43.4 Summer 2015 Media Law Notes AEJMC Law & Policy Division Scholars should embrace roles as public intellectuals, advocates advocate for the disabled community -- to engage more efectively with Head Notes regarding online access, an area of the public and policy makers, to her expertise as a scholar. This crucial “collaborate with constituencies to Chip Stewart role of the professor -- the public make the country more just and Texas Christian University intellectual and advocate -- is one that equitable.” [email protected] we in the Law and Policy Division are New York Times columnist Nick ecently, I was thrilled to see one particularly suited for, and one that I Kristof called on professors to reclaim Rof our esteemed colleagues, urge our members to take on. their role as public intellectuals last Tori Ekstrand, writing in the online I’m not alone in hoping that year as well. And in May, Emory magazine Slate urging online professors will reclaim their role as professor Mark Bauerlein, in an accessibility for everyone, making the cultural critics and public intellectuals. opinion piece in argument that the Americans with Professors Nicholas Behm, Sherry earlier this year, noted with concern Disabilities Act should apply to make Rankins-Robertson and Duane Roen, the shifting role of professors, away the Web more accessible, for example, writing for the American Association from the 1960s model of serving to those with visual or hearing of University Professors in 2014, called as students’ guides for “moral and impairments. on universities and scholars to branch worldly understanding” to that of It’s an important topic, one that Dr. beyond our usual constituencies accreditors to the modern student, to Ekstrand has become a visual and vocal -- other scholars in our own felds whom “paycheck matters more than Bambauer wins inaugural Stonecipher Award See Head Notes, 2

Jane Bambauer, an associate profes- teacher and a sor at the University of Arizona College renowned scholar In This Issue of Law, is the frst recipient of the Harry of First Amend- PF&R W. Stonecipher Award, recognizing top ment and com- scholarship in communication and free munication law at panels set 2 speech law in the previous year. Southern Illinois AEJMC Programming Professor Bambauer received the award University. for her article “Is Data Speech?’, published “I am thrilled Division partners for panels 3 in 2014 in Stanford Law Review. In the ar- that Professor ticle, Professor Bambauer argues that First Bambuaer has Southeast Colloquium Amendment protection should extend been chosen as Paper Competition Call 3 to data, which has the ability to create the inaugural Call for Reviewers 3 knowledge and inspire new opinions. As recipient of the Stonecipher research Baton Rouge information such, data would be protected against 10 award,” Youm said. sweeping privacy regulations, though Bibliography “She is a most worthy awardee, given Professor Bambauer suggests that rea- that her article is an incisive analysis sonable regulations should still possible Reviews of Volokh, LoMonte, of a truly game-changing topic in First 4-5 under proper Constitutional scrutiny. Anderson, Decker & Lakier Amendment law.” This article was chosen among dozens Bambauer will receive her award at the of nominees by the selection committee, Teaching members meeting of the Law and Policy comprising communication law scholars Contest winner announced 6 Division at 6:45 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7, at from Law and Policy Division of AEJMC. the annual conference of AEJMC in San The award comes with a $1,000 prize. Division Schedule Francisco. The award was established by profes- Complete fnal schedule for sors Kyu Ho Youm and Doug Anderson AEJMC Law & Policy Division 7-9 to honor Dr. Stonecipher, their friend and 1 Head Notes, continued from 1. PF&R panels set for AEJMC wisdom.” to see its reach -- more than 10,000 I’m glad to report that our colleagues page views in the frst day. Jasmine E. McNealy in the Law and Policy Division have Free speech and press issues are PF&R Chair been engaging with the public critical to democracy, and we are University of Florida successfully in a variety of ways. For in a unique position to contribute [email protected] example, our longtime member and to important discussions about former AEJMC president Kyu Ho Youm communication in the digital age. is an extremely valuable resource Our scholarship is of tremendous on happenings in communication importance to our colleagues and San Francisco is a tech and legal hub, and free speech law, particularly at peers in the academy, but we must with opportunities to interact with the international level, and a must- not forget the opportunity we have some of those with signifcant exper- tise in business, policy and technology. follow on Twitter and Facebook, to reach out to the general public and where he posts regularly. Renowned Your Law & Policy Division ofcers have have a voice in the issues of the day. I worked hard to bring panel discussions scholar Clay Calvert frequently posts am proud of the eforts of our division about new First Amendment legal and workshops that will allow the critical members on this front, and I hope to examination of topics relevant for both challenges at The Hufngton