Significance of Ideas and Films
Identify and state the significance of any ten of the following ideas, films, people, or terms. Be sure to include historical data and concrete examples where relevant. You may use your class notes or your readings; do not use the internet. (1 paragraph; 5 points each)
- I Love Lucy. https://powerpoetry.org/poems/i-love-lucy
- The Fairness Doctrine
- The family hour
- Tongues Untied
- Action for Children’s Television (ACT)
- 2 Live Crew
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle Inc. (1982)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- Robert Mapplethorpe
- V-Chip
- George Carlin
- The Quiz Show scandals
- Maude
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Answer one of the following questions in a 4-5 page, double-spaced essay. Answers should be well-written and well-organized, incorporating class material and readings, as well as your own original arguments concerning the course material. Be specific in your answers – the best essays will incorporate material from the readings as well as specific examples from the films and clips we’ve screened in class. Do not do outside research for this essay. (50 points).
Trace the history of the FCC from its origins to the current moment. What is the FCC, and what is its regulatory mandate? What role has the FCC played in regulating speech and communications infrastructure in the 20th and 21st centuries? Choose 3 of the following case studies through which to develop your answer:
FCC v. Pacifica fleeting expletives NYPD Blue
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC 2004 Super Bowl net neutrality
Do digital media companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have an obligation to shape and sometimes restrict content? Do such obligations accompany, or run counter to, the legal promise of free speech? Drawing on our class conversations and readings about search, filters, algorithms and platform moderation, discuss the role these digital media companies play in disseminating and/or suppressing speech. What, if anything, should these companies be doing differently?
I Love Lucy is a sitcom that premiered in the 1950s whose main characters were Lucille Ball, her husband – Recardo (Ball), Vance, and Frawley. The sitcom is incredibly funny, and the audience loves it for the comedic timing and abilities applied by the characters. Initially, shows were usually discarded after airing until the I Love Lucy show initiated the right to re-air the shows. Re-running has enabled several generations to watch the show and realize the importance of re-running films.
The family hour is an idea that has gained significance in the modern era of technology and globalization. Family time is used as an essential guide for the television broadcasters to organize their programs effectively. For instance, episodes meant for adults are aired at late night hours when at least the children are deep asleep to avoid young audience consuming the adult content. Contrary, news episodes usually are showed at the early hours of the night to accommodate young viewers and allow them to have information regarding the world around them.
Tongues Untied is a documentary aired in 1989 by Marlon Riggs. The documentary featured how personal and public reality is represented in sexuality and race. The documentary presents the culture of black gay men through a combination of styles, such as personal narrative and poetry. This has much significance in shedding light on how various ethnicity groups in the society lead their life. The documentary further features racial discrimination faced by black gay men. Regarding this, activists claimed for their rights basing their arguments that every group of people deserves respect and recognition.
Action for Children’s Television (ACT) is an ACT established in 1968 by a nonprofit organization in the USA, which advocated for improvement on the quality of television programs offered to children. The objective was to discourage deceptive advertising targeted at young audiences and promote educative programs that aid in positive child development. While the young population tends to spend their leisure time on TV, the act advocated for educative programs to ensure such time is utilized in a constructive manner.
2 Live Crew was a hip hop group from Miami in the United States fronted by Luke Campbell. Its great significance is that it created a basis for parental warning labels in the music after indulging in various court cases to protect the first amendment (Corcos, 273). The numerous court cases and arrests of the band’s performers are an indication that music must consider the relevant policies before it is released for sale.
Reno v. ACLU (1997). The US government passed a law in 1996 that it is punishable for anyone to air online an indecent speech, viewable by minors. Reno claimed that the act violated the freedom of speech. The case was critical as it shed light that for an ACT to be valid, it has to clearly define all the dimensions that pertain to the restrictions involved. As the court ruled, the act had not clearly defined what “indecent speech” entailed and hence could be considered as a violation of rights to freedom of speech.
Robert Mapplethorpe was an American photographer whose fame was ignited by his approach towards the black and white medium of photography. Mapplethorpe was keen on how the camera could capture and express one’s identity (Corcos, 899). The work of Mapplethorpe indicates the significance of camera portraits in communicating and expressing one’s identity, and personal traits. In this case, it is rightful to consider the ability of camera portraits as a means of communication since they convey volumes of messages to the audience about an individual.
V-Chip is a technology used to block some programs on the television in the USA, Canada, and Brazil. The device which automatically denies access to some programs helps the parents to manage what their children watch. The technology plays a significant role in ensuring that children do not access weird TV programs containing violence, sex, or indecent language. While parents have to leave their children alone for work, V-Chip ensures that the content availed to the young audience is useful and consumable at their age.
