StudentShare solutions
Triangle menu

Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S. 727 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S - Essay Example

Nobody downloaded yet

Extract of sample
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S. 727 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S

In this Act, section 10 (a) and (c) allowed television program operator to forbid or deny broadcasting a program that it practically trusts portrays sexual activities or organs in a patently offensive way. On the other hand, section 10 (b) required the operators to distinguish a “patently belligerent” programming, block it and unblock it within 30 days of the viewer’s request (Breyer et al. 1). The appeal’s court held that the three sections were coherent with the First Amendment. The ruling was acknowledged in part and reversed in part. The court issued the opinion resolving that § 10(b) infringes the first modification. The sections’ “distinguish and block” requisites have understandable language obstructive upshots for subscribers, who cannot view telecasts distinguished on the “patently belligerent” channel devoid of significant prior planning. Additionally, the judge held that section 10 (b) was not properly designed to attain its primary goal of protecting the children from disclosure to “patently offensive” telecasts (Breyer et al. 1). The case number 98-1682, United States, et al., the Appellants, vs. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., the Defendant, was argued from November 30, 1999 and decided on May 22, 2000. In this case, the Appellant, United States filed a direct appeal pursuant to section 561 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996. In the prior history of this case, the Appellee, Playboy Entertainment Group, challenged the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by asserting that section 505 was an unreasonably limiting content-oriented statute offensive of the First Amendment. In its previous ruling, the court held that section 505 infringes the First Amendment. This case signified a contest to the §505 of the Telecommunications Act 1996, Pub. L. 104-104. This section necessitates cable television operators who offer telecasts “primarily committed to sexually-oriented programming” either fully block or scramble the broadcasts or restrict their broadcast to a time when children are not probable to be watching preferably between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. In order to conform to this directive, most of the cable operators implemented the second time broadcasting approach. The upshot of the extensive implementation of the time broadcasting was to do away with the broadcasting of the targeted programming exterior to the shark repellent period in affected cable service parts. In this case, no household would receive this type of programs for two third of the hours of the day. In the appeal case, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed its earlier decision. In the Denver Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc, et al., vs. Federal Communications Commission et al. case, the court noted that Section 10 (b) infringes the First Amendment. The court noted that tis section had speech limiting effects on the subscribers and that it was not appropriately designed to protect children from “patently offensive” materials. A close examination of section 10 (a) depicted that the statute appropriately addresses a severe issue without inflicting unnecessary limitation on speech (Breyer et al. 1). The appellant’s dependence on the court’s “public form” is ineffective. It is needless and uninformed to decide on how to use the public forum principle to ...Show more
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
(“Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from
(Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium V FCC, 518 U.S Essay)
“Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium V FCC, 518 U.S Essay”, n.d.
  • Cited: 0 times


Subject: Case Review The case number 95-124, Denver Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Federal Communications Commission et al., Appellee, was argued from February 21, 1996 and decided on June 28, 1996…
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S. 727 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S
Read Text Preview
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S. 727 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S"
with a personal 20% discount.
Grab the best paper

Check these samples - they also fit your topic

United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez There are many reasons attributed to students who carry handguns in school. Since individual risk factors play a big role, therefore many students carry handguns for self-protection. Racism and gender also are contributing factors, as it has been seen that black students are more likely to carry weapons in schools than white students, and boys are more inclined to possess firearms compared to girls.
3 pages (750 words) Essay
Nixon v United States
He equates oversight with lawmaking, which was usually seen as the supreme function of the legislature. President Nixon’s resignation of August 9th, 1974 brought he entire episode of impeachment to an end. But, this did not mark the end of the innumerable questions and
2 pages (500 words) Essay
Weeks v. United States
If it is determined that any evidence submitted against a citizen has been unlawfully obtained, such evidence will be found inadmissible in court. Take for example, the case of Weeks vs. U.S (1914). Weeks had been convicted of a crime due to evidence that had been
2 pages (500 words) Essay
United States v. OHagan
Also, because O’Hagan was someway associated with the law firm that was involved in the takeover process, even he is considered almost like an insider that acquired non-public information. He tried to take advantage of this non-public
2 pages (500 words) Essay
United States v. Angevine
Equipments such as computers, laptops, phones etc provided by the company accompany their usage regulations and are, thus, monitored for usage. All companies that provide such equipment to their employees also
2 pages (500 words) Essay
He was initially found guilty, but his defense counsel appealed the verdict by making a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence. They also made several allegations about prosecutorial misconduct that should negate the verdict. Over the course of
1 pages (250 words) Essay
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988)
olders have acted with fraud or unethically or when actions by an officer or shareholder has led to injury of a party and failing to establish a personal liability would hinder justice to the injured party. A corporation is the alter ego that the members use for personal gain
1 pages (250 words) Essay
United States v. Jones
e amendment, searches and seizure warrants are limited depending on the information made available to the court issuing the search and seizure warrants by an officer, who swears by the same (Wetterer 78). Aspects based on the fourth amendment forms the basis for the case between
4 pages (1000 words) Essay
United states v. ziegler
However, before sentencing Ziegler had tried to suppress the case by arguing that the evidence that was put before the court was un-procedurally collected. He argued that his right to privacy were violated and thus contravened the right
1 pages (250 words) Essay
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
According to the Amendment, a search shall only occur when there is probable cause that has support from an Oath or affirmation
2 pages (500 words) Essay
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment
Let us find you another Essay on topic Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v FCC, 518 U.S. 727 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S for FREE!
Contact us:
Contact Us Now
FREE Mobile Apps:
  • About StudentShare
  • Testimonials
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Free Essays
  • New Essays
  • Essays
  • The Newest Essay Topics
  • Index samples by all dates
Join us:
Contact Us