Post, see even more from us in the future. the classroom, research, and practice. and he earned an impressive badge Shifting gears, this is my last round Of particular interest are the Profession of honor last year when one of his of Head Notes, and I have many Freedom and Responsibility sessions posts was retweeted with a note of thanks to ofer to our leadership in scheduled throughout both pre-confer- support by the rapper Ice T. Erica our accomplishments as a division this ence and conference time-slots. PF&R Salkin writes about journalism and sessions are designed to assist with pre- year. I gladly pass the leadership baton paring students for careers in the media education for PBS MediaShift. Our to Dan Kozlowski, who we all have to division’s teaching chair, Jonathan professions, as well as allowing AEJMC thank for putting together an amazing members to engage in research and Peters, is a regular contributor to program of panels, and to whom service in relation to the professions. Columbia Journalism Review. And I personally thank for keeping me During the pre-conference, Wednes- I’m always pleased -- and educated organized and on task (as much as that day, August 5, the L&P Division has a -- when I see Woody Hartzog writing is possible) in the past year. Courtney two-part teaching panel packed with about privacy law in forums such as Barclay ran a smooth research paper faculty and professional experts. Part I of the workshop ofers an overview of the Forbes. competition for the conference, I had the good fortune as a recent media law cases ripe for discus- which is one of the hallmarks of our sion, including those dealing with rap lyr- graduate student at Missouri to have division. Jason Martin, as our clerk a mentor -- Charles Davis, now dean ics, copyright infringement and the use and newsletter editor, successfully put of social media. Part II of the workshop of the Grady School of Journalism these issues into your digital hands focuses on privacy and free speech in and Mass Communication at the each quarter. The leadership of our digital media. This panel includes noted University of Georgia -- who was also division is in great hands, and I can’t legal practitioners including Ninth Circuit an ideal blend of scholar and public say thanks enough to these folks. Judge Alex Kozinski, noted copyright and privacy attorney Cathy Gellis, Peter intellectual, a forceful advocate for Thanks to webmaster Matt Telleen. the right to know as head of the Scheer from the First Amend- Also, to PF&R chair Jasmine McNealy ment Coalition, and William B. Turner, National Freedom of Information and teaching chair Jonathan Peters, Coalition. faculty at UC-Berkeley law school. thanks for helping to put together Both Thursday, August 6 and Friday, It’s a challenge to fnd the time with our preconference sessions, and Mike August 7 ofer PF&R sessions. Thursday, so many other things on our plates Martinez, our Southeast Colloquium the topic of both panels are social and as professors. Last month, an editor chair, thanks for again representing digital media, albeit from diferent foci. from LinkedIn’s Pulse reached out to our division well. The morning session, co-sponsored me to write something up after seeing I realize as I write this that I’ve been with the Visual Communication Division, examines issues of copyright in the some of my tweets and quotes in a in some kind of service to the division story about Gawker’s participation sharing of images. The afternoon session, -- from Southeast Colloquium research co-sponsored with the Electronic Com- in the blackmail involving the outing chair to the four-year leadership track of a media executive seeking an munication Division, analyzes hacking, -- for the past seven years. Though I’m reporting and citizen privacy. Friday’s extramarital liaison. And while I was rotating of as division head, I know I’ll afternoon panel, co-sponsored with the concerned about having enough continue to serve our division however Participatory Journalism Interest Group, time to write up something that I can. I thank you all for your support examines the lasting impact of the Josh ofered a meaningful contribution, I over the years, and I look forward to Wolf case. Mr. Wolf is participating in the panel discussion. spent a couple of hours one morning seeing you in San Francisco for the drafting a column, and I was stunned The division’s schedule is packed with conference. interesting and well-designed PF&R pan- 2 2015 program marked by division partnerships 41st Annual AEJMC Southeast Colloquium Dan Kozlowski Hartzog took the lead in organizing a Vice Head/Program Chair panel we proposed focusing on the right Call for Papers Saint Louis University to be forgotten, with Communication Technology as the co-sponsor. Our idea The Law and Policy Division of AEJMC [email protected] was competitively selected. It will feature a invites scholars to submit original superb lineup of panelists who are engaged papers for the annual AEJMC Southeast in the conversation about the right to be Colloquium, which is scheduled to take I’m excited about the programming forgotten, including Rigo Wenning, the legal place March 3-5, 2016 at the LSU Manship scheduled for the conference. It’s going to counsel for the World Wide Web Consortium, School of Mass