BRIGHT LINE RULE
A judicial rule that helps resolve ambiguous issues
by setting a basic standard that clarifies t he
AMBIGUITY and establishes a simple response.
The bright line rule exists to bring clarity to a
law or regulation that could be read in two (or
more) ways. Often a bright line is established
when the need for a simple decision outweighs the
need to weigh both sides of a particular issue.
In the case of Knight v. Avon Products 2003,
SJC 08876, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court established a bright line rule for
AGE
DISCRIMINATION
. The PLAINTIFF, who was over
40 years of age, was terminated from her position
and claimed that her termination was the result
of discrimination based on her age. The person
who was hired to replace the plaintiff, however,
was only 28 months younger. The
DEFENDANT
argued that the plaintiff’s age played no role in
the termination decision, adding that 28 months
is an insignificant difference. A trial court
disagreed, but the high court agreed with the
defendant. The court then went on to establish
a bright line figure of five years or more for a
valid age discrimination suit to be launched.
The court arrived at this figure because it
realized that to do otherwise could leave
employers open to lawsuits if they replaced a

guilty, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed
his conviction because he had been unlawfully
detained. The Ohio Supreme Court, citing the
FOURTH AMENDMENT, agreed and established the
bright line rule that claimed the police were
required to tell a citizen he was free to go before
they could obtain a voluntary search consent.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the
decision, concluding that the Fourth Amend-
ment had not been violated. Robinette had been
lawfully detained for speeding, and the deputy
had the right to ask him out of the car. As for
the bright line rule, the Court rejected that as
well. Under the Fourth Amendment, consent
to a search must be voluntary, but being told
one is free to go is not the sole criterion for
determining whether the search is voluntary.
Thus, the bright line established by the state
court was not valid. Interestingly, one justice
noted that the state court might have been able
to establish a valid bright line rule if it had based
the rule on state rather than federal law, since
states have the freedom to impose stricter
restrictions on police activity than the federal
government’s restrictions.
The case of
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
v. Christian Action Network 110 F. 3d. 1049
(4th Circuit 1997) upheld a bright line rule
established earlier that protects free speech. The

Glaeser, Edward L., and Andrei Shleifer. 2002. “Legal
Origins.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Michaels, Dave. 2008. “Lawmakers Can Keep Ties to Stocks
Secret.” The Dallas Morning News (May 16). Available
online at />stock_ties; website home page
(accessed August 28, 2009).
O’Dell, Larry. 1996. “FEC Again Loses Case against Group
That Ran Ads on Clinton.” Virginian Pilot (August 4).
Schuff, Sally. 2008. “USDA Issues ‘Bright Line’ Rule.”
Feedstuffs 35 (September 1). Available online at http://
www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=
&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=
AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=
4&id=3716EB2936004322AFBD24311953432B; website
home page: (accessed August
28, 2009).
Willing, Richard. 2000. “Police to Get Broader Authority on
Stops.” USA Today (January 13).
BRING SUIT
To initiate legal proceedings; to start an action
for judicial relief.
Under federal and most state law, a suit is
commenced upon the filing of the first paper,
which is the co mplaint, with the court. Statutes
of limitations set forth time boundaries within
which an action must be brought.
BROADCASTING
As a verb, to transmit programs or signals
intended to be received by the public through
radio, television, or similar means. As a noun, the

efforts to see that the airwaves were used in the
appropriate manner, government regulation
faced obstacles as it attempted to ensure suitable
government-funded programming, appropriate
programming for children, and equal access to
broadcasting for minorities. Additional chal-
lenges were created by changing technology as
CABLE TELEVISION went underground and satellite
television took to outer space.
The History of Radio
In its infancy, broadcasting was much less
controversial. Experimental radio broadcasting
began in 1910 when Lee De Forest produced a
program from the Metropolitan Opera House in
New York City. Other experimental radio stations
were started at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison in 1915 and another in Wilkinsburg,
Pennsylvania, a suburban of Pittsburgh, in 1916.
Detroit radio station WWJ is considered
the first commercial radio station in the United
States. It began br oadcasting on August 20,
1920. Pittsburgh station KDKA grew out of the
Wilkinsburg experimental station. Its broadcast
President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt
delivers a 1935 radio
address, one of his
numerous “fireside
chats.” The term was
first used by a reporter

