Law Commons^™

Conflicts Between Copyright And The First Amendment After Harper & Row, Publishers V. Nation Enterprises, David E. Shipley

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Celebrities And The First Amendment: Broader Protection Against The Unauthorized Publication Of Photographs, D. Scott Gurney

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Public Access To Civil Court Records: A Common Law Approach, Ronald D. May

Vanderbilt Law Review

Courts have long recognized a general common law right of access to courtroom proceedings' and court records. Recently, however, courts have begun to consider whether the first amendment of the Constitution protects this right of access. In 1980 the United States Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia held that the press and the public have a first amendment right to attend criminal trials. The Supreme Court found this right implicit in the various clauses of the first amendment. Although the Supreme Court has taken few opportunities since Richmond Newspapers to define precisely the contours of the first amendment …

Expanding The Scarcity Rationale: The Constitutionality Of Public Access Requirements In Cable Franchise Agreements, Debora L. Osgood

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that public access requirements should be upheld because they are constitutional and because they further the goals of the first amendment. As background for the debate over public access, Part I provides a brief description of cable television's history and regulation and discusses the case law concerning public access requirements. Part II examines the nature of the first amendment interests at stake in public access requirements. Before resolving the question of which interests should be protected, Part III argues that an expanded scarcity rationale should be used to justify cable regulation under the first amendment. Part IV …

Tort Claims Against Churches And Ecclesiastical Officers: The First Amendment Considerations, Carl H. Esbeck

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

En El Nombre De Dios--The Sanctuary Movement: Development And Potential For First Amendment Protection, Carl W. Levander

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The First Freedom. By Bryce W. Rucker, Francis Robinson, Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Court Interpretation Of The Washington Obscenity Statute—Brockett V. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 105 S. Ct. 2794 (1985), Amy L. Swingen

Washington Law Review

A recent series of federal court decisions regarding an obscenity statute in the State of Washington provides an example of the context in which the state-federal conflict arises and the impact of the use of the various alternatives. In Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., the federal district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court ignored the efficient procedural solution of certification, and rejected the more time-consuming abstention as well. The question before the court involved the definition of obscenity. By refusing to allow the Washington Supreme Court to interpret the word "lust" for purposes of the state's newly enacted …

A Moment Of Silence: A Permissible Accommodation Protecting The Capacity To Form Religious Belief, Andrew Woodbridge Hall

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress By Spiritual Counselors: Can Outrageous Conduct Be "Free Exercise"?, Lee W. Brooks

Michigan Law Review

Part I explains the extent to which courts are competent to decide the threshold question of whether particular conduct is religious. Part II describes the balancing test put forward by the Supreme Court for evaluating free exercise claims, and derives criteria relevant to spiritual counseling from cases involving such claims. Part III summarizes the pertinent criteria and reviews the ways they may be employed to systematize the treatment of spiritual counseling cases.

Religion And The Burger Court, Rex E. Lee

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Religion, State and the Burger Court by Leo Pfeffer

Interpretations Of The First Amendment, Abner S. Greene

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Interpretations of the First Amendment by

Levy Vs. Levy, David A. Anderson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Emergence of a Free Press by Leonard W. Levy

A Unifying Theory For The Religion Clauses Of The First Amendment, Thomas R. Mccoy, Gary A. Kurtz

Vanderbilt Law Review

According to Justice Powell, the first amendment religion clauses are the source of "some of the most perplexing questions"that the Supreme Court confronts. In a long and rapidly expanding line of religion clause cases the Court has struggled, with a conspicuous lack of success, to articulate principles of broad applicability. The Court's efforts to date have resulted in a jumble of tests, standards, and theoretical approaches from which predicting the outcome in future cases is very difficult.