Communication in Baton be an energizing fve days! We partnered an international community where member Rouge, Louisiana. Papers may focus on any with some of typical co-sponsors (e.g., organizations, a full-time staf, and the topic related to communications law and/ Scholastic Journalism) but also forged some public work together to develop Web or policy, including defamation, privacy, new partnerships too (e.g., Entertainment standards, including technologies and freedom of information, commercial Studies Interest Group) to produce an standards related to privacy. speech, FCC issues, copyright, obscenity eclectic, stimulating lineup of panels. My only disappointment about the and other issues regarding freedom Our PF&R panels explore topics ranging conference going in is that we weren’t of speech and press. Judges will blind from image sharing and new challenges to able to program all of the great panel referee all submissions, and selection will copyright law, to tensions between online ideas I received. We received numerous be based strictly on merit. Authors need security and privacy, to state laws protecting panel proposals – far more proposals than not be AEJMC or Law and Policy Division student expression, to an examination of available slots. AEJMC instituted a new members, but they must attend the lessons learned from the Josh Wolf case online system this year (the conference colloquium to present accepted papers. (which includes an appearance by Wolf!). planning process is still evolving as the Law and Policy Division papers must be We’ll also feature two teaching panels: association transitions away from the old no longer than 50 double-spaced pages One, co-sponsored with the Public Relations process where we threw actual chips into a (including appendices, tables, notes and Division, will investigate the ethical and bucket in the middle of the room) meant to bibliography). Although Bluebook citation legal considerations relevant when faculty more efciently facilitate co-sponsorships as format is preferred, authors may employ ask students to complete social media divisions and interest groups allocate their any recognized and uniform format for assignments. The other delves into practical precious few slots they have available for referencing authorities. There is no limit on lessons for teaching “taboo topics.” their conference programming. The online the number of submissions authors may We have two outstanding preconference system displayed a heart when two groups make to the Division. The top three faculty panels on Wednesday, thanks to the hard reached a deal and agreed to co-sponsor a papers and top three student papers in the work of Jonathan Peters and Chip Stewart. panel. And while the new system worked Law and Policy Division will be recognized. The frst preconference panel, from 1:15 well overall, it led to a furious rush and Student authors of single-authored papers to 2:45, will catch us up on the past year exchange of emails when it was launched, should clearly indicate their student status of major communication law cases. The as program chairs looked for co-sponsors to be considered for student paper awards. second panel, from 3 to 4:30 and titled for their myriad panel ideas. I did my best to Authors should submit each paper as Privacy, the Right of Publicity, and Free help plan an exciting lineup, but I was sorry an email attachment (documents may Speech in the Digital Age, will feature Chief that I couldn’t slot all of your proposals. It be submitted in Word or PDF formats). In Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit. was heartening to see so many engaged the body of the email, please provide the We’re also thrilled about our Global division members eager to contribute ideas title of the paper, and the name, afliation, Connections special session, which will to the planning process. Please submit address, ofce phone, home phone, fax take place Friday from 1:30 to 3. AEJMC again next year if your idea wasn’t selected! and e-mail address for each author. This issued a special call back in the fall for these In addition, we’ll also feature seven is where students and faculty should sessions, hoping to encourage divisions research sessions, including including our indicate their status for consideration of to think globally. Division member Woody top papers session Friday from 5 to 6:30. the faculty and student top paper awards. Do not include any author identifying information on any page of the attached Southeast Colloquium: Call for Reviewers paper submission. Authors also should redact identifying information from the The Law and Policy Division has to the colloquium this year, the document properties. On the cover page a proud tradition of hosting an division invites you to help with the of the attached paper, only the title of the engaging research paper competition competition. Reviewers will receive a paper should appear. Following the cover at the Colloquium each year, and package of papers in mid-December, page, include a 250-word abstract. we anticipate that 2016 will be no with a mid-January deadline for Submissions should be emailed to diferent. returning reviews. [email protected]. The deadline for With our growing number of papers For more information, please paper submissions is Monday, Dec. 7, 2015, comes a need for an equally vigorous contact Dr. Michael T. Martinez by at midnight Eastern Standard Time. team of reviewers. For us to limit phone at (865) 687-2564 or via e-mail If you have any questions about the reviewers to reviewing three papers at [email protected]. submission process or the paper contest, each, we’ll need approximately 40 See the 2016 Southeast Colloquium please contact Dr. Michael T. Martinez by phone at (865) 687-2564 or via e-mail at reviewers. website: http://melresearch.com/ [email protected]. If you are not submitting a paper aejmc/ 3 Legal Annotated Bibliography, Summer 2015

