Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Alternatives (1)
- Amateurism (1)
- Anticompetition (1)
- Basketball (1)
- College athletes (1)
-
- Commercial speech (1)
- Compelled speech doctrine (1)
- Conflict Minerals Rule (1)
- Consumers (1)
- Deference (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Facts (1)
- Judicial errors (1)
- Listeners (1)
- Lower courts (1)
- NCAA (1)
- NCAA v. Board of Regents (1)
- Names images and likenesses (1)
- National Association of Manufacturers (1)
- Ninth Circuit (1)
- Opinions (1)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA (1)
- Rule of reason (1)
- Surveys (1)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Council (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach To Facts, Opinions, And The First Amendment, Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe
Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach To Facts, Opinions, And The First Amendment, Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
This essay offers an empirical approach to the problem, rooted in an argument that the underlying rationale for the fact/opinion distinction in compelled speech doctrine tells us something about how this distinction should be policed. Commercial speech enjoys protection by virtue of its value to listeners, it is from the listener's vantage point, then, that courts should assess whether a compelled disclosure is fact or opinion. And if we are interested in learning how disclosures will affect listeners, we might try asking them, just as courts adjudicating trademark suits frequently use consumer surveys to determine how customers understand the meaning …
How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier
How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of …