A Fifthday in Gooding Schools
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Brief of Petitioner for FCC V. Fox Television Stations, 07-582
No. 07-582 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners, v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. _________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________________ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ___________________ Craig L. Parshall Joseph C. Chautin III Counsel of Record Elise M. Stubbe General Counsel Mark A. Balkin National Religious Co-Counsel Broadcasters Hardy, Carey, Chautin 9510 Technology Dr. & Balkin, LLP Manassas, VA 20110 1080 West Causeway 703-331-4517 Approach Mandeville, LA 70471 985-629-0777 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Amicus adopts the question presented as presented by Petitioner. The question presented for review is as follows: Whether the court of appeals erred in striking down the Federal Communications Commission’s determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language,” 18 U.S.C. § 1464, see 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999, when the expletives are not repeated. i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................v INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................x STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................xii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................xii ARGUMENT ..............................................................1 I. THE FCC’S REASONS FOR ADJUSTING ITS INDECENCY POLICY WERE RATIONAL AND REASONABLE .....................1 A. The Court of Appeals Failed to Give the Required Deference and Latitude to the FCC ..................................................1 B. The FCC Gave Sufficient and Adequate Reasoning Why its Prior Indecency Policy Regarding Fleeting Expletives was Unworkable and Required Adjustment .................................3 1. -
Pitch Quantification Part 1: Between Pitcher Comparisons of QOP with Conventional Statistics" (2016)
Biola University Digital Commons @ Biola Faculty Articles & Research 2016 Pitch quantification arP t 1: between pitcher comparisons of QOP with conventional statistics Jason Wilson Biola University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.biola.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Sports Studies Commons, and the Statistics and Probability Commons Recommended Citation Wilson, Jason, "Pitch quantification Part 1: between pitcher comparisons of QOP with conventional statistics" (2016). Faculty Articles & Research. 393. https://digitalcommons.biola.edu/faculty-articles/393 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Biola. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles & Research by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Biola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. | 1 Pitch Quantification Part 1: Between-Pitcher Comparisons of QOP with Conventional Statistics Jason Wilson1,2 1. Introduction The Quality of Pitch (QOP) statistic uses PITCHf/x data to extract the trajectory, location, and speed from a single pitch and is mapped onto a -10 to 10 scale. A value of 5 or higher represents a quality MLB pitch. In March 2015 we presented an LA Dodgers case study at the SABR Analytics conference using QOP that included the following results1: 1. Clayton Kershaw’s no hitter on June 18, 2014 vs. Colorado had an objectively better pitching performance than Josh Beckett’s no hitter on May 25th vs. Philadelphia. 2. Josh Beckett’s 2014 injury followed a statistically significant decline in his QOP that was not accompanied by a significant decline in MPH. These, and the others made in the presentation, are big claims. -
Seattle Mariners Opening Day Record Book
SEATTLE MARINERS OPENING DAY RECORD BOOK 1977-2012 All-Time Openers Year Date Day Opponent Att. Time Score D/N 1977 4/6 Wed. CAL 57,762 2:40 L, 0-1 N 1978 4/5 Wed. MIN 45,235 2:15 W, 3-2 N 1979 4/4 Wed. CAL 37,748 2:23 W, 5-4 N 1980 4/9 Wed. TOR 22,588 2:34 W, 8-6 N 1981 4/9 Thurs. CAL 33,317 2:14 L, 2-6 N 1982 4/6 Tue. at MIN 52,279 2:32 W, 11-7 N 1983 4/5 Tue. NYY 37,015 2:53 W, 5-4 N 1984 4/4 Wed. TOR 43,200 2:50 W, 3-2 (10) N 1985 4/9 Tue. OAK 37,161 2:56 W, 6-3 N 1986 4/8 Tue. CAL 42,121 3:22 W, 8-4 (10) N 1987 4/7 Tue. at CAL 37,097 2:42 L, 1-7 D 1988 4/4 Mon. at OAK 45,333 2:24 L, 1-4 N 1989 4/3 Mon. at OAK 46,163 2:19 L, 2-3 N 1990 4/9 Mon. at CAL 38,406 2:56 W, 7-4 N 1991 4/9 Tue. CAL 53,671 2:40 L, 2-3 N 1992 4/6 Mon. TEX 55,918 3:52 L, 10-12 N 1993 4/6 Tue. TOR 56,120 2:41 W, 8-1 N 1994 4/4 Mon. at CLE 41,459 3:29 L, 3-4 (11) D 1995 4/27 Thurs. -
The Logan Banner, Thursday, June 20, 2013 Obituaries