David Wolfgang should be viewed as content-based. personal time--merely because it projects Doctoral Student The article then turns to the justifcations an unfavorable image of the student or University of Missouri that have been ofered for restricting such the school. Is there something so unique [email protected] speech: preventing ofense, preventing about the college/athlete relationship violent attacks by angry viewers, that it justifes discarding well-established preventing driver distraction and thus constitutional principles? trafc accidents, and protecting children This article looks both at the signifcant OFFENSIVE SPEECH from emotional disturbance. These burdens that a college would face Volokh, E. (2015). “Gruesome speech.” justifcations, the article argues, do not in justifying restrictions on athletes’ 100 Cornell Law Review 901. sufce to justify such speech restrictions. use of social media in the event of a Content-based restrictions on political The article ends with a discussion of constitutional challenge, as well as the speech in a public forum are almost restrictions limited to government-owned hurdles that an athlete plaintif might always forbidden. Yet recent years have property (other than parks and sidewalks), encounter in trying to persuade a court seen a striking, though little-noticed, including fairs, advertising spaces, and to entertain this relatively novel claim not departure from this norm: some courts the special case of public colleges and perfectly analogous to any of the more have concluded that such restrictions universities. familiar First Amendment fact patterns. on the public display of “gruesome It concludes that only in narrowly limited images,” usually of aborted fetuses, FIRST AMENDMENT circumstances may a public institution are permissible. Indeed, courts have LoMonte, F. (2014). “Fouling the First force an athlete to accept constraints on sometimes even upheld restrictions Amendment: Why Colleges Can’t, and the content of lawful of-campus speech. on gruesome verbal references, such Shouldn’t, Control Athletes’ Speech on as materials calling abortion providers Social Media.” 9 Journal of Business & FREEDOM OF THE PRESS “murderers.” The restrictions are defended Technology Law 1. Anderson Jones, R. (2014). “What the on various grounds: preventing violent College athletic programs are enforcing Supreme Court Thinks of the Press and reactions against the speakers, preventing curbs--or even wholesale bans--on how Why it Matters.” 66 Alabama Law Review distraction of drivers, preventing ofense athletes use social networking sites. 253. to passersby, and (most often) shielding What makes social media novel and Over the last ffty years, in cases children. These restrictions ofer a good empowering--that it is an immediate, involving the institutional press, the opportunity to think afresh about some unfltered way to “speak” with thousands Supreme Court has ofered important First Amendment issues. When of people at once--is also what makes it characterizations of the purpose, duty, may political speech be restricted in order frightening to campus regulators. The role, and value of the press in a democracy. to protect children? Should speech that ability to build a vast online audience An examination of the tone and quality of has a visceral, emotional impact be less with no fnancial investment also brings these characterizations over time suggests protected than supposedly more rational with it the ability to widely broadcast a downward trend, with largely favorable speech? Should restrictions on particular intemperate remarks revealing prejudices, and praising characterizations of the images or words be treated as generally ethically dubious behavior, or simply a press devolving into characterizations permissible “manner” restrictions, or lack of good taste. that are more distrusting and disparaging. should they be treated as content-based Interjecting school authority into what This essay explores this trend, setting and thus almost always unconstitutional? student-athletes say on social media forth evidence of the Court’s changing Are there particular places where speech even in their personal, of-campus view of the media--from the efusively may be more constrained, even in hours implicates a host of constitutional complimentary depictions of the media content-based ways? And, of course, uncertainties. The rationales ofered for during the Glory Days of the 1960s and besides these broader questions, there is this incursion into individual liberty range 1970s to the more skeptical, tepid, or also the narrower but important concrete from protecting the school (against harm derogatory