Law Commons^™

The Fcc Under Attack, Kerri Smith

Duke Law & Technology Review

The Federal Communications Commission voted in a contentious three-two split to relax rules limiting ownership of TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Among its critics are members of Congress who may pass legislation reinstating the old rules. Others will likely file suit against the FCC in the hopes of overturning the decision. This article will discuss the current debate over media deregulation in light of the recent FCC order. Specifically, this ibrief focuses on concerns over media consolidation in the wake of the 'Clear Channelization' of American radio, and addresses the contrasting depictions of the current media landscape by advocates …

The Fcc And Congress Should Consider Consumer Rights When Making The Transition To Dtv, Frank Ing-Jye Chao

Duke Law & Technology Review

This ibrief discusses the copyright issue surrounding the transition into Digital Television. It proposes that the Federal Communications Commission should balance the copyright interests of all parties involved in the DTV transition. Creators of informative and entertaining works must be rewarded with incentives to create further works. Such incentives necessarily involve copyright protection for these content holders. Just as the rights of content holders should be protected, the public's right to access information and to freely express ideas needs to remain protected. Copyright laws, specifically the fair use doctrine, must be allowed to stand firm while maintaining flexibility in order …

Do Not Advertise: The Current Fight Against Unsolicited Advertisements, Dannielle Cisneros

Duke Law & Technology Review

Have you ever received a phone call from a telemarketer during dinner? Do e-mails entitled "Protect Your Computer Against Viruses for $9.95" or "GET A FREE PASS TO THOUSANDS OF XXX SITES" annoy you? Are you tired of watching advertisements that continue after the posted start time for a movie? Many Americans are irritated with the amount of daily interruptions caused by the current lack of advertising regulations. In some instances, the advertisers shift their marketing costs to unwilling e-mail users or moviegoers. This article focuses on unsolicited communications and potential solutions to the seemingly endless problem of spam.

Political E-Mail: Protected Speech Or Unwelcome Spam?, Mark Sweet

Duke Law & Technology Review

Candidates for political office are using unsolicited bulk e-mails to reach the electorate. Commonly known as "political spam," this campaign tactic is an inexpensive supplement to television, radio, and print ads. Advocates claim that campaigning via the internet reduces candidates' dependence on fundraising, but critics detest political spam as the latest nuisance. This iBrief examines the legal basis for political spam, distinguishes political spam from analogous regulated speech, and argues that political spam serves an interest worth protecting.

Agenda Power In Brazil’S Camara Dos Deputados, 1989-98, Octavio Amorim Neto, Gary W. Cox, Mathew D. Mccubbins

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reconstructing Climate Policy: Beyond Kyoto, Jonathan B. Wiener, Richard B. Stewart

Faculty Scholarship

In their comprehensive analysis of the Kyoto Protocol and climate policy, Richard B. Stewart and Jonathan B. Wiener examine the current impasse in climate policy and the potential steps nations can take to reduce greenhouse gases. They summarize the current state of information regarding the extent of global warming that would be caused by increasing uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. They explain why participation by all major greenhouse gas-emitting countries is essential to curb future greenhouse gas emissions and also note the significant obstacles to obtaining such participation.

Stewart and Wiener argue it is in the national interest of the United …

Racial Identity, Electoral Structures, And The First Amendment Right Of Association, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Puzzle Of Ex Ante Efficiency: Does Rational Approvability Have Moral Weight?, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

A governmental decision is "ex ante efficient" if it maximizes the satisfaction of everyone's preferences ex ante, relative to other possible decisions. Equivalently, each affected person would be rational to approve the decision, given her preferences and beliefs at the time of the choice. Does this matter, morally speaking? Do governmental officials - legislators, judges, regulators - have a moral reason to make decisions that are ex ante efficient? The economist's answer is "yes." "Ex ante efficiency" is widely seen by welfare economists to have moral significance, and often appears within law-and-economics scholarship as a criterion for evaluating legal doctrines. …

The Political (Science) Context Of Judging, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legal Transitions: Some Welfarist Remarks, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

This essay offers a sympathetic, utilitarian critique of Louis Kaplow's famous argument for legal retroactivity in his 1986 article, "An Economic Analysis of Legal Transitions." The argument, very roughly, is that the prospect of retroactivity is desirable if citizens are rational because it gives them a desirable incentive to anticipate legal change. My central claim is that this argument trades upon a dubious, objective view of probability that assumes rational citizens assign the same probabilities to states as rational governmental officials. But it is subjective, not objective probabilities that bear on rational choice, and the subjective probabilities of rational citizens …

Introduction To, Preferences And Rational Choice: New Perspectives And Legal Implications, Matthew D. Adler, Claire Finkelstein, Peter Huang

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Cracked Foundations Of The Right To Secede, Donald L. Horowitz

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Risk, Death And Harm: The Normative Foundations Of Risk Regulation, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Is death a harm? Is the risk of death a harm? These questions lie at the foundations of risk regulation. Agencies that regulate threats to human life, such as the EPA, OSHA, the FDA, the CPSC, or NHTSA, invariably assume that premature death is a first-party harm - a welfare setback to the person who dies - and often assume that being at risk of death is a distinct and additional first-party harm. If these assumptions are untrue, the myriad statutes and regulations that govern risky activities should be radically overhauled, since the third-party benefits of preventing premature death and …