Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rights Of State Prisoners - Federal Court Intervention In State Prison Administration; Jones V. Wittenberg, Ronald L. Collins
Rights Of State Prisoners - Federal Court Intervention In State Prison Administration; Jones V. Wittenberg, Ronald L. Collins
Akron Law Review
The path to federal court intervention into state prison administration has been a tortuous and rocky one.... Jones v. Wittenberg carries federal court intervention into state prison administration to new lengths. Until more basic and lasting changes are made on the part of society and the states, such intervention seems to be the best chance for ameliorating conditions in our state penal systems.
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."
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno
Akron Law Review
“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”