From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934 and codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
- Update on Changes
- Broadcaster's Requirements
- Wording Regarding The Creation of The Federal Communications Commission
- Concern About First Citation
I moved the CellAntenna case because it was buried in the House, as well as added the Internet Kill Switch bill that Senator Lieberman was proposing. It seemed to make more sense to go in the History of the Bill since neither of these two are law...therefore probably not worthy of being up on top.CMTucker (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Was the Communications Act the first legislation to include the PICON standard, or did the Radio Act have it as well? (PICON=="public interest, convenience, or necessity") 121a001216:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I am doing research on the requirements of radio broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc.Any idea which section of which federal document provides this direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admospheres (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The subsection entitled "Creation of the Federal Communications Commission" begins with the following sentence "In the early 1900s (decade), Congress was given the responsibility of regulating interstate and foreign commerce, due to the Commerce Clause." This introductory sentence is poorly worded and contains some glaring errors. First, while the Commerce Clause does grant Congress the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it wasn't drafted "in the early 1900s." And even if the Constitution were drafted in the first decade of the 20th century (which, again, it was not) the phrasing "in the early 1900s (decade)" is sloppy-- why would the precise year not be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdog1447 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that the source for the 'Text of Document' links to a website called 'CriminalGoverment.com'. Investigating the homepage makes it clear that it might not be a reliable source, especially when there should be more reliable sources for the text of the act itself Mattbru77 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
People also ask
What was the purpose of the Communications Act of 1934?
What was the Cable Communications Act of 1984?
When was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed?
When was the Federal Communications Commission first established?
Communications Act of 1934 1 COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 AN ACT To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 1.
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regarding cable television. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (codified at 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, subch. V–A) was an act of Congress passed on October 30, 1984 to promote competition and deregulate the cable television ...
- Application and Limits
- Background and Passage
- Subsequent History
- Case Law
- Similar Legislation in Other Countries
- Further Reading
- External Links
Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilitiesfor information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: 1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." 2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat th...
Prior to the Internet, case law was clear that a liability line was drawn between publishers of content and distributors of content; publishers would be expected to have awareness of material it was publishing and thus should be held liable for any illegal content it published, while distributors would likely not be aware and thus would be immune. This was established in the 1959 case, Smith v. California,where the Supreme Court ruled that putting liability on the provider (a book store in this case) would have "a collateral effect of inhibiting the freedom of expression, by making the individual the more reluctant to exercise it." In the early 1990s, the Internet became more widely adopted and created means for users to engage in forums and other user-generated content. While this helped to expand the use of the Internet, it also resulted in a number of legal cases putting service providers at fault for the content generated by its users. This concern was raised by legal challenges...
Section 230 has often been called "The 26 words that made the Internet". The passage and subsequent legal history supporting the constitutionality of Section 230 have been considered essential to the growth of the Internet through the early part of the 21st century. Coupled with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Section 230 provides internet service providers safe harbors to operate as intermediaries of content without fear of being liable for that content as long as they take reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to that content. These protections allowed experimental and novel applications in the Internet area without fear of legal ramifications, creating the foundations of modern Internet services such as advanced search engines, social media, video streaming, and cloud computing. NERA Economic Consulting estimated in 2017 that Section 230 and the DMCA, combined, contributed about 425,000 jobs to the U.S. in 2017 and represented a total revenue of US$44...
Early challenges – Zeran v. AOL
The first major challenge to Section 230 itself was Zeran v. AOL, a 1997 case decided at the Fourth Circuit. The case involved a person that sued America Online (AOL) for failing to remove, in a timely manner, libelous ads posted by AOL users that inappropriately connected his home phone number to the Oklahoma City bombing. The court found for AOL and upheld the constitutionality of Section 230, stating that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make servic...
Erosion of Section 230 immunity – Roommates.com
While Section 230 had seemed to have given near complete immunity to service providers in its first decade, new case law around 2008 started to find cases where providers can be liable for user content due to being a "publisher or speaker" related to that content under §230(c)(1). One of the first such cases to make this challenge was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), The case centered on the services of Roommates.com that helped...
Sex trafficking – Backpage.com and FOSTA-SESTA
Around 2001, a University of Pennsylvania paper warned that "online sexual victimization of American children appears to have reached epidemic proportions" due to the allowances granted by Section 230. Over the next decade, advocates against such exploitation, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, pressured major websites to block or remove content related to sex trafficking, leading to sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Craigslist to...
