Law Commons^™

The Cable-Telco Cross-Ownership Prohibition: First Amendment Infringement Through Obsolescence, Michael G. Oxley

Federal Communications Law Journal

Since 1970, the FCC has prohibited all telephone companies from providing video programming in their local service areas. The primary rationale behind this prohibition was to promote the cable industry. Since 1984, however, the cable industry has seen tremendous growth with very little competition. New technology and market demands have now necessitated a reevaluation of the ban on cable-telco cross-ownership. The Author argues that with the changes that have occurred in the marketplace, the ban is now both an invalid prior restraint and an infringement on commercial expression and thus a violation of the First Amendment rights of telephone companies. …

The Cable Act And Municipal Ownership: A Growing First Amendment Confrontation, Carl R. Ramey

Federal Communications Law Journal

In many communities across the nation cable subscribers depend on government-owned cable television systems for their communication services. This phenomenon may have started out to be fairly insignificant, but as a result of the cable explosion, government ownership of cable systems presents a threat to free expression. Governmental overbuilding and direct competition with private cable service providers have been the subject of unsuccessful First Amendment challenges. The threat of government control of cable systems, though, is potentially dramatic and poses serious First Amendment questions. The Author concludes that private ownership should be encouraged, and public ownership should only be allowed …

Silence And The Word, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

How To Do Things With The First Amendment, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Girls Should Bring Lawsuits Everywhere . . . Nothing Will Be Corrupted: Pornography As Speech And Product, Marianne Wesson

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Right To Religion-Based Exemptions In Early America: The Case Of Conscientious Objectors To Conscription, Ellis M. West

Political Science Faculty Publications

One of the more controversial decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in recent years was its decision in the case of Employment Division, Oregon v. Smith, which raised the basic issue of whether the free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees a right to religion-based exemptions, i.e., whether it gives persons and groups a prima facie right to be exempt from having to obey valid laws when they have religious reasons for noncompliance. More specifically, in Smith, two Native Americans claimed that their prosecution for using an illegal drug, peyote, was precluded by the free exercise clause …

The First Americans And The "Free" Exercise Of Religion, Martin C. Loesch

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Back From The Brink, Joel M. Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Advocacy And Scholarship, Paul F. Campos

Publications

The apex of American legal thought is embodied in two types of writings: the federal appellate opinion and the law review article. In this Article, the author criticizes the whole enterprise of doctrinal constitutional law scholarship, using a recent U.S. Supreme Court case and a Harvard Law Review article as quintessential examples of the dominant genre. In a rhetorical tour de force, the author argues that most of modern constitutional scholarship is really advocacy in the guise of scholarship. Such an approach to legal scholarship may have some merit as a strategic move towards a political end; however, it has …

Lee V. Weisman: A New Age For Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Elizabeth Brandt

Articles

No abstract provided.

Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, Geoffrey Bennett, Russell L. Weaver

Journal Articles

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions. Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel actions."

The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice." In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false …