First Amendment Commons^™

Bakke Revisited - What The Court's Decision Means - And Doesn't Mean, Douglas D. Scherer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …

Lawyers, Privileged Communications, And The Foreign Agents Registration Act Of 1938, Phyllis K. Fong

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Originally enacted to control the spread of subversive propaganda during World War I, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (Act) now regulates the conduct of lobbyists, public relations counsellors, attorneys, and other agents acting on behalf of foreign entities. The Act no longer prohibits dissemination of political propaganda, but requires that foreign agents register and disclose the nature and extent of all activities conducted pursuant to the agency agreement, on the assumption that adequate disclosure and publicity of agents' activities will make it impossible for foreign agents to take advantage of an unwary public. Congress has imposed, moreover, penal …

Constitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed In Order To Preserve Defendant's Right To A Fair Trial, Douglas Robison

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Houchins V. Kqed Inc., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Obscenity - 1977 Amendments To The Pennsylvania Obscenity Statute, John P. Kopesky

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners: A Reappraisal, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Marks V. United States, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Wolman V. Walters, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board Of Education V. Doyle, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Wooley V. Maynard, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Jones V. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of The Guarantee Of Freedom Of Speech, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

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 …

First Amendment Protection For Commercial Advertising: The New Constitutional Doctrine, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Governmental regulation of commercial advertising has become a major focus of challenges to established first amendment doctrine. An increasing number of suits have raised constitutional objections to regulations of false or deceptive advertising, regulations of offensive advertising, prohibitions of commercial advertising in certain forums, prohibitions of price advertising for particular products or services, and prohibitions of all advertising for particular products or services.' Until recently, the majority of courts upheld such regulations under the Supreme Court's ruling in Valentine v. Chrestensen that "purely commercial advertising" is unprotected by the first amendment.

In the last two years the Court has subjected …

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments Of 1974: The Constitutionality Of Limiting Political Advertising By The Non-Candidate, John P. Hollihan

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Libraries, Librarians And First Amendment Freedoms, Robert M. O'Neil

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Obscenity, The Law And Religion, Thomas A. Long

IUSTITIA

The long history of the relation between Western religion and secular law is both interesting and complex.' In what follows I shall discuss one current social issue which is illustrative of this relation,namely, the relatively recent legal-moral controversy over obscenity.

Meek V. Pittinger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Rights And The Use Of Public Facilities By Private Groups With Discriminatory Membership Policies: National Socialist White People's Party V. Ringers, Charles Baily Tomb

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of First Amendment Overbreadth, J. W. Torke

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Broadrick, Justice White suggests that the willingness of the Court in the past to accord standing to litigants to raise the over-broad aspects of a statute without regard to their own conduct'depended on a "judicial prediction or assumption" regarding the threat to liberty that the statute posed.' The spirit with which the Court makes such predictions would appear to be determinative not only of the underlying standing issue but of the overbreadth claimas well." The key to discovering the paths by which the Court is "retreating" from its overbreadth holiday of the sixties lies in the recognition that the …

Hunt V. Mcnair, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Papish V. Board Of Curators Of The University Of Missouri, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Obscenity -- Federal Statutes Prohibiting Importation And Mail Distribution Of Obscene Materials Do Not Violate First Amendment, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Near the end of the 1970-71 term, the Supreme Court considered two cases, United States v. Reidell and United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, in which constitutional challenges were raised against federal statutes regulating the distribution and importation of obscene materials. These challenges were engendered by the apparent irreconcilability of the Court's decisions in Roth v. United States and Stanley v. Georgia. In Roth, the Court held that obscenity is not within the scope of first amendment protection for speech and press. In Stanley, however, a first amendment right to possess obscene materials in one's home was recognized, and the …

Kleindienst V. Mandel, Lewis F. Powell Jr

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Healy V. James, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Neutral Principles And Some First Amendment Problems, Robert H. Bork

Indiana Law Journal

The text of this article was delivered in the Spring of 1971 by Professor Bork at the Indiana University School of Law as part of the Addison C. Harriss lecture series.

The Military Courts And Servicemen's First Amendment Rights, Edward F. Sherman

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Welsh Reaffirms Seeger: From A Remarkable Feat Of Judicial Surgery To A Lobotomy, Theodore F. Denno

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

First Amendment "Due Process", Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

A number of recent Supreme Court opinions, primarily in the obscenity area, have fastened strict procedural requirements on governmental action aimed at controlling the exercise of first amendment rights. Professor Monaghan believes that there are two basic principles that can be distilled from these cases: that a judicial body, following an adversary hearing, must decide on the protected character of the speech, and that the judicial determination must either precede or immediately follow any governmental action which restricts speech. The author argues that these two broad principles should limit any governmental activity which affects freedom of speech, no matter how …