1. Welcome to the Mock Trial Kickoff! Are you ready?

2. The Fairness Doctrine Is it Fair? Nancy Holland’s BA 18 Business Law Class Presents The Mock Trial of

3. The Background: “The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.” (Fairness Doctrine - U.S. Broadcasting Policy, The Museum of Broadcast Communications)

4. Present Day: In recent history, many people have begin to speculate about the future of communications. The voiced suspicion among various groups has been one of concern that the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 would once again be resurrected by the new administration. There are many who view this doctrine as less than fair, further citing that the doctrine actually violates the First Amendment rights of free speech of the press creating a “chilling effect.”

5. Present Day: There are others who think that the doctrine is necessary in order to combat political talk radio shows that are “a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone— one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy.” (The Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it, and why we need it back, By Steve Rendall)

6. What the US Supreme Court Must Decide: 1. Under the Fairness Doctrine, the doctrine states that it would “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.” “The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). (Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair by Adam Thierer) The question then becomes, “Does the Fairness Doctrine damper the vigor and limit the variety of public debate?”

7. What the US Supreme Court Must Decide: Question #2 #2. The U.S. Constitution - Amendment One states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Some have claimed that the Fairness Doctrine abridges the freedom of speech/press. Does it?

8. What the US Supreme Court Must Decide: Question #3 #3. Study the three major cases tied to this doctrine: Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Meredith Corp v. FCC FCC V. League Of Women Voters, 468 U. S. 364 (1984) Based on your research of the three cases, and reading the Opposing Viewpoints regarding the Doctrine, you will make a case either for or against the Doctrine to be put into law..

9. The Groups

10. Groups: Attorney’s for The Fairness Doctrine -Plaintiff Attorney’s against The Fairness Doctrine -Defendant US Supreme Court Justices -

11. Group Assignments Sections of each case will be assigned by the group leader to each member of the group, including the leader. Each member of the group must read the cases handed out today! Each time the group meets, they will receive a new worksheet. Assignments need to be made from those worksheets and divided up among the group. Each member is responsible for doing their part. Each time the group meets, members are expected to bring their completed assignments with them. Assignments need to be found, read, interpreted and ready to be shared and discussed with the group. Each group member must participate in the mock trial either as a participant or support. No exceptions will be allowed.

12. Development of Case Study: ATTORNEYS: Research & Discovery Questions and considerations (from worksheets) Development of the argument Final outline for court presentation JUSTICES: Research & Discovery Questions and considerations Discussion of the claims Written Opinion regarding each claim

13. What You Turn In As A Group

14. Justices – Each individual judge is responsible for the following: –A opinion based on legal research regarding each claim made by the Plaintiff. –A listing of each reference to accompany your personal research –All discovery and research documentation (Each individual needs to write their name on their own work.)

15. Attorneys: Each individual attorney is responsible for the following: –If you participated in the trial: The introduction used for your opening statements, all argument information outlined and rebuttal notes. –All discovery and research documentation from every individual. Each individual needs to write their name on their own work. –A listing of each reference to accompany your personal research

16. What’s Expected from you during each group meeting: Attendance (Includes being on time!) Participation in meaningful group discussion Brining your research to each group meeting to share with members of the group. Being Prepared for the meeting and not relying on others to “carry you” though it.

17. Group Leaders

18. Group Leader Criteria: In order to be a group leader, you must currently have a C average or better at the time of the kick-off. Each group will have a group leader. These individuals will be responsible for making sure that the group stays on task. They will be responsible for the following: –Attending every meeting –Keep role of the group –Track assignments of individuals –Keep the group meetings on task and focused –Report on their groups progress after each meeting to the instructor either via e-mail or in person –Schedule and hold at least one outside meeting for their group. –Encouraging group members to do their best! –They are my eyes and ears!

19. Group Leaders can be removed for the following reasons: Failure to attend group meetings. Failure to keep group on task Failure to schedule and hold outside meeting with group Failure to report group progress to instructor on a regular basis. Failure to support overall group effort, i.e., failure to do their part!!! Complaints from team members of poor performance or lack of performance. If a group leader is removed, they do not receive points as a group leader

20. Oral Argument

21. The Fairness Doctrine ORAL ARGUMENT: Presiding Justice – Brief Statement of the case Plaintiff For the Fairness Doctrine - ORAL ARGUMENT – approx. 20 minutes in length Defendant Against the Fairness Doctrine - ORAL ARGUMENT - approx. 20 minutes in length Plaintiff For the Fairness Doctrine - ORAL ARGUMENT Rebuttal – 5 minutes Defendant Against the Fairness Doctrine Rebuttal – 5 minutes Deliberations by Justices– approx. 10-15 minutes Opinion given by Justices – 7 minutes

22. Presenting Your Case: You may choose to use any of the following methods for presenting and illustrating your case: Charts & Graphs Photos Handouts

23. Rules of Conduct: Attorneys are not to converse with the justices regarding this case. Bribery of any kind is not acceptable. You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times prior to (meetings) and during the trial. Professional dress is expected at the time of the mock trial. Professional manners and courtesy towards others is always expected. Claiming someone else's work as your own could get your expelled from the case and classroom.

24. Grading Criteria

25. Research: This research does include a manifold of cases pertaining to the trial. Research includes no less than 15 sources of quality cases and articles coming from the law library, Lexis-Nexis, credible magazines, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, primary sources, etc. Participation: Participation Defined: Includes researching and reading your assignments, preparation of those assignments, i.e., ready to discuss what you have found with the group, active discussion of the cases, voicing ideas and concerns, supporting the group by actively contributing to the development of the argument and being a team player. Being on time to the meetings. Staying with the group until the work is complete for that meeting. Showing professional conduct at all times. Mock Trial: Mock Trial Points Defined: Not everyone can participate in the Mock Trial’s due to time constrains alone. However, these points define your overall support of your colleagues during the trial. Being on time to the trial, participating, assisting with the rebuttal, being supportive of the team, all are looked upon as part of these points. Not showing up to the mock trial not only will result in a loss of points, but will have devastating effects on your overall grade for this project.

26. Grading…

27. Grading: Your grade will be a blended grade based on the following three inputs: –1. Self score –2. Group score –3. Instructor score –NOTE: These scores are not disclosed to anyone. –Warning: If scores have been suspected to be trumped, the instructors score will hold 2x it’s weight.

28. Meeting 1 March 25th 11:- 12:15 Meeting 2 April 1 11:- 12:15 Meeting 3 April 15 11:- 12:15 Meeting 4 April 22 11:- 12:15 Meeting 5 April 29 11:- 12:15 Rehearsal May 6 11:- 12:15 Rehearsal May 13 11:- 12:15 Mock Trial May 15 11:- 12:15 Group Meetings and Trial