Discussion Post #4

The interview present couple of issues that the supreme court will have to face the following term.
The first issue concerns the broadcasting policy in order to make broadcasters liable for anything said on their shows.
The second and the third ones concerns issues where the federal law conflicts with the state law.The issue of Tabaco advertisement on one hand and the issue on harmed people by drugs and medical devices which seems to be the most important case for the term to come.
One of the major issues is the possibility of having ultra conservative judges. That may affect the decision on issues that may seem obvious to the American public (equal education for men and women,...).

Like usual, one of the cases will involve the first amendment. With that said, the case disputing whether broadcasters should be ultimatly liable, will have the biggest impact.

Like usual, there is at least one case argueing the first amendment. With that said, the case disputing whether broadcasters should be ultimatly responsible, will have the biggest impact.

The interview talks about the how if a broadcaster is liable for what people say on their shows. Also this interview talks about if drug and cigerett adversing is right to adversize about. Also it mentions that this year's election does not have the hot botton issues that 2004's election had. The biggest issue that would have the biggest impact would be the drug and cigerett adversing. This would have the biggest impact because a lot of people in the world use drugs and smoke but if the adversing stopped then it might get people to stop using drugs and smoking.

The interview talks about how the most interesting court case seemed to be about the first amendment. Specifically about how the broadcaster can be held liable if someone swears or say anything indecent live. The most important issues seem to be regulations of drug and cigarette advertising and that the elections do not seem to touch the most important issues, such as the role of courts under either candidate. Environmental issues were also argued that involved sonar use on Whales.

Well, i would have to say that the Supreme Court always seems to take on cases that alot of people have questions about. I think that the freedom of speech includes what is shown on television. I still don't understand why people can't do anything on television. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to so why does it make a difference if things are shown or not. I think the television shows shouldn't be held liable for things not under their control,i.e. live television. Another thing that i think is quite funny kinda has to do with the truth commercials about tobacco. All of the cigarette companies advertise their products as amazing, the truth commercials dont glamorize the cigarrette business. In fact one of their commercials is a joke about a commercial that was done years ago that said, smoke or beat your wife. Enviornmental issues will always be talked about because obviously we all live on the same Earth. I think the most important issue in the supreme court would have to be the cases about tobacco regulations. Thousands of people even millions of people die from smoking maybe directly and indirectly, from second hand smoke, or lung cancer.

I think all of us agree that cigarette and drug advertisement to be the most important but i do agree with James that the T.V. Broadcaster case will have the biggest impact but is not the most important. It will have the most effect because it will affect the most people and will either limit or allow the T.V. Broadcasters to be able to spend their money on more entertainment rather than fines.

Ursula is very right that if the government stops the advertising of cigarettes and drugs it would a miracle but the first amendment stops the government from doing that so the most that they could do is put limits.

I think that there are obviously a lot on the plate for the next term in the Supreme Court. Starting with the issue of what is broadcasted and said on television. The problem here is whether or not people should be held accountable for what they and others have to say on their broadcasts. This obviously would depend on whether or not the Supreme Court considers this to conflict with the first amendment. Next would be the issue of what is defined on drug labels and who whould be held accountable when something goes wrong. I think that something definatly needs to be more clearly defined as far as this goes because people can't continue to get hurt and drug companies can't take a big hit every time something happens.

I agree with Marthony when he says that the most important issue is what the courts are going to be like depending on which party takes the presidency. It seems to me that there will be distinct differences in how the Supreme Court and Courts below it will operate depending on whether they are conservative or liberal. In the interview one of the points that was brought up was that if McCain was voted into office, then he would appoint "highly conservative" judges who would not give a chance for any other point of view in the Supreme Court and would bring more of the same that the Bush Administration has brought upon.

Alex Per 5

one of the cases being presented is whether or not broadcasting corporations should be held accountable for what is said on their network, which deals with free speech. Another case is whether or not the Navy can use their sonar at full power, as recent studies have shown that it can damage whales hearing and possible kill them. Id say this is one of the biggest issues at hand right now. I think, as of now, this case will have the biggest impact.

