DIAL-A-PORN.   Term Paper ID:21159 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Sexually explicit recorded phone messages. Legal, technological, ethical, marketing (child protection) issues.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 15 sources, 23 Citations, TURABIAN Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Sexually explicit recorded phone messages. Legal, technological, ethical, marketing (child protection) issues. Paper Introduction: New telephone information technology has created commercial opportunities for business and has enhanced information services for consumers through innovations such as autodialed calls, fax machines, pay-per-call or audiotext (900-number) services, and caller identification services. The same technology also has created new ways to commit telemarketing fraud and decreased individual privacy through the disclosure of telephone numbers, and the compilation of credit, buying, and other personal information in databases. In addition, it has created a new way to sell pornography to people who might otherwise not have access to it. It is this latter 900-number usage that has caused great controversy. The debate over the value of pornographic expression has wide implications. Proponents of the arts defend pornography as Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Aclose relationship between the state and the challenged action must bediscerned before state action will be attributed to the utility company.The Jackson Court found no state action when the utility company terminatedthe plaintiff's electrical service for nonpayment of bills, because theutility company acted in its own economic interest. According to Scalia, Ginzburg v. United States, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. [9]Ibid. Richardson, "Note: Children and the Recorded-MessageIndustry: The Need for a New Doctrine," Virginia Law Review 72 (October1986): 1338. v F.C.C." Brooklyn Law School 55(Spring 1989): 685-72 .Nagel, Ellen L. Various political bodies, believing that these measures are only astop-gap in the problem of pornography distribution, especially tochildren, have taken action on this issue. See also Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, "Article:Pornography and Harm to Women: No Empirical Evidence?" Ohio State LawJournal 53 (Fall 1992): 1 37. "Note: Children and the Recorded-MessageIndustry: The Need for a New Doctrine." Virginia Law Review (October1896): 1325-1349.Rohr, Marc. In Ginsberg v. [16]Suzanne D. It is the opinion ofsome that certain content-based regulations of speech may be permissiblewhen a communication mode's potential audience cannot be segregated intoadults and children, and should be permitted in the dial-a-porn context sothat children are shielded from telephone pornography.[9] As dial-a-porn services aggressively sought out and established newmarkets, telephone companies, in response to public outcry, attempted tocut off services to dial-a-porn providers pursuant to state-filedtariffs.[1 ] Faced with actual or threatened termination of its servicesin several states, dial-a-porn services filed suits for declaratory andinjunctive relief to establish that termination of service by the telephonecompany would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. Thegovernment may regulate protected speech only if it asserts a compellinginterest. "Comment: The Devaluation of NonobsceneEroticism as a Form of Expression Protected by the First Amendment."Tulane Law Review 67 (March 1993): 1231-1261.----------------------- [1]Consuelo Lauda Kertz, and Lisa Boardman Burnette,"Telemarketing Tug-of-War: Balancing Telephone Information Technology andthe First Amendment With Consumer Protection and Privacy," Syracuse LawReview, 43 (1992): 1 29. [5]M. 1172 (1986). [19]Robert E. Recently, threepresidential commissions have conducted investigations on the impact ofpornography on society. "Article: Supreme Court Review: First Amendment--Disconnecting Dial-A-Porn: Section 223(b)'s Two Pronged Challenge toFirst Amendment Rights." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 8 (Winter 199 ): 968-995.Servodidio, Gianni P. In Jackson v. "Freedom of Speech After Justice Brennan." Golden GateUniversity Law Review 23 (1993): 413-534.Rubens, Suzanne D. "Dial-a-porn" is the colloquial name for telephone services thatprovide sexually explicit recorded messages to callers. Although someexisting regulations, often in the form of tariff restrictions discussedearlier, require that advertising for 976 messages include the cost of thecall and other information, current practices dilute the protectionintended by the requirements. 5 3 (1985)." Federal Communications Law Journal 38 (August1986): 311-314.Richardson, Robert E. "Comment: Telephones, Sex, and the First Amendment."UCLA Law Review 33 (April 1986): 1221-1246.Miller, Philip H. Proponents of the arts defend pornography as a means ofexpression that gives rise to an alternative vision of the world, farremoved from the mainstream notions of morality and sexual propriety.[2]Feminist groups attack pornography with empirical evidence that theconsumption of some sexually explicit materials leads to the degradation ofwomen, which sometimes explodes into acts of sexual violence.