Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons^™

Panel Iii: Cable Versus The Telephone Companies: Can Telephone Companies Be Constitutionally Barred From Delivering Video Programming? , David E. Bronston, James J. Gilligan, Mark C. Hansen, Joseph A. Post

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Panel Ii: Cable Versus Broadcast Tv: The “Must Carry” Provisions Of The Cable Television Consumer And Competition Act Of 1992, Marc Apfelbaum, Gregory Buscarino, Steven J. Hyman, Robert D. Joffe

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Panel Iv: Censorship Of Cable Television’S Leased And Public Access Channels, Majorie Heins, James N. Horwood, Robert T. Perry, Michael Sitcov

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Current Crime Victimization Statutes: A Survey , Debra A. Shields

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Applying The First Amendment To Prayer In A Public University Locker Room: An Athlete's And Coach's Perspective, Gil Fried, Lisa Bradley

Marquette Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defending The “Decency Clause” In Finley V. National Endowment For The Arts, J. Sarah Kim

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Simon & Schuster, Inc. V. Members Of The New York State Crime Victims Board: The Demise Of New York’S Son Of Sam Law And The Decision That Could Have Been, Ralph W. Johnson, Iii

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Myths And Misunderstandings, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the utility of the Holmsean marketplace of ideas when considering the regulation of different forms of communication technology.

The Right To Speak, The Right To Hear, And The Right Not To Hear: The Technological Resolution To The Cable/Pornography Debate, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The advent of cable television presented a new opportunity to consider the competing interests on each side of the free speech/pornography debate. This Article attempts to construct an analysis that will be consistent with Supreme Court teaching on how government, under the first amendment, may constitutionally regulate legal obscenity, particularly in the name of protecting those who wish to avoid exposure to such material.

The Article shows how, unlike earlier battles over technology and pornography, cable television presented the novel opportunity to have a technological rather than a censorial solution to this difficult problem.

Freedom Of Speech And Racism, David Kretzmer

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Essay--Fighting For Their Lives: The Applicability Of The Fairness Doctrine To Violence In Children's Television Programming, Thomas Barton

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure Of The Media: A Statutory, Fourth Amendment And First Amendment Analysis, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

On the evening of October 10, 1974, police appeared at radio station KPFK-FM in Los Angeles with a warrant authorizing them to search the premises for a New World Liberation Front (NWLF) "communique" that took credit for a recent bombing. The officers conducted an intensive 8-hour search-combing files, listening to tapes, and looking through reporters' notes – finally concluding that the NWLF letter was not at the station. The KPFK search warrant was one of six that California law enforcement officials have executed at press offices since 1972. The circumstances surrounding the incident illustrate the rationale behind the recent development …

Considerations In Determining Limitations On State Power To Regulate Motion Picture Content

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.