Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Indecent" Language: A New Class Of Prohibitable Speech? F.C.C. V. Pacifica Foundation, Robert T. Billingsley
"Indecent" Language: A New Class Of Prohibitable Speech? F.C.C. V. Pacifica Foundation, Robert T. Billingsley
University of Richmond Law Review
Courts in this country have long recognized that the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, while written in absolute terms, is not an unyielding bar to all government regulation. The basic question left unresolved, however, is under what circumstances the government may intervene on behalf of itself or its citizens to place restrictions upon the great protected right of communication. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States, indicated that the question was whether the words used would create a "clear and present danger" of bringing about "substantive evils that Congress has a right …
Professional Ethics And Trial Publicity: Another Constitutional Attack On Dr7-107- Hirschkop V. Snead, Stephen E. Baril
Professional Ethics And Trial Publicity: Another Constitutional Attack On Dr7-107- Hirschkop V. Snead, Stephen E. Baril
University of Richmond Law Review
Philip J. Hirschkop brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Disciplinary Rule 7-107 of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, was unconstitutionally vague and over broad. DR 7-107, generally referred to as the "no-comment" rule, prohibits extrajudicial statements by attorneys regarding pending litigation in which they are involved, "if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice."