When is Enough Too Much? The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 and the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition on Excessive Fines

The next slip of the tongue or of the blouse will hit broadcasters where it hurts: their wallet. With the recent passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ( BDEA ), Congress raised potential fines ten-fold in an attempt to clean up the airwaves and prevent the televised snafus that have occurred with increasing frequency during the past five years. From the broadcast of a barely covered breast during the 2004 Super Bowl to the on-air announcement of a four-letter expletive on a prime-time awards show, indecent expression has attracted the attention of the general public, advocacy groups, the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ), and even Capitol Hill. In 2004 alone, the FCC assessed more than $7.9 million in indecency fines, up from a mere$440,000 in fines in 2003. The cost of airing future indecent material increased exponentially when President George W. Bush signed the BDEA into law on June 15, 2006. Although the number of fines being issued had already increased, the FCC and a majority of Congress did not believe that the relatively low maximum fine per incident was enough to prevent multi-billion dollar broadcasters from choosing to air indecent content and pay what to them was a nominal fine. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, which had been floating around Capitol Hill in various iterations since November 2004, thus raised the maximum fine per violation ten-fold, from $32,500 to$325,000. Consequently, broadcasters now face liability of up to $3 million in indecency fines for one syndicated broadcast aired on multiple stations in multiple markets

When is Enough Too Much? The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 and the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition on Excessive Fines

The next slip of the tongue or of the blouse will hit broadcasters where it hurts: their wallet. With the recent passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ( BDEA ), Congress raised potential fines ten-fold in an attempt to clean up the airwaves and prevent the televised snafus that have occurred with increasing frequency during the past five years. From the broadcast of a barely covered breast during the 2004 Super Bowl to the on-air announcement of a four-letter expletive on a prime-time awards show, indecent expression has attracted the attention of the general public, advocacy groups, the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ), and even Capitol Hill. In 2004 alone, the FCC assessed more than $7.9 million in indecency fines, up from a mere$440,000 in fines in 2003. The cost of airing future indecent material increased exponentially when President George W. Bush signed the BDEA into law on June 15, 2006. Although the number of fines being issued had already increased, the FCC and a majority of Congress did not believe that the relatively low maximum fine per incident was enough to prevent multi-billion dollar broadcasters from choosing to air indecent content and pay what to them was a nominal fine. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, which had been floating around Capitol Hill in various iterations since November 2004, thus raised the maximum fine per violation ten-fold, from $32,500 to$325,000. Consequently, broadcasters now face liability of up to $3 million in indecency fines for one syndicated broadcast aired on multiple stations in multiple markets

Examining How Equalities Nonprofit Organizations Approach Policy Influencing to Achieve Substantive Representation in Sub-State Government Policymaking

This article is concerned with equalities nonprofit organizations’ activities to achieve substantive representation in policy-making through a sub-state government. It draws on three strands of the interest representation literature from equalities theory, nonprofit sector studies, and social movements theory. The analytical framework synthesizes these to provide a new approach for examining equalities nonprofit organizations’ policy influencing. Drawing on equalities theorists’ accounts of mainstreaming, and understandings of campaigns from social movement literature, it explores nonprofit organizations’ positioning in relation to government in order to advance equality. This analysis engages with questions raised by nonprofit scholars about nonprofit organizations’ independence from government and their capacity to retain a critical voice. An overarching institutionalist lens enables an examination of the formal and informal facets that shape policy influencing approaches. The research question is: How have equalities organizations engaged with the institution of a nonprofit-government partnership to promote substantive representation in policy? This research uses semi-structured elite interviews to explore key policy actors’ accounts. The case study is the statutory Welsh nonprofit sector–government partnership. Findings suggest the equalities nonprofit organizations involved in this partnership deploy a sophisticated array of action repertoires as part of an interrelated web of nuanced, multi-positioned influencing activities. This agility enables the sector to maintain some capacity to be critical of the state whilst sustaining informal relations with state policy actors

The things we left unsaid

Includes bibliographical references.At sixteen, Alice, a gifted and highly sensitive teenager in her final year of school, has it all: perfect parents, loyal friends and big plans to attend university. She would never have imagined that in a week everything could vanish. After a party where things go horribly wrong, Alice has a dark secret, one she longs to tell her mother, Penelope, with whom she shares a close bond. But when Penelope is killed in a head-on collision on route to an unknown destination, Alice is bereft of both confidante and guardian.In the chaotic days following her mother's death, Alice discovers she was having an online affair. She fears that her mother's deception renders their whole life together a lie. As she delves into this mystery, she becomes obsessed with the secret life of Penelope and is torn between her pursuit of the lover's identity and an instinct to abandon the search. She is simultaneously embroiled in a series of scandals at school. Disillusioned, Alice risks everything to uncover a truth which she believes will miraculously solve her crisis. Her best friend, Theresa, is the constant voice of reason which Alice wilfully ignores. When she finally tracks her mother's lover to his home, her neat judgements disintegrate as they encounter a complex reality. The idea of Penelope as a sexual and emotional being, not simply a one-sided symbol of maternal care that sacrifices herself to the needs of her family, is, for Alice, deeply disturbing but ultimately redemptive. In this coming-of-age story, as Alice begins to relinquish her judgement of others, she is able to forgive herself for her own failings and accept ambiguity as part of life. It is her decision to move beyond prescribed roles as well as to identify and fulfil her own needs that constitutes her essential development into maturity. It is a story for young adults that acknowledges that childhood is the springboard from which we launch ourselves into the world, that the things we learn in adolescence and the ways in which we cope with adversity during that time determine to a large extent the adults we will become and that those youthful choices reverberate throughout our lives