of its
PARENT COMPANY, Radio Corporation of
America, presented its first national broadcast.
Radio stations around the country entered into
contracts with NBC that allowed them to receive
an audio feed through a telephone line, which
was then broadcast by the station’sradio
transmitter. Apart from creating a national radio
audience, NBC also introduced the financial
cornerstone of commercial radio: networks and
local stations would support themselves by
selling advertising time. The success of NBC
led to the creation of the Columbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), led by William Paley.
The success of radio produced problems as
well. There was competition for frequencies and
increased transmission power. The strongest
AM stations have a power of 50,000 watts. At
this strength, a station can be heard at night
up to 1,000 miles away. The least powerful AM
stations operate at 250 watts, which usually limits
their range to one or two towns. Unregulated
growth of the radio industry led in 1934 to the
passage of the Communications Act (40U.S.C.A.
§ 791). This act created the Federal Commu-
nications Commission (FCC), which replaced
the FRC. The FCC began regulating broadcast-
ing content. In the 1930s it banned over-the-
air advertisement of hard liquor and lotteries.
The period from 1925 to 1950 has been

ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY PER-
MISSION OF GALE, A
PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
Use of Broadcast Media, 1980 to 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1980 1990 1995 2000 2006
Year
Percentage of U.S. households using selected media
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of
the United States: 2009.
Radio
Television
Telephone servic
e
VCR Wired cable television service
Alternate cable delivery systems
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

ability to broadcast in stereo. This development
was a factor in the growth of the popularity of
FM stations. Music from records and
COMPACT
discs can be transmitted in high fidelity.
Despite the dominance of television, radio
continues to play a major role in broadcasting.
More than 10,000 radio stations were broad-
casting in the United States by at the end of the
twentieth century.
The FCC continues to serve numerous roles
in the radio broadcasting industry. It processes
license applications, assigns frequencies and call
signs, conducts hearings, enforces regulations,
licenses radio operators, and carries out the
provisions of the Communications Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the
FCC’s right to police the airwaves for
OBSCENE
material. In FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct.
3026, L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978), a New York radio
station owned by the Pacifica Foundation
broadcast comedian George Carlin’s monologue
on the “seven dirty words you can’t say on the
radio.” When a listener complained to the FCC
that he had heard the monologue in his car
while his young son was present, the FCC
investigated. Although it imposed no formal
SANCTION, the FCC indicated that the complaint

FCC’s threats made headlines, there was little
talk of challenging the agency’s regulations.
The FCC had a hand in the growth of
political talk radio shows such as Rush Lim-
baugh’s when it repealed the “fairness doctrine”
in 1987. Since 1934 the FCC had required
broadcasters to devote a reasonable proportion
of their airtime to discussion of important
public issues. Until 1987 the FCC had inter-
preted this doctrine to require broadcasters who
ran editorials that criticized specific persons to
provide notice to the persons involved and
airtime for rebuttal.
The Supreme Court upheld the
FAIRNESS
DOCTRINE
as a reasonable balance between the
PUBLIC INTEREST in hearing various points of view
and the broadcaster’s interests in free expres-
sion. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 89
S. Ct. 1794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969). Neverthe-
less, the doctrine remained controversial until
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BROADCASTING 131
its repeal. Freed from this doctrine, radio show
hosts such as Limbaugh were free to criticize
public figures without having to give them
airtime to respond.
Although a radio license is considered

the New York World’s Fair, and on February 1,
1940, it conducted the first official network
television broadcast in the United States. In
1941 the FCC officially authorized commercial
television, transferred television sound from
AM to FM, and increased the resolution
standards for broadcasts. By 1948 a total of 36
television stations were broadcasting, and more
than 1 million television sets were receiving. So
many applications for new stations were coming
in to the FCC that a freeze on requests was
instituted. In 1952 the freeze was lifted, and 70
ultrahigh-frequency (UHF) channels were added
to those already available. By 1953 nearly 400
stations were providing coverage to nearly 90
percent of the United States; no medium in
history could compare to television in its
record-breaking implementation.
The Future of Radio and Television
As the popularity of television and radio
continues to grow, controversy and concern
continue to surround their implem entation and
worth. Issues range from government regula-
tion to suitable or ethical content. The future of
the broadcast industry is in the hands of the
courts and the government as they seek to
determine the best possible means of making
the broadcast media serve the needs of the
society that has grown to depend on them.
Cable Television

airwaves is limited and cannot accommodate all
the existing demand (FCC v. National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 98 S.
Ct. 2096, 56 L. Ed. 2d 697 [1978]). In other
words, without regulation, the competing voices
on the airwaves would drown each other out.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
132 BROADCASTING
In one form or another, government regula-
tion is involved in two issues concerning cable
television. One issue is whether cities may limit
access to all or part of their territory to a single
cable supplier. Many cities have granted what
are essentially monopoly franchises, and this
practice has been challenged by cable suppliers
who argue that disallowing them a franchise
interferes with their free speech rights.
The cable franchise system that exists for
cable operators was approved by Congress in
1984 in the Cable Communications Policy
Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 21; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511; 46
U.S.C.A. §§ 484–487; 47 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seq.).
This act attempted to balance the interests of
cable operators, who wanted less regulation, with
the public-policy concerns of the cities, which
wanted guarantees that poorer neighborhoods
would be wired for cable and that educational
and government programming would not be
neglected.
Under 47 U.S.C.A . §§ 541–543, a franchis-

