You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
In 1964 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan guaranteeing constitutional protection for caustic criticism of public officials, thus forging the modern law of freedom of the press. Since then, the Court has decided case after case affecting the rights and restrictions of the press, yet little has ben written about these developments as they pertain to the Fourth Estate. Lucas Powe's essential book now fills this gap. Lucas A. Powe, Jr., a legal scholar specializing in media and the law, goes back to the framing of the First Amendment and chronicles the two main traditions of interpreting freedom of the press to illuminate the issues that today ignite...
Argues that broadcasting should be accorded the same first amendment rights as the print media, shows how regulation has led to abuse, and suggests a different approach for the future
About the United States Supreme Court during Earl Warren's term as United States Chief Justice and its involvement in politics.
The all-white primary -- After the Voting Rights Act -- From discrimination to affirmative action -- Railroads -- Oil -- School finance -- Immigration -- Freedom of speech and the press -- Freedom of and from religion -- Abortion -- Prosecuting consensual adult sex -- Capital punishment -- Tom DeLay's mid-decade redistricting
The authors argue that TV regulation should be based on the same principles used for print media, for which control of editorial content lies in private hands rather than the government.
Between 1964 and 1989, the US Supreme Court largely rewrote the constitutional law of the media. In doing so the Court protected virtually all materials from laws that penalized dissemination. But simultaneously the Court also approved some government policies that made access to information more difficult, causing Justice Potter Stewart to observe that the "Constitution is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act." The media that existed during the twenty-five years of explosive legal change was relatively stable. Most Americans who wished to learn about news and public affairs received quite similar information. Over the last twenty-five years, and especially the la...
The best one-volume history of the Supreme Court now expanded and timely as America focuses on the relationship between politics and the US Supreme Court. An essential introduction to the history of the Court and American constitutional law.
The third edition of this seminal work includes the original text, first published in 1974, the updates and reflections from the second edition and two groundbreaking new chapters. Power: A Radical View assesses the main debates about how to conceptualize and study power, including the influential contributions of Michel Foucault. The new material includes a development of Lukes's theory of power and presents empirical cases to exemplify this. Including a refreshed introduction, this third edition brings a book that has consolidated its reputation as a classic work and a major reference point within Social and Political Theory to a whole new audience. It can be used on modules across the Social and Political Sciences dealing with the concept of power and its manifestation in the world. It is also essential reading for all undergraduate and postgraduate students interested in the history of Social and Political Thought. New to this Edition: - A revised and refreshed introduction - Two new chapters on 'Domination and Consent' and 'Exploring the Third Dimension'
None
While many recent observers have accused American judges—especially Supreme Court justices—of being too driven by politics and ideology, others have argued that judges are justified in using their positions to advance personal views. Advocating a different approach—one that eschews ideology but still values personal perspective—H. Jefferson Powell makes a compelling case for the centrality of individual conscience in constitutional decision making. Powell argues that almost every controversial decision has more than one constitutionally defensible resolution. In such cases, he goes on to contend, the language and ideals of the Constitution require judges to decide in good faith, exercising what Powell calls the constitutional virtues: candor, intellectual honesty, humility about the limits of constitutional adjudication, and willingness to admit that they do not have all the answers. Constitutional Conscience concludes that the need for these qualities in judges—as well as lawyers and citizens—is implicit in our constitutional practices, and that without them judicial review would forfeit both its own integrity and the credibility of the courts themselves.