A1 LOG ONTO WWW.LOGANBANNER.COM FOR ARCHIVE • GAMES • FeaTURES • E-EDITION • POLLS & MORE HE OGAN ANNER COMMENTARYT WEATHER L SPORTS B ONLINE Public opinion for Sunny. High mid 80s. Hooping it Busy? Find us statewide growth Low in the lower 60s up.... Page online, anytime at: .... Page A4 .... Page A3 B1 loganbanner.com Vol. 126, Number 75 THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013 50 cents daily 2 lawsuits filed over runoff from reclaimed mines HUNTINGTON, W.Va. Pocahontas Land Corp. former Southeast Ridge new strategy from the en- myth that they no lon- for Hernshaw Partners, (AP) — Environmental- and Hernshaw Partners Mine and a former Chafin vironmental community, ger threaten the environ- based in Gilbert. ists are going after the LLC in U.S. District Court Branch Coal Co. site. The which has long sued coal ment when they’re done The complaints ask a owners of two more for- in Huntington Wednesday lawsuits say state and companies over pollution producing coal. judge to stop the unpermit- mer mountaintop remov- over alleged violations of federal regulators are do- but rarely sued after their Pocahontas Land Corp. ted discharges and to fine al mines in West Virginia, the Clean Water Act. ing nothing to end water operations are reclaimed of Bluefield is a subsidiary the defendants $37,500 hoping to hold them re- The groups filed simi- pollution from old surface per day for each violation. of Virginia-based Norfolk sponsible for water pollu- lar complaints over three mines after they’ve been and released from bonding They also demand moni- tion from the sites. -
Supreme Court of the United States ______FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Et Al., Petitioners, V
No. 10-1293 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Petitioners, v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al., Respondents. _________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________ BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS CENTER FOR CREATIVE VOICES IN MEDIA AND THE FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION _________ *Andrew Jay Schwartzman Chrystiane B. Pereira Media Access Project 1625 K Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 232-4300 [email protected] November 3, 2011 * Counsel of Record i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals properly determined that the Federal Communications Commission‘s (FCC) context-based indecency policy is unconsti- tutionally vague and accordingly unenforceable. ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Center for Creative Voices in Media and Future of Music Coalition (jointly ―Cen- ter‖) respectfully submit this corporate disclosure statement. The Center of Creative Voices in Media does not have a parent company and no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of stock therein. The Future of Music Coalition does not have a parent company and no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of stock therein. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED........................................... i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv STATEMENT .............................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 6 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 8 I. Nothing in Pacifica Authorizes the FCC‘s New Indecency Policy ...................... 9 A. Pacifica Was A Narrow Ruling Proceeding From the Expecta- tion That The Commission Would Tread Cautiously ..................... 10 B. The FCC‘s Impermissibly Va- gue New Policy Has Had A Chilling Effect .................................... -
2018 Media-Guide.Pdf
SALTDOGS BASEBALL 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contact Information/Local Media 2 All-Time Highs and Lows 48 About the Lincoln Saltdogs 3 2017 American Association Final Standings 49 Haymarket Park 3 2017 American Association Team Stats 50 About Lincoln Pro Baseball 3 2017 American Association Leaders 51 About Lincoln, Nebraska 4 2017 Lincoln Saltdogs Game-by-Game Results 53 Saltdogs in MLB organizations 5 2017 Lincoln Saltdogs Team Stats 54 Media Information 6 Saltdogs Individual Game Records 55 Saltdogs Manager Bobby Brown 7 Saltdogs Team Game Records 58 Lincoln Saltdogs Coaching Staff 8 Saltdogs Individual Season Records 61 Lincoln Saltdogs 2018 Player Bios 9 Saltdogs Team Season Records 66 Front Office Staff 35 Saltdogs Individual Career Records 71 Medical Staff 38 Saltdogs Longest Hit Streaks 78 2018 Lincoln Saltdogs Schedule 39 Saltdogs All-Time Roster 79 History of the American Association 40 2018 Lincoln Saltdogs Roster/Pronunciation Guide 83 Commissioner Miles Wolff 41 American Association Staff 42 Roster Rules 43 Current American Association Franchises 44 Saltdogs All-Time Wins-Losses Breakdown 47 32 players signed to MLB clubs since 2011 Four former Saltdogs have reached “The Show” LINCOLN SALTDOGS CONTACT INFORMATION: VISITING TEAM HOTEL: RADIO STATIONS: 403 Line Drive Circle, Suite A Graduate—Lincoln ESPN 1480 Lincoln, NE 68508 141 N 9th St 402-466-3776 Main Office: (402) 474-BALL (2255) Lincoln, NE 68508 ESPN1480.com Fax: (402) 474-2254 Phone: (402) 475-4011 www.saltdogs.com [email protected] KFOR 1240 LOCAL NEWSPAPER: Press Box: -
Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting
631 RICHARD & WEINERT 2/28/2013 3:57 PM PUNTING IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT‘S RED ZONE: THE SUPREME COURT‘S ―INDECISION‖ ON THE FCC‘S INDECENCY REGULATIONS LEAVES BROADCASTERS STILL SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS Robert D. Richards* & David J. Weinert** I. INTRODUCTION Just one week before rendering its controversial landmark decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act1— arguably the most anticipated ruling of the October 2011 Term—the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the longstanding question of whether the First Amendment, given today‘s multifaceted media landscape, no longer permits the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcast indecency on the nation‘s airwaves. The Court‘s narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.2 (―Fox II‖) let broadcasters off the hook for the specific on-air transgressions that brought the case to the Court‘s docket— twice3—but did little to resolve the larger looming issue of whether such content regulations have become obsolete. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, instead concluded that ―[t]he Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent.‖4 As a result of this lack of notice, ―the Commission‘s standards as applied * John & Ann Curley Professor of First Amendment Studies and Founding Director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at The Pennsylvania State University. Member of the Pennsylvania Bar. ** Lecturer, Communication Arts & Sciences and Ph.D. candidate, Mass Communications, The Pennsylvania State University. 1 See Nat‘l Fed‘n of Indep. -
The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School Donald P
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications BROADCASTING, THE FCC, AND PROGRAMMING REGULATION: A NEW DIRECTION IN INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT A Dissertation in Mass Communications by David J. Weinert Ó 2018 David J. Weinert Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2018 The dissertation of David J. Weinert was reviewed and approved* by the following: Robert D. Richards John and Ann Curley Distinguished Professor of First Amendment Studies Dissertation Advisor and Chair of Committee Robert M. Frieden Pioneer Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law Matthew S. Jackson Head, Department of Telecommunications and Associate Professor Thomas M. Place Professor of Law, The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State Matthew P. McAllister Chair of Graduate Programs and Professor *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ABSTRACT The U.S. Supreme Court, in June 2012, left broadcasters in a “holding pattern” by dodging the longstanding question of whether the Federal Communications Commission’s broadcast indecency policy can survive constitutional scrutiny today given the vastly changed media landscape. The high court’s narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. exonerated broadcasters for the specific on-air improprieties that brought the case to its attention, but did little to resolve the larger and more salient issue of whether such content regulations have become archaic. As a result, the Commission continues to police the broadcast airwaves, recently sanctioning a Roanoke, Virginia television station $325,000 for alleged broadcast indecency. This dissertation yields an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the legal obstacles the FCC will encounter in attempting to establish any revamped policy governing broadcast indecency. -
The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 65 Admin
University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2013 "Smut and Nothing But": The CF C, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, "Smut and Nothing But": The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 65 Admin. L. Rev. 509 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES "SMUT AND NOTHING BUT"*: THE FCC, INDECENCY, AND REGULATORY TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE SHADOWS LILI LEVI" TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... 511 I. The FCC's Indecency Regime ................................519 A. History of Indecency Regulation .............. ...... 520 B. The Indecency Policy in the Courts ................... 530 II. Beyond Fleeting Expletives-The Full Range of Changes to the FCC's Indecency Policy ................ ................... 536 A. Changes Regarding Remedies............. ................. 537 1. Fines..................... ............... -