free community-oriented television by attract-
ing so many viewers away from local broadcast
television stations that the advertising revenues
of those stations would plummet. In 1984, a
federal appeals court held that the must-carry
rules violated the First Amendment (Quincy
Cable TV v. FCC, 768 F. 2d 1434 [D.C. Cir.
1985]). The Supreme Court denied review of
the case, and the FCC eliminated the must-
carry rules.
The must-carry rules were problematic for
one main reason: although most cable operators
have the ability to carry many hundreds of
channels, some can carry only a dozen. Requir-
ing the latter to carry all local stations severely
limited their ability to attract subscribers.
Operators also argued that being forced to carry
all local broadcasts caused cable systems to
become saturated and deprived cable program-
mers of opportunities to sell their services.
Satellite Broadcasting
The new technology of direct-broadcast satellite
television is replacing transmission over the
airwaves with transmission by satellite signals
beamed to the home from space. Like cable
television, despite its separation from conven-
tional airwave broadcasting, the new technology
has generated legal controversy.
To maintain constant, direct contact be-
tween itself and the recipients of its signals, a

geostationary orbits. The World Administrative
Radio Confe rence of 1985 upheld the continua-
tion of this policy but also voted to guarantee at
least one geostationary orbit to each country
that was a member of the ITU. The decisions of
the 1985 conference were finalized by another
session in 1988. Although these decisions
supported the interests of the United States in
part—it could continue filling geostationary
orbits—they caused concern for the FCC. The
satellite technology of the United States would
not, after all, be allowed to grow unchecked.
Orbits that the United States had once assumed
would be its to use were reallocated to other
countries. The decisions of the World Adminis-
trative Radio Conferences of the 1980s gave
the FCC even greater cause for regulating the
broadcast industry within the United States and
for being more selective about who is granted
geostationary orbits and a piece of a broadcast
industry.
Public Broadcasting
Besides investigating developing technologies,
the government and the FCC find themselves
revisiting issues that have received attention
from Congress, the broadcasting industry, and
the public. One such issue is public television.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB) was established in 1967 as the official,
nongovernment allocator of federal money to

public broadcasting is supplied by the federal
government; the remainder comes from cor-
porations, member donations, and other sources.
In 1995 the CPB allocated $285.6 million to
public broadcasting, and since 1968 Congress
has budgeted more than $4 billion to that
concern. Yet, if these funds were cut off, public
broadcasting, although wounded, probably
would survive. Polls showed that most people
like public television and want it to continue,
but as opposition gathers in Congress and the
Senate, it appears that if public broadcasting is to
continue, it may have to do so without federal
funding.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Congress overhauled the TELECOMMUNICATIONS
industry in 1996 with the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-104,110 Stat. 56 (47 U.S.C.A. §§151 et
seq.). This statute made a number of major
changes to laws governing the telecommunica-
tions industry. Among these were deregulatory
measures, including provisions allowing local
phone companies, long-distance companies,
and cable companies to compete over the same
services. Another provision requires television
manufacturers to include circuitry that allows
parents to screen out programming they do not
wish their children to view, such as programs
featuring violence.

scramble channels containing sexually explicit
materials or to limit programming on these
channels to certain hours. The Supreme Court
likewise struck down these requirements as
impermissible content-based restrictions in
violation of the First Amendment in United
States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529
U.S. 803, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865
(2000).
Also under the Telecommunications Act,
the FCC is required to review its broadcast
ownership rules every two years to determine
“whether any of such rules are necessary in the
public interest as a result of competition.” If any
regulation is no longer in the public interest, the
Act requires the FCC to rep eal or mod ify it.
In June 2003, the FCC issued its Report and
Order, following the most comprehensive
review of media ownership regulations in the
agency’s history, along with a public record of
more than 520,000 comments. In summary, the
two most controversial new rules, adopted by a
3-2 vote, relaxed previous rules regarding the
number of local television and radio stations
one compan y could own (increased), and how
much of the listening/viewing public market
one company could reach (45 percent, up from
35 percent). The most palpable effect of this on
the general public was a perceived loss of
“localism,” potentially caused by large