George Carlin (1937 – 2008) was an American social critic, actor, and author. He was a reputable comedian who majored in his work on the subjects of religion, politics, and psychology 910). The significance of his work lies in his ability to deliver a message to an apathetic audience without their realization that their opinions were being manipulated (Dickinson, 903) His work expressed the role of comedy in delivering a message effectively and in good form.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a law implemented in 1996 to protect interactive computer services from getting charges over users’ posts (Dickinson, 863). The Act is of great importance as it preserves the reputation of both the users and owners of internet platforms. Further, the act enables the users to be responsible for what they post in the social media. This helps to ensure that each party bears their own guilty and responsibilities without laying the burden on the innocent counterparts.
Do digital media companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have an obligation to shape and sometimes restrict content? Do such obligations accompany, or run counter to, the legal promise of free speech? Drawing on our class conversations and readings about search, filters, algorithms, and platform moderation, discuss the role these digital media companies play in disseminating and/or suppressing speech. What, if anything, should these companies be doing differently?
The implementation of digital media has paved the way for various kinds of content to be posted. With the dynamic world whereby anybody, despite the age, race, and gender, is exposed to the digital media, some posts end up on the wrong audience. Studies indicate that violence associated with social media hate speech has increased tremendously. In this regard, Google, Facebook, and Twitter have the mandate to regulate the content that reaches the public. The social media platforms provide a basis for the distribution of content by the creators and hence, should have the means to control what should be allowed for public consumption. In this regard, the platforms have an obligation to regulate the kind of content that reaches different types of people and ages by clearly outlining their policies and regulatory rules. The companies should avoid the laxity that allows the public to over-use their freedom to express themselves in the social media platforms without considering the social impacts on the audience.
However, the owners of social media platforms argue to defend themselves that they are not responsible for the content that is put forth for public consumption as the synthesis of information is done through algorithms that filter data in the system. In this regard, the human interaction is limited, which proves it hard to filter such content. However, according to Holt (276), the platforms have been accused of modulating the role of editors and journalists in overseeing the information allowed in them. In this regard, the social media platforms use this notion to emphasize that their services are technology-driven. Thus, they have no control over it, while indeed, they can regulate (Holt, 275). As a solution, the media platform drivers should utilize the editors who would assess the authenticity of content directed towards different age-group audiences before being posted. The journalists should also be allowed their freedom to synthesize information for authenticity before it is aired to the public.
Such obligations accompany the constitutional freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental and legal right. However, these rights have restrictions, such as prohibiting the distribution of illegal content. While the freedom of speech allows people to express themselves, it is illegal to spread information advocating terrorism, separatism, and breaking national unity. Freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves in a manner that does not provoke insults, disputes, or social crimes. The social media platforms are generally preferred by the law offenders to spread such illegal information. In this regard, Facebook, Twitter, and Google should not consider it as a deprival of freedom of speech when subjected to regulate the content that is distributed through their platforms. In contrast, these platforms should implement policies to ensure that the freedom of speech exercised through them does not violate the restrictions associated thereof. The social media users should utilize the platforms efficiently and considering the rules and regulations that govern freedom of speech.
The social media platforms play a significant role in disseminating and suppressing speech. Using devices such as filters, searches, and algorithms, the platforms can restrict or allow broadcasting of information. For instance, the search device provides information related to the one that a user is searching for, and this informs them of other available content that they were not aware of. This allows the user to be fed with numerous information to quench their thirst for more information. Contrary, filters blur the user from accessing certain. This could be devastating, especially if the user were desperately in need of the data.
Social media platforms largely depend on artificial intelligence and content moderators to regulate the content allowed to the public. However, the AI may fail to adapt to some local languages, which makes it challenging to filter the content. As a result, the companies should invest in training language fluency on the staff moderators to ensure every content is understood for regulation. Additionally, it would be recommendable if the companies consider interrogating the users’ intentions towards certain information before suppressing it. This would allow the users to be conservative about posting or downloading information since such interrogation calls for time consumption. As a result, the users will only engage in content that is useful and meets meaningful targets. The search devices should also be controlled to provide only the related information to the searching individual and avoid exposing irrelevant information.
Generally, social media platforms play a significant role in spreading information. While such information can be accessed by any group of people, the platforms should regulate the content to ensure that social ethics and human dignity are maintained. Such regulation accompanies freedom of speech, which demands that some content such as advocacy for terrorism should not be treated as legal. Therefore, the social media platforms should not misuse the rights to freedom of speech to allow irrelevant or sensitive information that may cause inconveniences to be spread through them. Policies to guide the users in posting in those platforms should be clearly defined in consideration of the freedom of speech regulations.
Work Cited
Cole, Kirsti K. ““It’s like she’s eager to be verbally abused”: Twitter, trolls, and (en) gendering
disciplinary rhetoric.” Feminist Media Studies 15.2 (2015): 356-358.
Corcos, Christina A. “George Carlin, Constitutional Law Scholar.” Stetson L. Rev. 37 (2007):
899.
Dickinson, Gregory M. “An Interpretive Framework for Narrower Immunity Under Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act.” Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y 33 (2010): 863.
Holt, Jennifer. “NYPD Blue: Content regulation.” How to watch television (2013): 271-279.