Alex A. per 5

i agree with Marwan when he says that the broadcasting case will have the big impact, but i do not believe that it is bigger than the Navy using sonar. When the Navy uses sonar out at sea, they usually are using it to practice looking for enemy subs or ships. Although this is practice, it gives the crew training for is there was a situation that required that sonar be use. As a runner i know how this works. To prepare for a race i train in the same conditions that are presented in an actual race, this way i am prepared to handle the stress of the situation with ease. If i were to not train in the same conditions i would not be very prepared and do poorly. Same with the Navy, the must use the sonar at full power in order to train for a real battle situation. Although whales getting hurt and or dying is sad, I think its better to save and protect the humans through this training. And based on the court's decision, the crews readiness could be at stake.

I agree with Alexa in that Sonar use is also a big issue. Since Sonar is used in detecting underwater threats, it may make the case harder since it is for the good of the nation, yet if we do not limit it, it will eventually come back to harm us.

I think that the broadcasting case will be a big deal, and my take on it is that networks should not be responsible for what is said on live shows. I think that the sonar use is a big issue as well, innocent animals shouldn't die so that the Navy can train, there has to be another way to do things. And the cigarette advertising case will be a big deal, but it shouldnt be because people will still smoke, there are no tobacco commercials as it is, cutting advertising won't do much.

I agree with Kelsey i belive that the networks should be held responsible for what the allow on the television wether it be something said or something shown also the sonar case is going to case some major controversy as well

I believe one of the big cases will be the one dealing with people who are harmed by drugs and medical devices. It isn't fair that someone goes in to the doctor to get better and, an example from the broadcast, ends up losing an arm. Another big case I think is going to be how broadcasters can be help liable for indecencies on the air. This is going to touch base on the First Amendment which always proves to be a major conflict.

Although I completely missed it in the broadcast, I agree with Alex about the Navy using their radars at full power. Although whales are an important part of the environment, protecting human lives is always a more critical situation.

That last comment was from me:)
However, I would like to bring up the issue of judges and cheif justices coming and leaving the Supreme Court. This is going to prove difficult to the court. Also, citizens are going to need to get used to the new judges instead of the ones they were so used to hearing from during a case.

Sam Lee pd 5
What are the important issues facing the court this term? Which cases will have the biggest impact?
One of the biggest issues facing the court this term is the 1st amendment relating to Broadcasting stations. Many cases have been argued over what should or should not be allowed to be said on Air. I believe that this will have one of the biggest impacts on the supreme Court. Another important issue that will have a big impact is the enviormental cases

pd 5
I have to agree with James P.
AS I said before in the last comment, Broadcasting and network cases are HUGEY cases facing the supreme court, I believe that James and I agree that the Supreme COurt will have a tough time arguing over who holds more power, the Network, or the law?

pd 5
I also have to agree with Ursula, THe government will have a tough time dealing with cigarettes and drug companies because they could claim that they are infringing their rights of the 1st amendment.

Environmental issues will play a part, but they will most likely not change anything largely significant. The navy has to use sonar to detect subs.

Anything regarding the government will be intersting to hear about.

another big one is government control of the economy and whether it is constitutional for the governemnt to own businesses.

Considering the state of the economy this is an important issue for many.

another big one is government control of the economy and whether it is constitutional for the governemnt to own businesses.

Considering the state of the economy this is an important issue for many.

Abortion is always an important issues, along with right now, the rights of terrorists.

Free speach and gun control will probably be tested as usual. Obama often supports measures that limit the use of firearms.

I think those who are trafficking drugs will be shut down if they are caught.

Medical will be an important issue as most people are going to be concerned about their welfare when they go to be operated on.

alex a.
period 5

i would also like to agree with brice on the justices leaving and new one coming in. AS that happens this can change the ruling on the court, as there are different stances political wise. When it comes to abortion, a conservative will probably be pro-life (the correct choice) and a liberal will be pro-choice (the wrong choice).

i agree with brice that a conservative will probably be pro life and a liberal would be pro choice. And I also think that if your trafficing drugs you should be prosecuted.

i agree with brice that a conservative will probably be pro life and a liberal would be pro choice. And I also think that if your trafficing drugs you should be prosecuted.

I'd have to say that I agree with Kyle on the state economy being a great issue for many, but I also think everyone having medical insurance will also be important.

Sam makes a good point in that the government will have a hard time dealing with cigarettes and drug companies. I like Alexa's point in that our Navy should be using our radar at full power, and that humans lives are more important than whales.

