Tornillo – compelled speech versus access to privately owned forms of media

1. One speaker (individual/group) wants access to the other speaker (media outlet) who does not want to be compelled to publish the speech of the first speaker. For people arguing over who should prevail two primary arguments: • What harms does SCT identify in forcing Miami Herald to print right of reply (are they the same as the attribution/personal autonomy-freedom of conscience we identified yesterday)? • Why should the speaker who controls access to the medium of mass communications be able to block the other speaker? Harms? • Does it matter that the speaker controlling access is a corporation rather than an individual? Tornillo – compelled speech versus access to privately owned forms of media

2. Miami Herald v. Tornillo- statute forcing newspaper to print replies to critics of political candidates violates 1st Amendment by requiring newspaper to publish speech editors don’t want to publish • Red Lion Broadcasting (p. 428) – statute forcing broadcaster to carry right of reply (“personal attack”) does NOT violate 1st Amendment • Is there any credible difference to the different media to warrant the distinction? What is SCT’s reasoning re compelled speech for broadcasters is ok? • Turner Broadcasting(pp. 107 & 439) - federal “must carry” rules do not violate cable operators 1st Amendment rights by requiring them to carry local broadcasters – i.e., they aren’t being compelled to speak in violation of 1A • Does the Red Lion paradigm support regulation here (i.e., scarcity, history of heavy regulation)? Why does SCT uphold regulation? SCT’s rules on compelled speech w/ various media

3. Does any of the SCT’s precedent make sense now that we have so many “populist” media outlets • Internet, Twitter, etc. • Can we all just make our own access to media so that compelling a particular media brand is now just silly? Or is access to particular media still potentially important? • Do we all have equal/neutral access to the Internet or do we need rules ensuring that private companies provide equal access to the Internet? • http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/fcc-order/#seealso27eca7fcf9cc1c9fb005cdbdc067f0d3 Access to Media – The explosion of Media

4. Individual distributed unsigned leaflets advocating against a proposed school tax levy • This distribution violated Ohio Code which required any publication promoting a ballot issue be signed by the publisher (with address) • State interests: • Inform the electorate • Preventing fraudulent and libelous statements • SCT struck down the law: • Anonymity alone is not reason to regulate speech (Talley) • Law affects the content of core political speech – Revelation of identity = content • use strict scrutiny • Application of strict scrutiny: • State interest in informed electorate is not enough to justify compelled revelation of identity (Tornillo) • State interest in fraud/libel can be met with more direct (i.e., more narrowly drawn) regulations Mcintyre v. oec– anonymous speech

5. Why do we protect anonymous dissemination of expression? What is the “dark side” of anonymous speech? The value of anonymous Speech