Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Chandler V. Florida: Cameras, Courts, And The Constitution, Allen F. Camp Feb 2013

Chandler V. Florida: Cameras, Courts, And The Constitution, Allen F. Camp

Pepperdine Law Review

The rising importance of television journalism in the 1960's has resulted in the Supreme Court deciding whether a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated by camera coverage of the courtroom proceeding. The decision of Chandler v. Florida clearly provides the answer; for unless a defendant proves prejudice with specificity, the Constitution does not ban televised criminal trials. The author examines the issues with a revealing historical perspective. He then traces the Court's factual and legal analysis and concludes that the decision will serve to offer the states guidance in deciding whether to implement a program allowing television coverage of …

Go to article

Legislative Response To Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, J. Kirk Boyd Feb 2013

Legislative Response To Zurcher V. Stanford Daily, J. Kirk Boyd

Pepperdine Law Review

The author explores and surveys the legislative response to Zurcher v. Stanford Daily. While it is recognized that the debate and controversy is far from over, the resulting legislation, including the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, is viewed as being a significant contribution to the area of fourth amendment law. The author analyzes the applicable legislation in detail.

Go to article

Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress: New Tort Problem For The Mass Media, Robert E. Drechsel Jan 2013

Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress: New Tort Problem For The Mass Media, Robert E. Drechsel

Pepperdine Law Review

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is becoming an increasingly popular cause of action to be utilized against media defendants. This article begins by tracing the development of the tort and explaining its central elements through cases involving mass media defendants. It studies the relationship between negligent infliction and the torts of libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After considering the appropriate balance between expression and emotional tranquility, it is concluded that negligent infliction actions present an ominous threat to the free flow of expression. Sound policy considerations, flowing in part from the first amendment, dictate that …

Go to article

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. V. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.: Does The Actual Malice Standard Of Gertz V. Robert Welch, Inc. Apply To Speech On Matters Of Purely Private Concern?, Jeff Boykin Jan 2013