Some issues discussed were the television's right to broadcast indecencies on the air, the problem with medical devices and drugs, the cigarette commercials, and the navy sonar injuring whales. The most important issue is probably the problems with medical devices because that probably has the largest effect on people. Limiting cigarette commercials (which I only seen in magazines or some billboards) probably will not happen because they have that 1st amendment rights. Broadcasting companies should also not be blamed because people have the freedom of speech, they should be more selective though of who speaks or what they might be saying.

Alex, I know the Navy has to use solar to carry out their activities, but I am unsure as to the extent they need to carry out those activities. It could potentially hurt or help their readiness, but I would probably agree that it would help their readiness. I also do not know if the species of whale being harmed are endangered or not, because that could make a difference. Like the speakers talking said, many issues like this and other ones could be ruled a certain way greatly based on the number of conservative/liberal justices.

In the NPR broadcast one of the main topics addressed was the portion concerning the Expletives on television. The first amendment rights promised in the constitution state that citizens of the United States are allowed freedom of speech with which they can express their opinions. The only problem I find is the part where the rights of others are infringed upon due to these profanities. Although what we say is protected under the first amendment, nationally broadcasting such material is forcing others to experience it as well. This is a hot topic because the court must ultimately decide if the broadcasting station is punished for actions which are entirely beyond their control, or the person who actually said the expletive. Another hot topic will be the whales simply because so many environmentalists feel strongly about this issue and the potential for the replacement of justices under McCain could greatly influence future decisions made by the court.

I agree with Hans. One of the most important issues facing our countrty is the rights of people to say what they want. Free speech is a huge right that America prides itself on maintaining and i also agree with Hans because broadcasting companies shouldn't be blamed for other peoples language since it wasn't their fault. People like Bono Cher and Christina Ricci should be held accountable for their actions as opposed to the broadcasting companies taking the heat.

Although drug and Cigarette advertisments are a big issue, I would have to disagree with Ursula when she says that it is the biggest issue we have. I find that the free speech and medical issues are vastly more pressing issues. Sure through advertisement limitations the possibility for a cut back in smoking may result, however I doubt it would be of a substantial nature. As Hans said, the only advertisements that promote smoking cigarettes are found in magazines and random billboards. If the government cut back on the allowance of such ads, a vastly smaller majority of people would feel its affects.

The Anonymous one was Me :) oops

Alexa, I agree with you about how the broadcasting companies should not be fined, but rather the people who speak the expletives. The companies can be told to become aware of the problem, but they themselves cannot really stop it. They never know what people will say on live television, but I would think those people speaking realize they are not supposed to say some of the words they do on TV. Of course the basic curses here and there are no big deal, but excessive cursing would probably be the problem, and that is why some of those people should be fined rather than the company.

One of the cases presented is if the broadcasting corporations should be responsible for what they say on their networks. Seeing as these deals with the First Amendment, I think it causes a big problem for everyone. Furthermore, some other cases dealt with drugs, medical devices, and even cigarette commercials. Another case is if the Navy should reconsider using the sonar because it could ultimately kill whales. In short, given the fact that our environment is one of the most concerning problems across the globe, I think that this particular case is the biggest issue and will have the biggest impact as well.

I think the first Amendment is going to play a huge part in the broadcasting case and the courts decission with effect the way way it is interpreted

I agree with Alex in that the sonar could kill and damage whales. Although allowing the Navy to use the sonar at full power could help them train for a real battle situation, I think if this begins to kill too many whales to point of extinction, then I say we should reconsider using the sonar. I understand that whales are “only animals;” however, if this begins to kill off too many whales, it will ultimately affect the whole world. Every action has some sort of consequence; therefore, if we do not have any more whales, it would cause a huge catastrophe in the food chain.

I also agree with Hans when he says that the broadcasting companies should not be the ones to be blamed. Furthermore, I also agree with the fact that most cigarette commercials are found on either magazines or billboards. If we decided to reduce the amount of cigarette commercials, will it really make a difference? When limiting these advertisements, it will also take away one’s right, in this case, freedom of speech.