portrayals in recent years. issue: Are these restrictions improperly to its image, or from NCAA sanctions for It considers possible causes of this restricting vivid criticism of abortion - illicit athlete behavior) to protecting the change in rhetoric and then explores the and, increasingly, vivid criticism of the athlete (against self-inficted reputational potential First Amendment consequences supposed mistreatment of animals? damage, or from speech by ill-intentioned of the change. The essay argues that This article aims to address all these outsiders). At a public institution, the there is a very real risk that these trends questions. It begins by describing First Amendment protects students’ could lead to the impoverishment of a why gruesome speech merits full ability to express themselves free from wider array of First Amendment rights. First Amendment protection and why government sanction, and the Due Because the jurisprudential pattern has restrictions on such expression are Process Clause protects against the long suggested that general speakers generally properly treated as subject to removal of public benefts in an arbitrary and press speakers rise and fall together, strict scrutiny. It then discusses the kinds way or without adequate notice. Outside wider First Amendment values that of “gruesome speech” restrictions that the realm of athletics, a public university have been enhanced in U.S. Supreme governments have recently imposed, would be constitutionally estopped from Court cases brought by the positively and that some courts have allowed, and penalizing speech--especially speech that concludes that most such restrictions takes place on a personal computer on Continued on 5. 4 six relevant cases. Based on the review embraced the modern, more libertarian Bibliography, continued from 4. of the case law, the author recommends conception of freedom of speech that characterized media could be diminished that schools adopt permissive social courts employ today that it began to treat as the Court’s view of the media networking policies because existing law high- and low-value speech qualitatively diminishes. The downward trend in press already addresses the concerns driving diferently. By limiting the protection characterizations may therefore be cause the enactment of restrictive policies. The extended to low-value speech, the for broader concern about the vitality and article concludes with an explanation of New Deal Court attempted to reconcile stability of First Amendment rights. why the emphasis on social networking the democratic values that the new is misguided. Instead, the focus should be conception of freedom of speech was SOCIAL NETWORKS on preventing sexual abuse of students intended to further with the other values Decker, J.R. (2014). “Facebook Phobia! and educating employees about the limits (order, civility, public morality) that the The misguided proliferation of restrictive to their online activity that already exist regulation of speech had traditionally social networking policies for school under state and federal law. advanced. Nevertheless, in doing so, the employees.” 9 Northwestern Journal of Court found itself in the difcult position Law and Social Policy 163. LOW-VALUE SPEECH of having to judge the value of speech Policymakers and administrators Lakier, G. (2015). “The Invention of Low- even though this was something that continue to advocate for and enact Value Speech.” 128 Harvard Law Review was in principle anathema to the modern restrictive policies prohibiting educators 2166. jurisprudence. To resolve this tension, the from using social network sites to interact It is widely accepted that the First Court asserted -- on the basis of almost no with students. A Missouri law was struck Amendment does not apply, or applies evidence -- that the low-value categories down in 2011 by a state trial court for only weakly, to what are often referred to had always existed beyond the scope of possible freedom of speech violations as “low-value” categories of speech. It is constitutional concern. and was later repealed. Proponents of also widely accepted that the existence By challenging the accuracy of the these policies believe they are necessary of these categories extends back to the historical claims that the Court has used to to regulate employees’ undesirable ratifcation of the First Amendment: that justify the doctrine of low-value speech, online activity. In addition to concerns the punishment of low-value speech has this article forces a reexamination of the over controversial employee posts, never, since 1791, been thought to raise basis for granting or denying speech full many believe that social networking any constitutional concern. First Amendment protection. In so doing, promotes inappropriate, and often secret, This article challenges this second it challenges the Court’s recent claim relationships between teachers and assumption. It argues that early American that the only content-based regulations students. courts and legislators did not in fact tie of speech that are generally permissible This article explains why restrictive constitutional protection for speech to under the First Amendment are those employee social networking policies a categorical judgment of its value, nor that target speech that