The conceptual problems that have frustrated the Court's attempts at doctrinal development center in two broad areas: first,the meaning and effect of the …

Broadcasters' First Amendment Rights: A New Approach?, L. Allyn Dixon, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 offered the blueprint for the modern system of public broadcasting and regulation and largely freed noncommercial broadcasting to become a viable alternative to the commercial broadcasting" offered by the three national networks. Since becoming intimately involved in noncommercial broadcasting by providing partial funding, the federal government has imposed regulations on noncommercial broadcasters far more rigid than the restrictions imposed on commercial broadcasters. Recently, however, in a decision that some might regard as heralding greater equality between the first amendment rights of commercial and noncommercial broadcasters and continuing the trend toward loosening …

The Secular Meaning Behind The Lemon Test: Lynch V. Donnelly

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. V. Nation Enterprises: Pirating Unpublished Copyrighted Works: Does The Fair Use Doctrine Vindicate First Amendment Rights, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 501 (1986), Stacy Daniels

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Greenmoss Builders, Inc. V. Dun & (And) Bradstreet Inc. Invites Controversy, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 929 (1986), Elmer Gertz

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Brennan, Due Process And The Freedom Of Speech: A Celebration Of Speiser V. Randall, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 7 (1986), George Anastaplo

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sanctuary Movement: Above The Law Or Beyond It's Reach?, Dennis P. Riordan

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law-First Amendment-Establishment Clause-Aid To Parochial Schools (Aguilar V. Felton), Sean P. Sullivan

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

The Forgotten Hatred: Anti-Catholicism In Modern America, Stephen L. Barry

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Religion In State Constitutions, Kent Greenawalt

Campbell Law Review

The two central questions I address are the following: (1) If my claims about interpreting the federal constitution are sound, are they also intrinsically sound for state constitutions that contain different language? (2) Is it always, or sometimes, essentially self-defeating for state courts to define religion in a way different from what is embodied in federal law?

Published Consentless Sexual Portrayals: A Proposed Framework For Analysis, Ruth Colker

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Zauderer V. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel: Refining The Regulation Of Attorney Advertising, Brent P. Copenhaver

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Obscenity: The Justices' (Not So) New Robes, Michael Kent Curtis

Campbell Law Review

The first portion of this article examines obscenity regulation both in the federal arena and in North Carolina and looks briefly at how we got to where we are today. The second part examines the current North Carolina statute and the constitutional problems which are inextricably connected with it. The final section considers directions that the courts (or legislature) should take in consideration of the new North Carolina statute.

Cable Tv's "Must Carry" Rules: The Most Restrictive Alternative - Quincy Cable Tv, Inc. V. Fcc, Robert B. Hobbs Jr.

Campbell Law Review

This note first argues that the court correctly applied the least scrutinizing first amendment test to the facts of the case and concluded its inquiry after the rules failed that test. Second, this note argues that the FCC, while once on the correct regulatory path regarding cable, erred by not studying the potential impact of cable television on a case by case basis as the FCC had decided to do with competing broadcasters in Carroll Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC. Third, this note concludes that the Quincy case will benefit cable operators financially and will provide proper protection of cable …

Lowe V. Sec: Investment Advisors Act Of 1940 Clashes With First Amendment Guarantees Of Free Speech And Press, Stacy P. Thompson

University of Richmond Law Review

In the wake of mounting controversy over whether federal securities laws can withstand first amendment scrutiny, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lowe v. SEC to consider whether the first amendment prohibits an injunction against publication and distribution of an investment advisory newsletter by an unregistered investment advisor. However, the Court bypassed this constitutional question, and instead adopted a statutory construction of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Act") that excluded Lowe's newsletters as "bonafide financial publications" of general circulation under section 80(b)- 2(a)(11)(D). The majority ruled that the petitioners were not investment advisers, and therefore did …

Justice Sanford And Modern Free Speech Analysis: Back To The Future?, Philip J. Prygoski

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Clergy-Penitent Privilege And The Child Abuse Reporting Statute: Is The Secret Sacred, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1031 (1986), Kathryn Keegan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.