circumvent requirements to open their systems
to competing broadband-Internet providers,
and also largely exempted them from media
ownership rules.
The new rules also modified the local radio
ownership rule by revising the local rad io
market definition. It replaced its signal contour
method of defining local radio markets with a
geographic market approach. Radio ownership
caps remained at the previous levels.
Finally, the new rules changed the “cross-
media” limitations to a single limit for both
radio/television and newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownerships. Under the new rules, a company
could own a newspaper and radio or television
station in the same market. In smaller commu-
nities, companies could own two television
stations in the same market, and in large cities,
they could own three television stations.
In May 2008, the Senate overwhelmingly
voted to overturn FCC’s media ownership rule.
Conversion to Digital Signal
By far the most wide-sweeping change to
television broadcasting in many years has be en
the conversion from analog to digital signals.
Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-171) mandated that by 2009 all free
local television stations were required to turn
off their analog channels (originally slated for
a February 18, 2009 deadline) and continue

There are concerns surrounding children and
television other than whether Big Bird can
survive without federal support. Radio and
television reach no audience more impression-
able than a country’s youth, and many contro-
versies surround the exposure of children to
sex and violence on television.
Another perennial issue of concern for
parents and others is the amount of exposure
children have to television; time spent in front
of the television might be better spent exercising
the body and the mind. It is frequently argued
that not enough educational programming is
available to children. Since the inception of
broadcast programming, education has always
been considered an important aspect of it. The
Children’s Television Act (47 U.S.C.A. § 303a
et seq.) was enacted in 1990 in an effort to put
more educational program ming on television.
The response of broadcasters has been sluggish,
prompting a harsh hearing before Congress in
1993. Despite this legislation, some maintain
that next to nothing has been done to remedy
the quality of children’s television, which House
Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman
Edward J. Markey (D-MA) referred to as“the
video equivalent of a Twinkie.”
Minorities
As of 1978, only one percent of all radio and
television stations in the United States were run

employment of minority groups. If any party,
such as the NAACP, calls into question the
practices of a station, a
PETITION to deny can be
filed. If the station cannot provide proof of
compliance with equal opportunity standards,
it can be denied renewal of its license.
FURTHER READINGS
Carter, T. Barton et al. 2000. Mass Communications Law in
a Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.:West.
Federal Communications Commission. 2009. “Recent
Actions.” Available online at />ership/actions.html; website home page:
.gov/ (accessed September 20, 2009)
Flint, Joe. 1993. “Congress’ Message to Broadcasters: Get
Your Children’s Act Together (House Telecommunica-
tions Subcommittee Hearings).” Broadcasting and Cable
(March15).
Jessell, Harry A. 1995. “Compliance Pays Off at License
Renewal Time, Lawyers Say.” Broadcasting and Cable
(April 17).
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
136 BROADCASTING
———. 1990. “FCC Begins to Implement Children’sTV
Law (Federal Communications Commission on Chil-
dren’s Television).” Broadcasting and Cable (October29).
Lively, Donald. E. et al. 1997. Communications Law: Media,
Entertainment, and Regulation. Cincinnati, OH:Ander-
son.
Straubel, Michael S. 1992. “Telecommunication Satellites
and Market Forces: How Should the Geostationary

restricted the i nfluence of pro-Southern fac-
tions in St. Louis, and in 1861 was a member
of the Missouri Constitutional Convention,
which declared the loyalty of Missouri to the
Union.
In 1875 Broadhead attended the Missouri
State Constitutional Convention, and in 1876
he gained prominence as government counsel
for the Whiskey Ring cases, which involved
BRIBERY and dishonesty in the collection of
exorbitant liquor taxes.
From 1883 to 1885, Broadhead represented
Missouri in the U.S. House of Representatives,
and was a member of the Judiciary Committee.
During his later years, he served abroad, acting
first as special
COMMISSIONER to France in 1885,
and later as minister to Switzerland for a two-
year period. Broadhead died August 7, 1898, in
St. Louis.
BROKER
A broker is an individual or firm employed by
others to plan and organize sales or negotiate
contracts for a commission.
Brokers arrange contracts for property in
which they have no personal interest, posses-
sion, or concern. The broker is an intermediary
or negotiator in the contracting of any type of
bargain, acting as an agent for parties who wish
to buy or sell stocks,

in Missouri
1845 Participated in Missouri
Constitutional Convention
1846 Member of Mo.
House of Representatives
1850
Member
of Mo.
Senate
1853
Returned
to private
practice
1861–65
U.S. Civil War
1875 Member of Missouri
State Constitutional
Convention
1883–85 Served
in U.S. House of
Representatives
1876 Served as government
counsel in Whiskey Ring cases
1898 Died,
St. Louis, Mo.
▼▼
▼▼
1825
1800
1850