was historically should not be adopted. To provide did the punishment of low-value speech unprotected. What the history of the necessary background for this issue, the raise no constitutional concern. Instead, doctrine of low-value speech makes clear article starts by describing the two main all speech -- even low-value speech -- is that history has never served as the reasons schools have enacted restrictive was protected against prior restraint, primary basis for determining when policies. Then, examples of restrictive and almost all speech -- even high- First Amendment protections apply. Nor social networking policies found in state value speech -- was subject to criminal should it today, given the tremendous legislation, statewide guidance, and punishment when it appeared to pose changes that have taken place over the district policies are summarized. In order a threat to the public order of society, past two centuries in how courts have to examine whether restrictive policies broadly defned. understood what it means to guarantee are necessary, the article analyzes twenty- It was only after the New Deal Court freedom of speech. Law & Policy Division Offcers Head Clerk/Newsletter Editor Daxton “Chip” Stewart Jason Martin Texas Christian University DePaul University Southeast Colloquium Chair [email protected] [email protected] Michael T. Martinez University of Tennessee Vice Head/Program Chair Teaching Chair [email protected] Dan Kozlowski Jonathan Peters Saint Louis University University of Kansas Webmaster [email protected] [email protected] Matthew Telleen Elizabethtown College Research/Paper Competition Chair PF&R Chair [email protected] Courtney Barclay Jasmine McNealy Jacksonville University University of Florida [email protected] [email protected]

5 Teaching winners span rules/standards, pop culture, commercial speech

Jonathan Peters Teaching Chair University of Kansas [email protected]

he Law and Policy Division TTeaching Ideas Competition once again showcased a number of innovative strategies to bring to life a variety of legal The 2015 AEJMC Law & Policy Division Teaching Competition winners. From left, Stephen concepts. Ten entries were submitted Bates, UNLV (frst place); Peggy Watt, Western Washington (second); and Roy Gutterman, in response to a broad call for creative Syracuse (third). approaches to teaching media law and Bates said the exercise gets students “Because many of [the videos contain] policy, and a double-blind review process engaged in a lively, sometimes raucous familiar characters, students instantly relate produced a close fnish. discussion. to them, even if they are seeing or hearing Ultimately, the winners were selected for “The absolutism of legal rules leaves something new, or regarding it in a new their ideas to help students understand the many of them aghast,” he wrote in his entry. way,” she said. difference between rules and standards, “We return to the rule-standard distinction in Roy Gutterman, of Syracuse University, to use pop-culture multimedia to illustrate discussing pre-Sullivan libel law, the FCC’s won third place for his entry “A Case to abstract principles, and to break down indecency ban, statutes of limitation, and Illustrate the Complexities of Commercial the complexities of commercial speech by other topics.” Speech.” He created an in-class group dissecting a Federal Trade Commission Peggy Watt, of Western Washington exercise using a real Federal Trade case. University, won second place for her entry Commission case, in which the FTC Winners received certifcates and “Media Law in Pop Culture and Multimedia.” brought an action against the manufacturer monetary awards ($100, $75, and $50) at She uses multimedia examples from pop of two weight-loss products. They were the annual meeting in San Francisco. culture to illustrate legal principles in a way advertised in publications in full-color ads, Stephen Bates, of the University of that students fnd approachable. rife with textual promises, guarantees, and Nevada, Las Vegas, won frst place for “A little laughter helps one grasp a questionable photos. his entry “Rule v. Standard.” He uses a diffcult concept,” Watt wrote in her entry. “The litigation offers an opportunity PowerPoint to explain rules and standards, “And, in many cases, an example will to examine a wide array of commercial to discuss the pros and cons of each, help them better understand how these speech questions as well as questions of to provide examples, and then to take principles directly relate to their work as government power and regulation, private students through an exercise in legal student journalists and, eventually, as litigation, and First Amendment issues,” reasoning. professionals.” Gutterman wrote in his entry. “I explain the legal norm that all fathers She has amassed a selection of videos Students are broken into groups, and must pay child support, except for those who and other multimedia tools to introduce each is assigned a role. They dissect the become fathers via artifcial insemination various concepts and to initiate class ads and construct a legal argument for or performed in medical facilities. Is this a rule discussion regarding issues as varied against the ads—supported by statutes, or standard? Students agree it’s a rule,” as controversial speech and intellectual common law, precedent, and so on. After Bates wrote in his entry. property. doing so, the foor is opened for debate. Then he runs through fve scenarios, For example, as Watt wrote in her entry, “The exercise offers the students an some outlandish but all authentic (e.g., a “Flag desecration is illustrated with a video opportunity to compete in oral arguments woman lies about using birth control, has of a scene from ‘The West Wing’ in which and to confront legal doctrines that they may sex, and gets pregnant), and for each one Penn and Teller … burn a U.S. fag during not have entertained before,” Gutterman he asks if the father must pay child support. a White House party. It opens a logical wrote in his entry. “It also requires them to “Students argue over which men ought and sometimes heated discussion: Is this cite to specifc law.” to have to pay child support and why. After illegal? Why or why not? Why do the White At the end, Gutterman provides the a debate, students vote on who must pay House aides nearly have heart attacks as groups with copies of the FTC’s lawsuit child support. Virtually everyone thinks that they watch the presentation? If you disagree and injunction and the settlement decree. justice requires excusing some of the men with the current law, what is your recourse?” “While these legal documents are just that, from the obligation. At the end, I reveal Whatever the issue or video, Watt’s legal papers, I also help explain some of which men were ordered to pay child objective is to help students relate to the technicalities that may not have been support: all of them. Rules are rules.” thorny and otherwise abstract problems. developed in the arguments,” he said. 6 Law and Policy Division schedule Faculty Member Should Know 2015 AEJMC Conference (co-sponsored with Public Relations) San Francisco, CA Panelists: August 5-9, 2015 Melissa Dodd, Central Florida Karen Freberg, Louisville Wednesday, August 5 Jeremy Harris Lipschultz, Nebraska-Omaha Pre-conference sessions Chip Stewart, Texas Christian Moderator: Mitzi Lewis, Midwestern State 1:15-2:45 p.m. Blurred Lines, Facebook Rap, and Journalists in Jail: 11:45 – 1:15 Bringing Major Communication Law Cases From the Refereed Research Paper Session: Past Year to the Classroom First Amendment Perspectives

Panelists: Begging the Question of Content-Based Confusion: David Greene, Electronic Frontier Foundation Examining Problems With a Key First Amendment Joseph Russomanno, Arizona State Doctrine Through the Lens of Anti-Begging Statutes Amy Kristin Sanders, Northwestern Univ.-Qatar Clay Calvert, Florida Chip Stewart, Texas Christian Moderator: Jonathan Peters, Kansas Access to Information About Lethal Injections: A First Amendment Theory Perspective 3:00-4:30 p.m. Emma Morehart, Kéran Billaud, & Kevin Brucken- Privacy, the Right of Publicity, and Free Speech in the stein, Florida Digital Age First Amendment Protection or Right of Publicity Panelists: Violation? Examining the Application of the Transfor- Cathy Gellis, technology lawyer mative Use Test in Keller and Hart Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sada Reed, Arizona State U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Peter Scheer, California First Amendment Coalition Examining the Theoretical Assumptions Found William Turner, UC Berkeley School of Law Within the Supreme Court’s Use of the Marketplace Moderator: Ashley Messenger, Metaphor Senior Associate General Counsel, NPR Jared Schroeder, Augustana College

Thursday, August 6 Moderator: Brian Steffen, Simpson College Discussant: Jane Kirtley, University of Minnesota 8:15-9:45 a.m. PF&R Panel: Just Off the Vine: Instantaneous Image 1:30-3:00 p.m. Sharing and New Challenges to Copyright Law, Me- Refereed Research Paper Session: Right to Privacy dia Practices and Marketing (co-sponsored with Visual Communication) The “Right to be Forgotten” and Global Googling: A More Private Exchange of Information? Panelists: Burton Bridges, Memphis Margo Berman, Florida International Leslie-Jean Thornton, Arizona State A Theory of Privacy and Trust Ashley Messenger, Senior Associate General Counsel, Woodrow Hartzog, Samford University, and Neil National Public Radio Richards, Washington University School of Law Kathy Olson, Lehigh Moderator: Derigan Silver, Denver Differential Reasonableness: A Standard for Evaluating Deceptive Privacy-Promising Technologies 10:00-11:30 a.m. Jasmine McNealy, Florida Teaching Panel: Approaches to Social Media Assignments Based on The Digital “Right to Be Forgotten” in EU Law: In- the Ethical Considerations and Legal Limits Every formational Privacy vs. Freedom of Expression 7 Kyu Ho Youm, University of Oregon, and Rigo Wenning, Legal Counsel, World Wide Web Ahran Park, Seoul National University Consortium (W3C) Moderator: Woodrow Hartzog, Samford University’s Moderator: William Davie, Louisiana at Lafayette Cumberland School of Law Discussant: Paul Siegel, Hartford 3:15-4:45 p.m. 5:00-6:30 p.m. PF&R: The Josh Wolf Case: Lessons and Legacy PF&R Panel: Online Security: Hacking, Framing, for Reporter’s Privilege and Participatory Journalism News, and Citizen Privacy (co-sponsored with Participatory Journalism Interest (co-sponsored with Electronic News) Group)

