1. What is the situation of the case? That is, what are the facts of the case? Clearly this cannot be a verbatim of the facts as presented in the research material, but it should be a summary of the primary facts of the case being analyzed.
2. What values emanate from the decision of the case for example, such values as, the publics right to know, fairness, privacy issues, truth, patriotism, religion or other such values as identifiable in the case you are analyzing. Of course, in analyzing the value component of the case, you must support these with quoted excerpts from the case.
3. What is your judgment of the case support this with excerpts or quotes from the case. This must be a logical and coherent narrative that is the reader (your humble professor) must see a clear pattern of how you arrive at your judgments of the case.
4. What is the effect of this case on current practices in mass communication? Say how media practitioners have been affected by this case support your position with particular examples from either the textbook or from the case that you are analyzing.
5. Which clause of the first amendment would be relevant in this particular case and why? If it is not relevant say so and give a reason.
CASE:
Reno v. ACLU (521 U.S. 844)
Case involves the court overturning main provisions of the Communication Decency Act as part of the broader Telecommunications Act
The court decided that the internet is entitled to the same broad First Amendment protection as print media