[3] Othercritics assert that pornography is not a form of speech at all, but asexual aid that does not concern the first amendment. They originatedafter the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered AmericanTelephone and Telegraph to divest itself of its "enhanced services," suchas dial-a-prayer and dial-a-joke, and permitted others to offer theseservices competitively in 1982.[4] These new technological advanceshave created new problems for government.[5] From a constitutionalviewpoint, the first amendment protects indecent dial-a-porn messages. The Second Circuit of the U.S. The Supreme Court has struggled to createmeaningful distinctions between obscene and sexually explicit expression.However, despite these efforts, this issue is still not resolved. Ct. v. [18]J.T.R., "Jassem, Scrambling the Telephone: The FCC's Dial-a-PornRegulations," Federal Communications Law Journal, 41 (July 1989): 452. United States,along with Miller establishes that the Constitution does not require aState or municipality to permit a business that intentionally specializesin, and holds itself forth to the public as specializing in, performance orportrayal of sex acts, sexual organs in a state of arousal, or live humannudity. Servodidio, "Comment: The Devaluation of NonobsceneEroticism as a Form of Expression Protected by the First Amendment," TulaneLaw Review 67 (March 1993): 1231-1232. The Court found that two governmentalinterests justified the limited abrogation of first amendment rights: theparent's right to the support of laws designed to aid them in controllingand rearing their children, and the government's independent interest inthe well-being of its youth.[15] In the 1989 case of Sable Communications of Cal. F.C.C.," Brooklyn Law Review 55 (Spring 1989):685. The debate over the value of pornographic expression has wideimplications. Court of Appeals has heldthat the screening regulations subsequently created by the FCC wereunconstitutional content-based regulations of speech. [3]Ibid. section 1983.[11] The twoessential elements of a section 1983 action are whether the conduct inquestion was committed by a person acting under color of state law, andwhether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunitiessecured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. This restricts the use of unsolicited telemarketing calls andprohibit most autodialed calls and unsolicited faxes.[23] The Actattempted to balance first amendment rights with consumer privacy rights. The Court maintained a two-tiered, definitional approachto obscenity law, and refused to create intermediate categories ofprotected speech, and maintained, what many held to be, an importantsafeguard of first amendment rights. In support of its request fora ban, the organization alleged that these ads were unfair and deceptive.As with any ban on advertising for products or services, such a restrictionwould undoubtedly affect the demand for child-directed 976 calls. On Legis. It isthe taped dial-a-porn messages which have prompted public outcry.[8] In response, Congress in 1983 passed an amendment to theCommunications Act of 1934, restricting telephone transmission of obsceneor indecent messages to persons under 18 years of age, and requires the FCCto promulgate regulations by which dial-a-porn sponsors could screen outunderage callers. "Note: New Technology, Old Problem: Determiningthe First Amendment Status of Electronic Information Services."Fordham Law Review 61 (April 1993): 1147-12 1.Murphy, Leah. Miller, "Note: New Technology, OldProblem; Determining the First Amendment Status of Electronic InformationServices," Fordham Law Review, 61 (1993): 1147. Rubens, "Supreme Court Review: First Amendment--Disconnecting Dial-a-Porn: Section 223(b)'s Two Pronged Challenge to FirstAmendment Rights," Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 8 (Winter 199 ): 968. New York, 39 U.S. [21]Ibid., 134 . The Ginsberg Court rejected theappellant's argument that the sale of "adult" magazines cannotconstitutionally be made to depend on whether the citizen is an adult orminor. Among the actions taken were:a Presidential Commission (under the Bush Administration) on pornographypublished its findings and recommendations; the Supreme Court upheld astrong New York law outlawing child pornography; and the city ofIndianapolis passed a civil rights-based anti-pornography ordinance draftedby feminists--though this was later declared unconstitutional.[22] InNovember 1991, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) waspassed. Ethan Katsh, "The First Amendment and Technological Change: TheNew Media Have A Message," George Washington Law Review 57 (August 1989):1459. "Note: The Congressional Response to the SupremeCourt's Treatment of Dial-A-Porn." Georgetown Law Journal 78 (August199 ): 2 25-2 55.P.J.F. [14]Marc Rohr, "Freedom of Speech After Justice Brennan," Golden GateUniversity Law Review 23 (1993): 5 4. "The Second Circuit Review--1987-1988 Term: FirstAmendment: The Second Circuit and Dial-A-Porn: An UnsuccessfulBalance Between Restricting Minors' Access and Protecting Adults'Rights: Carlin Communications Inc. [12]Ibid., 244. 629 (1968), The Supreme Courtupheld the constitutionality of a statute defining obscenity in terms of anappeal to the prurient interest of minors. They should notplace an undue burden on adult access to dial-a-porn or impose financialdisincentives on dial-a-porn vendors. 