Numerous cases involving Section 230 have been heard in the judiciary system since its introduction, many which are rote applications of Section 230. The following is a partial list of legal cases that have been established as case lawthat have influenced the interpretation of Section 230 in subsequent cases or have led to new legislation around Section 230.
Directive 2000/31/EC,the e-Commerce Directive, establishes a safe harbor regime for hosting providers: 1. Article 14 establishes that hosting providers are not responsible for the content they host as long as (1) the acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity; (2) they are not informed of its illegal character, and (3) they act promptly to remove or disable access to the material when informed of it. 2. Article 15 precludes member states...
In Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick,the High Court of Australia treated defamatory material on a server outside Australia as having been published in Australia when it is downloaded or read by someone in Australia. Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission & Anor(1973) 1 ACTR 6 Under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW),s 32, a defence to defamation is that the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known of the defamation, and the lack of knowledge was not due to the defendant's ne...
The Electronic Commerce Directive 2000(e-Commerce Directive) has been implemented in Italy by means of Legislative Decree no. 70 of 2003. The provisions provided by Italy are substantially in line with those provided at the EU level. However, at the beginning, the Italian case-law had drawn a line between so-called "active" hosting providers and "passive" Internet Service Providers, arguing that "active" Internet Service Providers would not benefit from the liability exception provided by Leg...
1. Kosseff, Jeff (2019). The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1501735783. JSTOR =10.7591/j.ctvr7fcrd. 2. 47 U.S.C. § 230 3. Margaret Jane Radin et al., Internet Commerce: The Emerging Legal Framework1091-1136 (2nd ed. 2006) 4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights- Article 12 5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- Article 17 (1), (2) 6. U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, International Covenant on Civil and P...
Roberts, Jeff John (December 2019). "Tech's Legal Shield Tussle". Fortune (Paper). New York City: Fortune Media (USA) Corporation: 33–34. ISSN 0015-8259.
- February 8, 1996
- Section 230
- Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material
- the 104th United States Congress
The Communications Act of 1934 abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to the new Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Title III of the Communications Act contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927, and the FCC largely took over the operations and precedents of the FRC.
- Amending Statutes
- See Also
- External Links
The first legislation approved by Congress to regulate radio communications was the Radio Act of 1912. The Act aimed to minimize the growth in radio interference between U.S. Navy ships, private companies, and amateur radio operators at the time. In addition to specific requirements for naval radio operators, the Act required that all radio operators obtain a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Radio communications developed rapidly during World War I—leading to the broadcast radio...
Communications Act of 1934
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed the Communications Act of 1934 into law on June 19, 1934. The legislation consolidated the regulation of both wired and wireless communications, including radio, telegraph, and telephone communications, under the newly-created Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent federal agency that centralized the former regulatory and oversight duties that had previously been split between the FRC and other agencies. The agency was broadly tasked...
Since its enactment, the Act has been periodically updated to reflect the development of new technologies, such as television and the internet, to protect privacy and civil liberties, to address national security issues, and to provide accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Click herefor more information about amendments to the Act.
The original Communications Act of 1934 was divided into six sections, or titles. As amended, the legislation includes the following seven titles:
Below is a partial list of subsequent laws that amended provisions of the Communications Act of 1934: 1. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 amended the Communications Act to create the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofitcorporation tasked with developing educational programming. 2. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984amended the Communications Act to set national policy for the regulation of cable communications. 3. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992amended the Communications Act to require cable companies to broadcast local television stations. 4. The Telecommunications Act of 1996is billed by the FCC as "the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years." The law aimed to increase competition among telecommunications providers by amending the Communications Act to remove the cap on radio ownership and deregulate the cable industry, among other provisions. 5. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement...
1. 1.1. See also: Federal policy on technology, privacy, and cybersecurity, 2017-2020 Regulation of the internet under the Act has been at the forefront of policy debates concerning net neutrality. The Act originally classified the internet as an information service under Title I, but the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order reclassified internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II, with certain exceptions. As common carriers, ISPs were prohibited from blocking or slowing web...
Communications Act of 1934 established the FCC It established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as an independent government agency to regulate nonfederal government use of the radio spectrum (including television) and interstate telecommunications (via wire and later satellite and cable). Act addressed common carriers
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934.The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment.