Communication Law and Policy最新文献_第7页

Barron, Jerome A. Access to the Press — A New First Amendment Right, 80 Harv. Law Rev. 1641 (1967) Jerome A.Barron《新闻自由——新的第一修正案权利》，80 Harv。法律修订版1641（1967）

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1766311

Theodore L. Glasser

引用次数: 0

Balkin, Jack M. The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 707 (2009) 《数字时代自由表达的未来》，第36页。L.修订版707（2009）

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1765652

Jonathan R. Peters

引用次数: 1

Ely, John Hart. Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1482 (1975) 伊利，约翰·哈特。《美国宪法第一修正案分析中分类与平衡的作用》，1988年。L.修订1482 (1975)

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1766895

Genelle I. Belmas

引用次数: 0

Editor’s Note 编者按

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1765580

Joseph Russomanno, Kermit Hall, Lee Levine

引用次数: 0

Kalven Jr., Harry. The New York Times Case: A Note on “The Central Meaning of the First Amendment,” 1964 Sup. Ct. Rev. 191 小卡文，哈利。《纽约时报》案:关于“第一修正案的核心意义”的注释，1964年Sup。Ct。191年启

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1767410

Joseph Russomanno

引用次数: 0

Dworkin, Ronald. Hard Cases, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1057 (1975) 德沃金，罗纳德。硬壳，88 Harv。L.修订版1057（1975）

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1766894

T. Brennan

{"title":"Dworkin, Ronald. Hard Cases, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1057 (1975)","authors":"T. Brennan","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2020.1766894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2020.1766894","url":null,"abstract":"When considering cases involving the First Amendment, the Communications Commission Acts of 1934 or 1996, and Federal Communications Commission orders, one should begin by considering three overarching related questions: When interpreting cases, what do judges do, and what should they do?With respect to the First Amendment, how do or should judges determine the meaning of “speech,” “press,” “assemble,” or petition “for a redress of grievances”? What makes something a “law,” andwhenwould this something “abridge” these “freedoms”? To perhaps oversimplify, the philosophy of law has offered two main approaches to answering these questions. One, legal positivism, is that the law is a collection of factual statements about legality, much as chemistry is a collection of factual statements about atomic interactions. This includes identification of a process by which judges (and the public) recognize which statements about conduct are laws. One prominent such process is positive originalism — the import of “positive” to be explained — in which instructions about the content of the law can be found in what those who enacted the law believed to be what it specifically delineated. The other answer, at the extreme opposite, is legal realism. In this view, the law is what judges say it is. To invoke a familiar metaphor from baseball, legal positivism is the umpire saying, “I call ‘em as they is,” and legal realism is “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.” A modern variant on legal realism is critical legal studies, which places courts as part of the overarching set of power relations in society or, as the baseball metaphor concludes, with the umpire saying, “They ain’t nothin’ ‘til I call ‘em.” Volumes have been written on these two philosophies. Legal positivism strips law of its normative force, that breaking the law is not just imprudent but wrong. Using dated applications to delineate the law seems inadequate as societies become more complex. Legal realism","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2020.1766894","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43983354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

The State of Research on Communication and First Amendment Law in Traditional Law Journals: An Evaluative and Instructional Take 传统法学期刊传播与第一修正案研究现状:一个评价与指导的视角

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1765596

C. Calvert

引用次数: 0

Lessig, Lawrence. The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999) Lawrence Lessig。《马的法则:网络法可能教给我们什么》，113 Harv。L.第501版(1999)

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1767414

V. Ekstrand

{"title":"Lessig, Lawrence. The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999)","authors":"V. Ekstrand","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2020.1767414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2020.1767414","url":null,"abstract":"Cyberlaw taught us everything, actually. The year was 1999 and undergraduate media law professors across the country were hearing what was initially an astounding claim from their students: Illegally sharing and downloading music online were acts of free expression. For seasoned instructors at the time, the statement was initially a source of amusement. For those of us entering the academy, the claim was less surprising. Whatever was going on in this new thing called cyberspace, it would certainly never be the case that music lovers could indefinitely infringe on the copyrights of musicians and their publishers. Indeed, the legal histories of Napster and Grokster, two early music file sharing services that found themselves in frequent legal battles with music publishers, eventually proved the professors right. Infringers were sued, the services were punished, and new business models around online music were birthed. The law seemed to win. Or did it? When Larry Lessig, then a 38-year old law professor at Stanford University, published one of the most-cited and celebrated articles of his career, “The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach,” and his book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, the media law community seemed to take a collective deep breath. In one fell swoop, Lessig argued that something was fundamentally different for law in cyberspace, a shift so consequential that he felt compelled to take on not only Judge Frank Easterbrook of the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who had declared that there was “no more a law of cyberspace than there was a ‘Law of the Horse,’” but also the growing","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2020.1767414","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48403332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Emerson, Thomas I. Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L. J. 877 (1963) 爱默生，《走向第一修正案的通论》，72耶鲁大学学报877（1963）

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1766897

Karen M. Markin

引用次数: 0

Lidsky, Larissa. Prying, Spying, and Lying: Intrusive Newsgathering and What the Law Should Do About It, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 173 (1998) 利德斯基，拉里萨。《撬、间谍和撒谎：侵入性新闻收集和法律应如何处理》，73 Tul。L.修订版173（1998）

IF 0.3

Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1767422

Roy S. Gutterman

引用次数: 0