Listening to the broadcast from NPR and hearing them talk about whether or not broadcasters should or should not be able to curse surprise me a lot. I never did realize when a broadcast show cursed because to me, I don't believe it's much of a big deal for broadcasters to be liable or cursing. One reason might be that everyone has heard a curse word in their life and if not most likely read one. Broadcasters should not be liable for cursing, they should have the right to say what they feel, and doesn’t it go under freedom speech. However, I wouldn't recommend them with excessive cursing, if they happen to do so and you don't like it, it’s not like you cannot change the channel. Another issue that will be facing the court deals with the tobacco and prescription industries and whether the federal regulations will set a strict boundary so the state cannot go in and change anything.

Choosing the new judges on the Supreme Court will likely be one of the biggest impacts for the court cases. The reason is because as Kathryn states, the Supreme Court has moved to a more conservative place. The fact that the judges are appointed by Obama and McCain who have clearly different views on life, will can cause a major impact on our society.

An important issue mentioned was broadcasters are held liable for "broadcasting or publishing indecency"- in other words, free speech seems to be an issue. Also, the federal law and state law conflict with prescription drug labeling seems to concern many. In my opinion, the case about drug labeling will have the biggest impact.

I agree with Brice, because I also feel that it's not right for someone to go to their doctor for migranes and end up losing an arm. I also feel it is not fair for the supreme court to "slam the door on consumers harmed by drugs and medical devices." Shouldn't the supreme court be helping us in cases like this?

I agree with Ursula about the cigarette advertising. I think that if the cigarette advertising came to a hault, then many people would possibly and hopefully stop smoking. Though this may be very unlikely, it may help.

I agree with Caylan because people should have their rights when it comes to mishaps with medicine. However, I don't agree with the lawyers who are considered "ambulance chasers" who sue doctors and nurses everytime some little thing goes wrong.

I think one of the most prominant issues is the broadcast issue. Whether or not people should be able to say what they think in the terms of cussing. Along with that who is liable for the showing of what he of she said the broadcast company or the person saying it. I think this decision will have a pretty big impact in this next year.

I think a big issue facing the supreme court is a case relating to the 1st Amendment. As most people have talked about the broadcasting issue should become a prevalent issue that is debatable in many ways... Hold on I am going to look up more stuff about the topic.

I found some interesting things about the legislation but I'm going to give my opinion on some of the reasoning behind the law-

Currently Bill Frist is making a push to pass a legislation that will fine broadcasting programs for indecent programs. They say many things to give reason for the legislation but the main argument being "it's all for the children". I fine this to be complete rubbish because most kids wouldn't be able to name all the top TV broadcasters. Kids today get most of their information form the internet anyways; should we censure that???? If they want to make a consistent argument regarding censorship for children then there would need to be some block for alternate medias. It is preposterous to believe the legislation will have a significant impact on what the children of America hear and see.

Oh and I'd like to comment on the issue of the "advertising of cigarettes". Um come on now that would go completely against American rights if we censured said commercial. Even if it is detrimental to American society it would be even more harmful to take away an American's right to freedom of speech. Everyone has their rights... and if someone wants to smoke a cig that is their right. Just like cigarette companies have the right to advertise.

First off i think that if the supreme court passes a law saying that it is ok to pay men and women deffierently, then there should be a whole new supreme court. That is honestly quite ridiculous. Also at the begining of the npr discussion, it was said that people that have quests on their radio and television shows will be fined if their guest speaks profoundly. That would be a horrible rule and if you agree with a rule such as this one, i feel sad for you.

First off i think that if the supreme court passes a law saying that it is ok to pay men and women deffierently, then there should be a whole new supreme court. That is honestly quite ridiculous. Also at the begining of the npr discussion, it was said that people that have quests on their radio and television shows will be fined if their guest speaks profoundly. That would be a horrible rule and if you agree with a rule such as this one, i feel sad for you.

First of all, Catherine complained waaay too much, she was just annoying. Second of all, I definitely agree with Alex on sonar being used in the Navy. American safety is my first concern. It seems like the broadcasters being liable for cuss words is also a pretty big issue. I agree with Alexa in this instance that the first amendment protects what people say, unless it infringes on the rights on others. Here is where I disagree with Shannon, you say people can just change the channel, but why should people have to do that? Like if you're getting harassed on the street, you should just run away, right? You shouldn't have to do that. And if you say it's no big deal, let them cuss a little, then you'll see it more and more. Where do you draw the line? Can they use sexually explicit language as well? There has to be a barrier somewhere.