![But[T]... the Federal Communications Commission Will Not Let](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/1148/but-t-the-federal-communications-commission-will-not-let-1501148.webp)
But[T]... the Federal Communications Commission Will Not Let
WLR45-2_QUALE_EIC2_SAC_12_16_08_CQ_FINAL_REVIEW 12/18/2008 11:35:12 AM HEAR AN [EXPLETIVE], THERE AN [EXPLETIVE], BUT[T] . THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WILL NOT LET YOU SAY AN [EXPLETIVE] COURTNEY LIVINGSTON QUALE∗ I. AN OVERVIEW Broadcast television and broadcast radio2 are integral parts of American society. So integral, in fact, that often these mediums are taken for granted. To many Americans, broadcast television and broadcast radio are one of the few free things left in life. Anyone who owns a ten dollar radio or a fifty dollar television can watch their favorite new episode of Grey’s Anatomy, Sixty Minutes, or Lost and listen to their favorite songs or commentary on KNRK, Z100, or NPR. Because broadcast television and broadcast radio are typically taken for granted, hardly anyone questions the conditions that a regulatory governmental agency places upon the organizations that ∗ J.D. Willamette University College of Law, May 2008; B.S. University of Miami, May 2005. I would like to thank those who not only have helped me with this article, but also those who have helped me reach this point in my life—a point at which my thoughts are of a publishable quality. I thank you all most kindly. From the University of Miami I want to thank Professors S.L. Harrison and Robert Stahr Hosmon, who initially cultivated any writing talent I may have. Also from Miami, I would like to thank Professors Cynthia Cordes and Danny Paskin, who have unabashedly encouraged me over years. From Willamette University College of Law I want to thank Professor Ed Harri and Rachael Rogers, again for helping me learn how to write, think, and analyze. -
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Remand of Section III.B of the Commission’s ) DA 06-1739 March 15, 2006 Omnibus Order Resolving ) Numerous Broadcast Television Indecency ) Complaints ) JOINT COMMENTS OF FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. AND NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. Ellen S. Agress Carter G. Phillips Maureen O’Connell R. Clark Wadlow FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. James P. Young 1211 Avenue of the Americas Jennifer Tatel New York, NY 10036 David S. Petron (212) 252-7204 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Fox Television Stations, Inc. Susanna Lowy Robert Corn-Revere Anne Lucey Ronald G. London CBS BROADCASTING, INC. Amber L. Husbands 51 West 52nd Street DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP New York, NY 10019 1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 450 (212) 975-3406 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 508-6600 Counsel for CBS Broadcasting Inc. Susan Weiner Miguel A. Estrada F. William LeBeau Andrew S. Tulumello NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. New York, NY 10112 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 995-8500 Counsel for NBC Universal, Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. September 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. THE COMMISSION’S NEW INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. ...........................................5 II. THE CURRENT INDECENCY REGIME, AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE WORDS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ............................6 A. The Current Indecency Regime Is Unconstitutionally Vague And Impermissibly Chills Protected Speech. -
The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement
Duquesne Law Review Volume 48 Number 3 Article 7 2010 The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, is Not Arbitrary and Capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Brittany A. Roof Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brittany A. Roof, The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, is Not Arbitrary and Capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 48 Duq. L. Rev. 699 (2010). Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol48/iss3/7 This Recent Decision is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Duquesne Law Review by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, Is Not Arbitrary and Capricious Under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE-Ju~iCIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS-SCOPE OF JuDiciAL REVIEW-The Supreme Court of the United States held that an independent government agency, such as the FCC, must only show good reason for changing its prior policy to be in compliance with the Adminis- trative Procedure Act. The agency is not required to articulate why the new policy is, in fact, a better choice than its prior policy.