5 3 (1985),"Federal Communications Law Journal, 38 (August 1986): 311. See also Philip H. Obscenityis not a static concept, and the Supreme Court approved the concept of"variable obscenity" by holding that legislation may constitutionallyadjust the definition of obscenity to "social reality."[13] Supreme Court Justice Scalia makes a distinction between what isobscene and what is pornographic. "Note: The Lessons of Miller andHudunt: On Proposing a Pornography Ordinance that PassesConstitutional Muster." University of Michigan Law Journal 23 (Fall1989): 179-215.Katsh, Ethan M. This decisionreaffirms the right of adults to do, hear, or see that which may beinappropriate for children. In ruling that the ban on indecentcommunications is unconstitutional, the majority indicated that it isinappropriate for judges to determine which types of protected speech havethe most value. In conclusion, while the debate on what constitutes obscene materialis likely to continue, it would be a mistake to allow dial-a-porn companiesa section 1983 claim against telephone companies, since their right ofrestraint against freedom of expression is minimal compared with thegovernment's compelling interest in protecting minors. [13]Ibid., 245. California) with respect totelephone pornography, did what it proported not to do: it treatedtelephone communications as it has treated other methods of communicationin the past, and thus established a national standard of obscenity thatleaves dial-a-porn companies with the difficult choice of tailoring theirmessages to the least tolerant communities or risking prosecution andpossible bankruptcy.[17] Others believe that extra protection from pornography also has beenprescribed to classes of people considered a captive audience, yet,communication, such as amplified sounds outside homes or in public places,over which people have no control has been regulated as affecting captiveaudiences. In addition, these warnings do not restrain childrenfrom placing calls in their parents' absence.[2 ] Efforts to restrict the content of 976 messages in order to protectchildren from sexually explicit recordings have been approved by Congressand one state appeals court. Before a dial-a-porn service can claim protection under section 1983,it must prove that the state action violated its constitutional right tofree speech under the first amendment. "Essay: The First Amendment and Technological Change: The New Media Have a Message." George Washington Law Review 57(August 1989): 1459-1494.Kertz, Consuelo Lauda, and Lisa Boardman. In August 1985, Action for Children's Television filed acomplaint with the Federal Trade Commission requesting a ban on televisionadvertising for child-directed 976 messages. Children who are unable to read or who are just learningto read probably cannot comprehend such a warning. Yet such audiences are not always considered captive ifoffensive communication is brief. In contrast to regulating indecentspeech, no constitutional problems arise when regulating obscene dial-a-porn recordings because obscenity has no first amendment protection. "Article: Pornography and Harm toWomen." Ohio State Law Journal 53 (Fall 1992): 1 37-1 72.J.T.R. [6]Leah Murphy, "The Second Circuit Review--1987-1988 Term: FirstAmendment: The Second Circuit and Dial-A-Porn: An Unsuccessful BalanceBetween Restricting Minors' Access and Protecting Adults' Rights: CarlinCommunications Inc., v. 1985), aff'd,1 6 S. Still, howeverlegitimate the government's interest is, regulations promulgated to achievethat interest should be the least restrictive available. New telephone information technology has created commercialopportunities for business and has enhanced information services forconsumers through innovations such as autodialed calls, fax machines, pay-per-call or audiotext (9 -number) services, and caller identificationservices.[1] The same technology also has created new ways to committelemarketing fraud and decreased individual privacy through the disclosureof telephone numbers, and the compilation of credit, buying, and otherpersonal information in databases. This type of regulation can have only alimited impact, however, because of the large number of calls placed byminors to messages not directed at children. See also Cindy L. "Article Digest: Note, Telephone Pornography: FirstAmendment Constraints on Shielding Children From Dial-A- Porn, 22 Harv. J.On Legis. Obscene speech, as noted above,does not fall within the protection of the first amendment.[12] Under thecurrent definition of obscenity set forth in Miller v. [1 ]Ellen L. The decision, according to oneanalyst, in avoiding addressing the issue of how obscenity may be judged bycontemporary community standards (Miller v. [17]Ibid., 969. BibliographyDelgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. In addition, it has created a new wayto sell pornography to people who might otherwise not have access to it.It is this latter 9 -number usage that has caused great controversy. The inconsistencies of regulation havebeen noted, but many conclude that audiences are probably consideredcaptive if they are at home and cannot easily avoid receiving unwantedsexually-oriented communication.