I agree with Joey on the advertising of cigarettes. People should natually be smart enough not to smoke something that's going to kill them, but the 1st Amendment protects the cigarette companies rights to advertise. That sucks and I wish we could just stop all cigarette advertisments, but then we'd have to stop alcohol advertisments too and it just can't happen. As far as the girl that wants to sue her doctor because she lost her arm... I'd have to find out more about that case. In general I think it's really screwed up that everyone wants to blame someone, so they start suing their doctor. That doesn't solve anything. I agree with Trevor on the "ambulance chasers" and the drug companies taking a hit for prescription labels. Everything has become a legal battle and it just isn't necessary.

The NPR broadcast also focuses a lot of the fact that this time around the Supreme Court isn't going to be faced with the hot button issues that they were faced with last year. I think there's going to hot button issues no matter what and they're going to face their fair share of drama. Just in this blog there's been so many thoughts shared and different opinions, it's going to be intense. They also discuss the 5 elderly justices and the great chance of having a very conservative Court if McCain gets elected. I think we can safely say that that would be a great blessing :)

I would have to agree with joey about the advertising of cigarettes. Sure it's bad for the people that do it but you don't see them banning Mc Donalds commercials. In todays society people have choices and under the the first amendment people need to choose what they want to do with themselves. I also have my doubts of having a conservative supreme court. This would not represent the american public it would only have one side of the peoples views.

I agree with you Ariel on the point that people shouldn't have to switch a channel because of the language, but if it does becomes used so much, like you said, "you'll see it more and more" do you honestly think that word will have any meaning to it? For example, if you reuse a word so often like, I dont know, the f word it's most likely going to become something not as offending as it used to be since you will be so used to hearing it on a broadcast.

I know this is late, but I've had computer issues :)

I think that the Supreme Court obviously has a lot of tough issues to deal with right now. With what is broadcasted, it's hard to tell what should and shouldn't, as far as language goes. Yes, there are dominant languages shown present in America, but what about the few that don't speak those as well? You can't just say, "oh they shouldn't be in America then" because you're discriminating. I think they have also to deal with the problem of the cigarettes. Of course there are going to be people who don't agree with it, and know it is dangerous to those who are around who choose not to. And again with language, what sounds offensive to some people may be a normal word to others.

I agree with Shannon P. about the whole, the more you see it, the more you get used to it kind of deal. The more and more you see it, the more irrelevant I think it becomes. People in this society have for the most part become used to the whole bad language. And for some reasons, I can understand why people don't agree with it. Especially when it is used against a person. But it would be pretty safe to say, in today's age, it may be normal for it to be broadcast.

Some of the important issues facing the new government would be the economy and how we are going to face it in the future. We need to take action and find a way to improve it somehow.

The term of the supreme court is very important like always. Again like always this term will affect every group of the nation. for example the media and the first amendment, considering wether or not that the broadcasting business should be held liable for what people choose to say on LIVE broadcasts. If this may happen this will change that whole industry. Alsi another issue is the current president chose. If either Obama or McCain is elected that could change the members that may enter congress.

Alot of people have been talking about the first amendment and how it is big in this term. When has it ever not been big before? What about the other issues facing what happens with the election. If Obama wins what will happen same with McCain?

Shannon, just because people may become de-sensitized to something doesn't make it right. If you become immune to the use of the f-word, it doesn't make it any less of a bad word. People that don't watch the channels that allow explicit language will still view it as an offensive word. That's like saying if people went around killing other people all the time, all the sudden it isn't making the news anymore, so it isn't that big of a deal. Is that a real justification? No, wrong is still wrong, regardless of de-sensitization.

The Broadcast regarded things that were being and what would be allowed on TV some of those were things that already had strict regulations on them like ciggaretts. This is a very good thing because it is pushing for the prevention of smoking

I think the main concern and upcoming conflict coming up for the Supreme Court will all boil down to the sturdiness of the 1st amendment. Do we hold those accountable for there actions or do we let them do what they want. There is a fine line on what the 1st amendment protects and what it is misinterpretated and many people like to walk that fine line. Should TV broadcasters be responsible for what goes on on their stations? That is where it gets grey and a single answer cannot be given. So best of luck to you my Supreme Court Justices.