Media Law Memo #2 Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Media Law Memo 2 - Case adopt Examplee petitioner held that Section 312 (a) (7) of the Communications Act of 1934 only allows the Federal Communications focal point (FCC) to regulate broadcasts for violations alike(p) the one suffered by the petitioner.In my capacity as a court clerk, I would like to appeal to you to keenly treat this case and make a wise ruling. The packs labeled on the FCC are quite complex and requires a critical thought before the final decision is made. So, in my opinion, you should affirm the case and uphold the earlier ruling. Even if the petitioner argues that the law only mandates FCC to regulate media houses for such(prenominal) repeated violations, it fails to acknowledge that the law grants more powers to the commission to do more than just that.I would like you to base your decision on Section 312 (a) (7) which states that any legal candidate in a federal election has an exclusive right to media broadcast while conducting campaigns. In its claim, t he petitioner fails to accept that the law mandates FCC to fork up a direct control over such broadcasts by taking the necessary affirmative transaction to ensure that there is a reasonable access to the broadcast stations. The claim of violations is therefore not reassert. NBC was justified for denying the candidate the required airtime because it would elicit more requests from other candidates who would have a legal right to claim for fair coverage and equality.I kindly request you to consider my opinion and deliver a turning point ruling that will that will help in providing a roadmap for the communications sector in the country. Please, consider affirming the ruling because the petitioner does not prove the necessity of reversing the earlier ruling. 312 (a) (7) clearly stipulates how reasonable access should be granted at any given time. Thanks a lot. God bless