Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
United States V. Stevens: Win, Loss, Or Draw For Animals?, David N. Cassuto
United States V. Stevens: Win, Loss, Or Draw For Animals?, David N. Cassuto
David N Cassuto
Robert J. Stevens, proprietor of “Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. §48, a law criminalizing visual or auditory depictions of animals being “intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if such conduct violated federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession [of such materials]” takes place.” The law aimed principally at makers and distributors of “crush videos” wherein women wearing high heels and depicted from the waist down, grind small animals to death. However, the language of 18 U.S.C. §48 extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law …
The Fight For Free Speech, Even If It's Offensive, Alan E. Garfield
The Fight For Free Speech, Even If It's Offensive, Alan E. Garfield
Alan E Garfield
No abstract provided.
When Is A Lie An Affront To The Law?, Alan E. Garfield
When Is A Lie An Affront To The Law?, Alan E. Garfield
Alan E Garfield
No abstract provided.
Dropping F-Bombs At The Supreme Court, Alan E. Garfield
Dropping F-Bombs At The Supreme Court, Alan E. Garfield
Alan E Garfield
No abstract provided.
To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield
To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield
Alan E Garfield
This essay considers the provocative question of whether it is strategically wise for a lawyer to use foul language during a Supreme Court oral argument. This issue doesn’t come up often. But it does when a lawyer claims his client’s First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. If the lawyer doesn’t use his client’s offensive words, he risks conceding that these words are so horrid they warrant suppression. But if he does use the words, he risks alienating justices who find the words unseemly. The essay uses the “fleeting expletives” case that was …
The Supreme Court As Prometheus: Breathing Life Into The Corporate Supercitizen, Robert Sprague, Mary Ellen Wells
The Supreme Court As Prometheus: Breathing Life Into The Corporate Supercitizen, Robert Sprague, Mary Ellen Wells
Robert Sprague
This article examines the legal status of the corporation in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have political free speech rights equivalent to natural persons. In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy wrote that corporations were disadvantaged persons because the government had intruded upon their freedom of speech. The Citizens United majority portrays a misleading image of corporations. It is true most corporations are owned by small groups of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size and revenues. But what the Citizens United majority conveniently ignores is one particular attribute …