Panelists: Panelists: Lin Allen, Northern Colorado Anthony Fargo, Indiana Sandra Chance, Florida Nikhil Moro, Consultant in Internet Law Dale L. Edwards, Northern Colorado Debra Saunders, Columnist, Jane Kirtley, Minnesota Josh Wolf, Editor-at-Large, Journalism That Matters Moderator: Moderator: Patrick File, Nevada, Reno Dale L. Edwards, Northern Colorado 5:00-6:30 p.m. Friday, August 7 Law & Policy Top Papers Session

8:15-9:45 a.m. Difficulties and Dilemmas Regarding Defamatory Refereed Research Paper Session: Meaning in Ethnic Micro-Communities: Accusations Analyzing Protections for “Harmful” Speech of Communism, Then and Now* Clay Calvert, Florida The Angry Pamphleteer: Borderline Political Speech on Twitter and the True Threats Distinction A First Amendment Right to Know For the Disabled: Under Watts v. United States Internet Accessibility Under the ADA** Brooks Fuller, North Carolina at Chapel Hill Victoria Ekstrand, North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Feiner v. New York: How the Court Got it Wrong Injunction Junction: A Theory- and Precedent-Based Roy Gutterman, Syracuse Argument for the Elimination of Speech Codes at American Public Universities**** The Value and Limits of Extreme Speech in a Net- Barry Parks, Memphis worked Society: Revitalizing Tolerance Theory Brett Johnson, Missouri FoIA in the Age of “Open.Gov”: A Quantitative Analysis of the performance of the Freedom of Racial Slurs and ‘Fighting Words’: The Question of Information Act under the Obama and Bush Whether Epithets Should Be Unprotected Speech Administrations*** ^ William Nevin, University of West Alabama Ben Wasike, Texas at Brownsville

Moderator: Jon Bekken, Albright College Moderator: Matt Duffy, Kennesaw State Discussant: Dean Smith, High Point Discussant: Joseph Russomanno, Arizona State * Top Faculty Paper 1:30-3:00 p.m. ** Second Place Faculty Paper AEJMC Global Connections Special Session: *** Third Place Faculty Paper Obscurity and the Right to Be Forgotten: ^ Top Debut Faculty Paper Award The Promise and Peril of Digital Ephemera **** Top Student Paper (co-sponsored with Communication Technology) 6:45-8:15 p.m. Panelists: Division Membership Meeting Kashmir Hill, Senior Editor, Fusion’s Real Future David Hoffman, Director of Security Policy & Global 8:30 p.m. Off-site Division Social, Location: TBA Privacy Officer, Intel Corporation 8 Saturday, August 8 Sunday, August 9

12:15 – 1:30 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Refereed Research Paper Session: Refereed Research Session: A First Amendment Potpourri To Pray or Restricting Speech and Access Not to Pray: Sectarian Prayer in Legislative Meetings Mallory Drummond, High Point Calling Them Out: An Exploration of Whether Newsgathering May Be Punished As Scrutinizing the Public Health Debates Regarding the Criminal Harassment Adult Film Industry: An In-Depth Case Analysis of Erin Coyle and Eric Robinson, Louisiana State the Health-Based Arguments in Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. Fielding Native Advertising: Blurring Commercial and Non- Kyla Garret, North Carolina at Chapel Hill commercial Speech Online* Nicholas Gross, North Carolina at Chapel Hill Facebook’s Free Speech Growing Pains: A Case Study in Content Governance Cultural Variation on Commercial Speech Doctrine: Brett Johnson, Missouri India Exhibits Stronger Protections than the U.S. ** Jane O’Boyle, South Carolina A right to violence: Comparing child rights generally to child First Amendment freedoms The Government Speech Doctrine & Specialty Li- William Nevin, West Alabama cense Plates: A First Amendment Theory Perspective Sarah Papadelias, Tershone Phillips, and Rich Shu- This is Just Not Working For Us: Why After Ten mate, Florida Years on the Job - It Is Time to Fire Garcetti Jason Zenor, SUNY at Oswego Moderator: Laurie Lee, Nebraska at Lincoln Discussant: Jason Shepard, Moderator: Dean Smith, High Point California State University at Fullerton Discussant: William Lee, Georgia * Second Place Student Paper **Third Place Student Paper 1:45-3:15 p.m. PF&R Panel: State Laws Protecting Student Free 12:45-2:15 p.m. Expression Revisited Refereed Research Session: Internet Governance (co-sponsored with Scholastic Journalism) Network Neutrality and Consumer Demand for “Bet- Panelists: ter Than Best Efforts” Traffic Management Genelle Belmas, Kansas Rob Frieden, Pennsylvania State Steve Listopad, Valley City State Frank LoMonte, Student Press Law Center ISP Liability for Defamation: Sarah Nicholls, Whitney High School Is Absolute Immunity Still Fair? Wayne Overbeck, California State Fullerton Ahran Park, Seoul National University Moderator: Mark Goodman, Kent State A Contextual Analysis of Neutrality: 3:30-5:00 p.m. How Neutral is the Net? Teaching Panel: Teaching Taboo Topics: Practical Dong-Hee Shin, Hongseok Yoon, and Jaeyeol Jung, Lessons for Teaching on the Edge Sungkyunkwan University (co-sponsored with Entertainment Studies Int. Group) Internet Governance Policy Framework, Networked Panelists: Communities and Online Surveillance in Ethiopia Clay Calvert, Florida Tewodros Workneh, Oregon Joel Campbell, Brigham Young Philippe Perebinossoff, California State-Fullerton Moderator: Barton Carter, Boston Kathleen Fearn-Banks, Washington Discussant: Michael Martinez, Tennessee at Knoxville Moderator: Eric Robinson, Louisiana State 9