Television Violence: Hearing of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session, May 18, 1999U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001 - 124 strani |
Druge izdaje - Prikaži vse
Pogosti izrazi in povedi
adults aggressive behavior Amendment protection antisocial applied audience broadcast and cable broadcast indecency broadcast media cable television causal channels Commission Communications compelling interest concluded Cong CONGRESS THE LIBRARY constitutional constitutionally content-based regulations content-neutral D.C. Cir effects Eron exacting scrutiny Fairness Doctrine Federal Communications Commission Government's harm indecent broadcasts indecent material indecent programming indecent speech intermediate scrutiny Joseph Burstyn Krattenmaker & Powe least restrictive means legislation lence LIBRARY OF CONGRESS midnight must-carry narrowly tailored obscene Pacifica Pacifica Foundation petitioner portrayals of violence prohibition prong protecting children radio rating system reason regulation of television require safe harbor scarcity section 16(a Senator BURNS Senator HOLLINGS social societal violence statute supra note supra note 14 Supreme Court tele television programming television violence tion Turner Broadcasting System TV violence U.S. App V-chip viewers viewing violence hypothesis violence on television violent behavior violent programming
Priljubljeni odlomki
Stran 35 - that the First Amendment does "not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. >183
Stran 93 - as works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California, 413 US 15, 24, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 93 S. Ct. 2607 (1973).
Stran 110 - above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 US 92, 95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972).
Stran 102 - it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US 367, 390, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371, 89 S. Ct. 1794
Stran 111 - (1925) (striking state law requiring children to attend public schools as "interfering with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control"); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 401,
Stran 103 - If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397, 414, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989).
Stran 12 - [that is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality,
Stran 33 - any book, pamphlet, magazine, newspaper or other printed paper devoted to the publication, and principally made up of criminal news, police reports, or accounts of criminal deeds, or pictures, or stories of deeds of bloodshed, lust or crime.
Stran 14 - whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.
Stran 34 - (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts sexual conduct in a