[18] Many believe that regardless of whether taped messages are found tobe obscene, restrictions on advertising would curb some child use of 9 -number services. The courts are divided on whether a telephone company thatdisconnects its service due to violation of its state-filed tariff actsunder color of state law. [7]P.G.F., "Note, Telephone Pornography: First Amendment Constraintson Shielding Children from Dial-A-Porn, 22 Harv. "Comment: First Amendment Constraints on theRegulation of Telephone Pornography." University of Cincinnati LawReview 55 (1986): 237-255.Peterson, Cindy L. [8]Mann, 1223. J. Theproblem is deciding what constitutes obscenity. Nagel, "Comment: First Amendment Constraints on theRegulation of Telephone Pornography," University of Cincinnati Law Review,55 (1986): 242. [23]Kertz, and Burnette, 1 57. The growth of dial-a-porn services which use automatic telephoneanswering equipment to offer sexually-oriented entertainment to all callershas incited public concern over children's access to these services.[7]Generally, the FCC and the courts do not consider live conversations fromthese dial-a-porn services a problem because children probably cannotobtain the credit card number needed to gain access to live call. Making blocking devices available toconcerned parents would provide a better means of regulating dial-a-porn,since blocking would prevent children from calling dial-a-porn from homewithout parental permission, while allowing interested adults unlimitedaccess to these services. FCC[16], the U.S.Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. Even where regulationsrequire voice-overs--verbal warnings on television advertisements informinglisteners of the cost of the call and admonishing children to seek parentalpermission--children are still unlikely to comprehend fully the meaning ofthe charges involved. Taken from Scalia's dissentingopinion in Ginzburg v. section 223(b) ofthe Communications Act of 1934 and found that this section's prohibition ofindecent telephone communications is unconstitutional. [22]Martin Karo, and Marcia McBrian, "Note: The Lessons of Miller andHudunt: On Proposing a Pornography Ordinance that Passes ConstitutionalMuster," University of Michigan Law Review 23 (Fall 1989): 181. [15]Ibid., 245-246. California,413 U.S.15 (1973), prohibitions on obscenity must be limited to works which, takenas a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexualconduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do nothave serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "Telemarketing Tug-Of- War:Balancing Telephone Information Technology and the First AmendmentWith Consumer Protection and Privacy." Syracuse Law Review 43 (1992): 1 29-1 72.Mann, Elizabeth. The Court held that stricter regulations may be placed on materialsavailable to minors as long as they do not directly infringe upon the rightof adults to obtain such materials. The government's interest to protect children must be balancedagainst the invasion of free speech interests--an issue that so far hasgenerated controversy.[6] Protected free speech may only be regulated ifthis balance is struck in favor of the government and if the leastrestrictive means available are used. Petersen, "Note: TheCongressional Response to the Supreme Court's Treatment of Dial-A-Porn,"Georgetown Law Journal 78 (199 ): 2 25.----------------------- 13 Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S.345 (1974), the Supreme Court found that even though a utility may beheavily regulated, have a state-granted monopoly, and function pursuant totariffs, every act of the utility cannot be attributed to state action. Mann, "Comment: Telephones, Sex, and the FirstAmendment," UCLA Law Review, 33 (April 1986): 1221. For example, television advertisementsdirected at preschool or young school children may include only a smallprinted message concerning cost flashed across the bottom of the screen fora second or two. [2 ]ibid. Byreducing call volume significantly, an advertising ban might forceproviders to eliminate some, if not all, of their child-directedprograms.[19] Providers of 9 services have already demonstrated their willingnessto circumvent the intent of advertising restrictions. Moreover, content regulationpresents serious first amendment problems and would like failconstitutional scrutiny.[21] Another method that does not haveconstitutional implications, but which has been somewhat successful, is tohave those calls blocked from designated telephones. [14] Furthermore, a merchant whoconcentrates upon the sale of such works is engaged in the business ofobscenity, which may be entirely prohibited and therefore licensed asrequired in that locality. This approach is more consistent with the lawregulating indecency on cable television. According to Scalia, with respect togovernmental attempts to deal with pornography through creative means, suchas zoning laws, a business that is devoted to the sale of highly explicitsexual material can be found to be engaged in the marketing of obscenity,even though each book or film it sells might, in isolation, be consideredmerely pornographic and not obscene. [4]Elizabeth J. "Articles Digest: Jassem, Scrambling the Telephone: The FCC'sDial-A-Porn Regulations." Federal Communications Law Journal 41 (July1989): 451-453.Karo, Martin, and Marcia McBrian. [11]Ibid. [2]Gianni P. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.