Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Smith V. Daily Mail Publishing Co., Lewis F. Powell Jr. Oct 1978

Smith V. Daily Mail Publishing Co., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.


Spears V. State, 337 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1976), John Mueller Apr 1978

Spears V. State, 337 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1976), John Mueller

Florida State University Law Review

Constitutional Law- SPEECH- FLORIDA'S INDECENT AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE STATUTE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE FOR OVERBREADTH.


First Amendment Ancillary Doctrines, David S. Bogen Jan 1978

First Amendment Ancillary Doctrines, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Constitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed In Order To Preserve Defendant's Right To A Fair Trial, Douglas Robison Jan 1978

Constitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed In Order To Preserve Defendant's Right To A Fair Trial, Douglas Robison

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.


Bakke Revisited - What The Court's Decision Means - And Doesn't Mean, Douglas D. Scherer Jan 1978

Bakke Revisited - What The Court's Decision Means - And Doesn't Mean, Douglas D. Scherer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


The Irrelevance Of The Constitution: The Religion Clauses Of The First Amendment And The Supreme Court, Philip B. Kurland Jan 1978

The Irrelevance Of The Constitution: The Religion Clauses Of The First Amendment And The Supreme Court, Philip B. Kurland

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress Jan 1978

The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …


The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress Jan 1978

The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …


A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi Jan 1978

A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi

Seattle University Law Review

This comment discusses four of Justice Stevens's opinions that analyze first amendment issues. Two dissenting opinions in Splawn v. California and Smith v. United States deal expressly with obscenity, and reject the Court's present method of analysis. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation both develop a balancing approach to ascertain the constitutionality of government regulation of nonobscene offensive speech. The comment concludes that Justice Stevens correctly identifies the factors necessary to insure proper Court protection of speech interests.