Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Law Antecedent And Paramount, Fred H. Cate
A Law Antecedent And Paramount, Fred H. Cate
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Sensitive Society, James F. Fitzpatrick
The Sensitive Society, James F. Fitzpatrick
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Adrian Cronauer's "The Fairness Doctrine", Robert P. Rhodes
Commentary On Adrian Cronauer's "The Fairness Doctrine", Robert P. Rhodes
Federal Communications Law Journal
Symposium: The Transformation of Television News
The First Amendment And The Protection Of Unfair Speech, Barbara Mcdowell
The First Amendment And The Protection Of Unfair Speech, Barbara Mcdowell
Federal Communications Law Journal
Symposium: The Transformation of Television News
Fairness And The Public Trustee Concept: Time To Move On, Henry Geller
Fairness And The Public Trustee Concept: Time To Move On, Henry Geller
Federal Communications Law Journal
Symposium: The Transformation of Television News
The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution In Search Of A Problem, Adrian Cronauer
The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution In Search Of A Problem, Adrian Cronauer
Federal Communications Law Journal
The "Fairness Doctrine" refers to a former policy of the Federal Communications Commission wherein a broadcast station which presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue had to afford the opposing viewpoint an opportunity to be heard. The FCC ceased to enforce the doctrine in 1987, reasoning that the doctrine actually decreased the viewpoints heard by discouraging broadcasters from covering controversial issues out of fear of censure by the FCC. The Author explores the historical development of the Fairness Doctrine and examines the flaws with the different rationales upon which the doctrine is based. The Autho concludes that today's marketplace …
A Critique Of An Illegal Conduct Limitation On The Reporters' Privilege Not To Testify, Leslie A. Warren
A Critique Of An Illegal Conduct Limitation On The Reporters' Privilege Not To Testify, Leslie A. Warren
Federal Communications Law Journal
The First Amendment is commonly interpreted to allow reporters a qualified privilege not to testify. By compelling testimony only where the party requesting the information meets the elements of a three-part test, a court balances the interests of the requesting party with those of the reporter. The court in United States v. Sanusi applied this traditional test and found that the defendant met the elements. However, the court also added a new restriction on the privilege. This Note argues that the additional limitation, requiring that the court be confident that the privilege not be "justifying otherwise illegal conduct," is an …
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
Vanderbilt Law Review
Communication contributes to the marketplace of ideasI which is the only way to promote the discovery of truth in society. The importance of communication has led the United States Supreme Court to herald freedom of expression as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Indeed, the Court protects few other constitutional rights with such fervor. First Amendment protection is not absolute, however, and the United States Supreme Court consistently has asserted that certain forms or classes of expression may be regulated without violating the Constitution. Generally speaking, the Court has carved exceptions to First Amendment …
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
Cleveland State Law Review
Thus, I focus my attention on the problem of the First Amendment when the government must make content-based choices. I want to divide my remarks into four parts. I begin by reviewing the traditional bedrock rule of the First Amendment: The government cannot regulate speech based on its content. Second, I identify a broad range of cases where this rule cannot apply because the government must make content-based choices. Third, I suggest that the usual First Amendment principles are not helpful in analyzing these cases. Finally, I offer some initial thoughts about directions for dealing with this problem.
Free Speech By The Light Of A Burning Cross, Jerome O'Callaghan
Free Speech By The Light Of A Burning Cross, Jerome O'Callaghan
Cleveland State Law Review
For scholars of the First Amendment this case is an excellent example of the dilemmas posed by many of the doctrines created by the Court. While Justice Scalia proposes an elaborate and novel understanding of the limits of free speech regulation, Justice White responds with an assertion that Scalia's reasoning is "transparently wrong," and that his opinion is a "radical revision of First Amendment law." According to Justice Stevens, the majority opinion is no more than "an adventure in a doctrinal wonderland." Part II of this paper examines the attacks made by Justices White and Stevens against the majority opinion. …