Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa
Akron Law Review
“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz
Akron Law Review
"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."
In All Fairness: Using Political Broadcast Access Doctrine To Tailor Public Campaign Fund Matching, Andrew V. Moshirnia, Aaron T. Dozeman
In All Fairness: Using Political Broadcast Access Doctrine To Tailor Public Campaign Fund Matching, Andrew V. Moshirnia, Aaron T. Dozeman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have undermined the viability of campaign public financing systems, a vital tool for fighting political corruption. First, Citizens United v. FEC allowed privately financed candidates and independent groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigning. Publicly financed candidates now risk being vastly outspent. Second, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett invalidated a proportional fund matching system whereby privately financed candidates’ or independent groups’ spending triggered funds to publicly funded candidates. These decisions effectuate a libertarian speech doctrine: all speakers, individual or corporate, must be absolutely unburdened. To comply with this approach, …
How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton
How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.