Fast Forward Fifty Years: Protecting Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open Debate After New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

In September 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 606, criminalizing attempts to photograph or videotape a child if the reason for doing so was because the child\u27s parent is a celebrity or public official. Not surprisingly, the measure garnered significant support from Hollywood\u27s elite, including legislative testimony from actress-moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner. Against the outcry of the California Broadcasters Association and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the California Legislature approved the measure, which raises current penalties for first-time offenders to one year of incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine (up from a maximum of six months of incarceration and/or a$1,000 fine). The law, which will likely be challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech, separates out a class of children to be protected based on their parents\u27 status as public people based on their employment. Such a distinction-like the current distinctions between public and private plaintiffs in defamation and invasion of privacy cases-proves problematic in the age of the Internet for a variety of reason

Speech-Language Pathologists\u27 Opinions of the Reliability of the Modified Evan\u27s Blue Dye Test for Detecting Aspiration

This study attempted to determine if there was a relationship between speech-language pathologists (SLP) opinion of the reliability of the Modified Evan\u27s Blue Dye Test (MEBDT) for assessing aspiration in tracheostomized patients and three factors: (1) number of years working in the field of speech-language pathology, (2) amount of hours per week spent treating dysphagia patients , and (3) number of seminars/conferences attended related to dysphagia management in the last two years. One hundred and six SLPs in the medical setting were surveyed, 52 responded resulting in a return rate of 49.5%. The data collected through the survey was subjected to statistical analyses which included the Pearson r correlation, an ANOVA using three factors, and a chi-square analysis. The Pearson r correlation showed a significant correlation involving the amount of hours per week spent treating dysphagia patients and the total score on the survey. Results revealed an r = .5720 (p = .000). The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect (p= .026) between hours per week spent treating dysphagia patients and the total score on the survey. The remaining two factors, years of experience and number of seminars/conferences attended related to dysphagia management, showed no significant correlation or main effect. Chi-square results revealed that: (1) those who use food dye to assess aspiration tend to view the MEBDT as a reliable measure for detecting aspiration, (2) those who treat patients with tracheostomies deem the MEBDT to be as reliable as videofluoroscopy for detecting aspiration, and (3) those who use food dye to assess aspiration consider the MEBDT to be as reliable as videofluoroscopy for detecting aspiration. These findings suggest that those who use the MEBDT most frequently deem it to be a reliable measure of detecting aspiration perhaps reflecting an unconscious bias toward this technique. This bias appears to exist regardless of the fact that there is no research base to support the MEBDT as a reliable measure of aspiration

Revisiting Rosenbloom: Can A Return to the “Matter of Public Concern” Standard in Defamation Cases Quiet Sullivan’s Skeptics?

As a vocal minority increasingly airs their displeasure with the actual malice rule the U.S. Supreme Court established in New York Times v. Sullivan, media defense attorneys find themselves searching for way to pushback against the possible erosion of a key First Amendment protection for free speech. This article calls for a reconsideration of the “matter of public concern” standard that a plurality of the Court promulgated in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia. The article outlines the chief concerns brought by those who wish to reconsider the requirement that public officials and public figures prove reckless disregard for the truth to recover in defamation cases. Upon closer inspection, many of these concerns reflect a frustration with increasing criticism of public officials as well as procedural changes in addition to the actual malice standard that have made it more difficult for litigants to successfully sue for defamation. It argues the Rosenbloom standard strikes the proper balance between the protection for individual reputation and the ability to engage in meaningful public deliberation in a democratic society

The Exceptionalist Trap : Why the Future First Amendment Must Take Fundamental Human Rights into Account

Other countries do not have the same approach to freedom of expression as the United States. The American approach to freedom of expression wields influence around the world. Sanders argues the United States’ unwillingness to consider alternatives to the current categorical approach to free speech can no longer be justified. This Article explores the possibility of better aligning free expression jurisprudence in the United States with other liberal democracies. Sanders argues that alignment will result in the elevation of other human rights in the United States including privacy, dignity, and autonomy