From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 06:16:49 +0000 (+0200) Subject: A few more index entries. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~820 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/7628ead8b13766375cd031ab425dd81de487e20c?ds=sidebyside A few more index entries. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index 2b3de7e..aaa5cbf 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -8820,6 +8820,9 @@ depend fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues. advertising +commercials +televisionadvertising on +Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a media campaign as part of the war on drugs. The campaign produced @@ -8849,6 +8852,10 @@ money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be heard then? +Constitution, U.S.First Amendment to +First Amendment +Supreme Court, U.S.on television advertising bans +televisioncontroversy avoided by No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding controversial ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed @@ -8875,24 +8882,29 @@ without reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. These restrictions are, of course, not -limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, On the Issue of -an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks, New -York Times, 13 March 2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time -there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to -even the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, Ad -Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and -Radio, Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a -more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see -Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d 872 +limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, On the +Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV +Networks, New York Times, 13 March +2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time there is very little +that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even the playing +field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, Ad Hoc Access: +The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and +Radio, Yale Law and Policy Review 6 +(1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of +the FCC and the courts, see Radio-Television News Directors +Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d 872 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni -diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Antidiesel Group Fuming -After Muni Rejects Ad, SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at -link #32. The ground -was that the criticism was too controversial. +diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Antidiesel Group +Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad, SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, +available at link +#32. The ground was that the criticism was too +controversial. + + I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the