prospec- tive ‘‘consumer’’ of speech about what that consumer will encounter outweigh the costs of lost surprise, often a key element in dramatic productions? 372 U.S. 58, 72 (1963). Like a time-channeling solution, any mandatory ratings scheme would suffer from all the problems of subjectivity and vagueness described in Part II(A), above, and would be unconstitutional on those grounds alone. Second, a mandatory ratings system would impermissibly force broadcasters, cable/satellite operators, and other content providers to attach to their television programming a message stating a government viewpoint about that programming, thus ‘‘[m]andating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make.’’ Riley v. Nat’l Federation of the Blind of N. Carolina, Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795 (1988). ‘‘[L]eading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.’’ Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1308 (2006). ‘‘[T]his general rule . . . applies not only to ex- pressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid.’’ Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573 (1995). Applying this rule, a plurality of the Su- preme Court in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986), struck down a regulation requiring a privately owned utility to include with its monthly bills a newsletter written by a consumer group critical of utilities. The plu- rality found that compelling the inclusion of this newsletter imposed an unconstitu- tional burden on the utility’s speech, since the regulation ‘‘impermissibly require[d] [the utility] to associate with speech with which [it] may disagree.’’ Id. at 15. Simi- larly, in Hurley, the organizers of a St. Patrick’s Day parade challenged a state stat- ute that required the organizers to include a gay, lesbian, and bisexual group in the parade. A unanimous Supreme Court found this application of state anti-discrimina- tion law unconstitutional. After holding that ‘‘[t]he selection of contingents to make a parade’’ is protected expression, 515 U.S. at 570, the Court held that, ‘‘[s]ince every participating unit affects the message conveyed by the private organizers, the state courts’ application of the statute produced an order essentially requiring peti- tioners to alter the expressive content of their parade.’’ Id. at 572–73. Such a re- quirement violated ‘‘the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.’’ Id. at 573. A mandatory ratings system would contravene this rule by requiring television content providers to attach to their programs a government-compelled message de- scribing—and most likely evaluating—the programs’ violent content. For example, content providers may be required to say that their program contains ‘‘violence inap-
Image of page 52
Image of page 53

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 120 pages?

  • Summer '16
  • Donna, Lloyd-Jones
  • Mass Communication, ........., senator, Media violence research

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes