{"id":17,"date":"2015-06-01T17:45:02","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T17:45:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=17"},"modified":"2026-01-06T11:02:24","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T11:02:24","slug":"intro","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intro\/","title":{"rendered":"1.1 INTRODUCTION TO MEDIA LAW"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

Freedom,<\/strong> human rights, and social responsibilities —\u00a0 These are the great ideals that are central to state, national, and\u00a0 international systems of laws governing and protecting the aspirations of all humanity.\u00a0 And they are the themes of this\u00a0course in communications law and ethics.<\/p>\n

Here we begin a fascinating and challenging journey to examine what is, in effect, the world’s greatest experiment —\u00a0 which we trust (as Thomas Jefferson once said)\u00a0 “will end in establishing the fact that man may be governed by reason and truth.”<\/em><\/p>\n

At this moment in human history, few would claim that the fact is established or that the experiment has been\u00a0 successful.\u00a0 As it turns out, being governed by reason and truth is not easy in practice.<\/p>\n

This brings us to the need for wide\u00a0 understanding of communications law. How do we grasp\u00a0 the structures and\u00a0 principles of law that balance competing views and interests?\u00a0 How do we protect individual freedom of religion, speech and press while, at the same time, ensuring a socially responsible\u00a0 structure that sustains these systems?<\/p>\n

The quality of life in modern civilization depends on the way we answer these question. Therefore we need an informed\u00a0 understanding of the professional, practical, and social issues that rise from our attempts to balance\u00a0 rights and responsibilities in communications law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\"\"Recognition of the inherent dignity, and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world … Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 1948.\u00a0<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.\u00a0 Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776\u00a0<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

<\/h5>\n

\"\"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety … That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them…\u00a0 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1776\u00a0<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

1.1.2 How WE STUDY MEDIA LAW<\/h3>\n

Understanding civics, law, and human rights, is a responsibility of American citizenship.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Americans, you have inherited a republic. It is your job to keep it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Just as the law protects your rights,\u00a0 you are expected to stand up for freedom of religion, speech and press and to stand against tyranny, censorship and intolerance,\u00a0 at home and worldwide.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

How we stand up for freedom, and how we reconcile our disagreements while acknowledging our doubts — as well as our debts to those who came before us — is the reason we study constitutional law.<\/p>\n

Respectful scholarship\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Democracy requires tolerance, and by the same token, universities are firmly based on respectful approaches to scholarship. This implies a positive attitude toward diversity of views and a tolerance of rational differences honestly expressed.<\/p>\n

However, respectful scholarship does not mean that we have to quietly tolerate hate speech or put up with intolerance of democracy itself. (This is a problem addressed by Karl Popper\u2019s Paradox of Tolerance<\/a>).<\/p>\n

1.1.3 Critical thinking<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The foundation for any study of law and legal systems is critical thinking.\u00a0 This involves careful judgement in evaluating facts, evidence, observations and arguments.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Benjamin Franklin<\/p><\/div>\n

You will want to understand some of the basic elements of critical thinking, such as:<\/p>\n

1. A lack of infallibility —\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>We all need a dash of humility in the way we judge other people and their opinions.\u00a0 In a democracy, no one can win\u00a0 every argument and every election.\u00a0 As Benjamin Franklin said in 1787,\u00a0 urging adoption of US Constitution :\u00a0 \u00a0“… I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.”\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

2. Deductive reasoning<\/strong> <\/em>\u2013 This is reasoning from a general rule (such as a Supreme Court decision) to a specific conclusion (such as how the rule should be applied in a particular case).\u00a0 In a common law system (such as the US, the UK and the Commonwealth Nations, among others) a court\u2019s legal precedent is part of the law.\u00a0 The precedent-setting or \u201ccontrolling\u201d higher court cases are those that set the rules for similar cases in the lower courts.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Example<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em> \u2014 Sherlock Holmes uses deductive reasoning to solve his cases.\u00a0 Readers may\u00a0 remember the case of Silver Blaze, in which a dog\u00a0 did not bark when a crime took place.\u00a0 Holmes was able to deduce that since the dog did not bark, it probably knew the person who was committing the crime. This narrowed the field of suspects.<\/p>\n

Reasoning by analogy.<\/strong><\/em> This is similar to deductive thinking, and just means that similar facts or principles or court decisions can help form a general rule that is likely to lead to similar conclusions. This is important when law students write briefs and cite cases to support a legal argument.<\/p>\n

Example\u00a0<\/em><\/strong> \u2014 When a civil lawsuit for defamation is filed in any US court, the facts of that case are compared with standards set in the New York Times v. Sullivan<\/a> case (1964).\u00a0 These Sullivan standards include a high bar for public figures who would like to sue their critics and the court’s acknowledgement of\u00a0 “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 Inductive reasoning<\/strong><\/em> – From specific to general \u2014\u00a0 Lawyers and judges often use inductive reasoning when they analyze a set of specific cases to develop a general legal rule.\u00a0 The idea is to gather facts and then apply them in formulating a theory.<\/p>\n

Example:<\/strong><\/em> If lower courts reach differing decisions concerning similar cases, a higher court may need to consider the specific facts and the various philosophies of law (jurisprudence) and then create a new general rule.<\/p>\n

4. Awareness of logical fallacies<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0 — Most students are exposed to logical fallacies in basic courses. Among these fallacies are:\u00a0 \u00a0ad hominem\u00a0 attack, slippery slope, hasty generalization, straw man, smoke screen, post hoc ergo propter hoc, bandwagon, transfer, false dilemma , begging the question, testimonial, name calling, false authority, appeal to ignorance (in both the skeptic\u2019s form and the true believer\u2019s form), poisoning the well, non-sequitur, loaded language, plain folk, appeal to the people, appeal to fear, appeal to guilt, guilt by association.<\/p>\n

Another is the inductive fallacy, in which specific observations may be used to justify a theory that doesn’t take all facts into account.<\/p>\n

Example:<\/em><\/strong> If one sees only black crows, one may suspect that all crows are black.\u00a0 (In fact, there are albino crows).<\/p>\n

5. Jurisprudence — Theory and philosophy of law\u00a0 \u00a0 — <\/strong><\/em>In a democracy, theories of law and justice are subjects of constant debate.\u00a0 For example, do we favor the original intent of the framers of the constitution or are we more concerned with adapting the constitution to modern circumstances and changing social morays?\u00a0 In communications law, how do we balance the individual’s right of\u00a0 privacy against the social value of freedom of speech and press?<\/p>\n

Legal epistemology <\/strong><\/em>is a branch of jurisprudence in which we ask how\u00a0 we understand and evaluate the sources and reliability of the information we use.\u00a0 The question ranges from basic legal research methods to questions of who and what is included (or not included) in the way we understand justice.<\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

FURTHER\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n