Law Commons^™

Meiklejohn, Monica, & Mutilation Of The Thinking Process, Clay Calvert

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bartnicki V. Vopper: Another Media Victory Or Ominous Warning Of A Potential Change In Supreme Court First Amendment Jurisprudence?, Jennifer Nichole Hunt

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy Through Anonymity: An Economic Argument For Expanding The Right Of Privacy In Public Places, Joseph Siprut

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does The First Amendment's "Right Of Access" Require Court Proceedings To Be Televised? A Constitutional And Practical Discussion, Audrey Maness

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …

Saving The Press Clause From Ruin: The Customary Origins Of A 'Free Press' As Interface To The Present And Future, Kevin F. O'Neill, Patrick J. Charles

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Based on a close reading of original sources dating back to America's early colonial period, this article offers a fresh look at the origins of the Press Clause. Then, applying those historical findings, the article critiques recent scholarship in the field and reassesses the Press Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Finally, the article describes the likely impact of its historical findings if ever employed by the Court in interpreting the Press Clause.

Incendiary Speech And Social Media, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Incidents illustrating the incendiary capacity of social media have rekindled concerns about the "mismatch" between existing doctrinal categories and new types of dangerous speech. This Essay examines two such incidents, one in which an offensive tweet and YouTube video led a hostile audience to riot and murder, and the other in which a blogger urged his nameless, faceless audience to murder federal judges. One incident resulted in liability for the speaker, even though no violence occurred; the other did not lead to liability for the speaker even though at least thirty people died as a result of his words. An …