|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
USE THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH ONLY FOR GENERAL CATALOGS... The First
Amendment right of free speech is a fragile one. Its fragility is
found no less in legal opinions than in other, less specialized
forms of public discourse. Both its fragility and its sometimes
surprising resiliency are reflected in this book. It provides an
examination of how the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with the
problem of restrictions on media coverage of the criminal justice
system, as well as how lower courts have interpreted the law
created by the Supreme Court. The author explores the degree to
which the Court has created a coherent body of law that protects
free expression values while permitting reasonable government
regulation, and examines the Supreme Court's jurisprudence
concerning prior restraints, post-publication sanctions on the
press, and their right of access to criminal proceedings.
This is a study of the evolution of constitutional doctrine --
particularly when transported from the rarefied air of the Supreme
Court to lower court judges who may not share the values of the
jurists above them in the judicial hierarchy. The book's greatest
strength lies in its thorough analysis and critique of how judges
apply First Amendment doctrine to the complex problem of providing
for both a "free press" and "fair trials." Much of the available
literature on this topic focuses on legal doctrine, but with
attention to the legal rules that emerge from the courts, rather
than examining and critiquing the judicial techniques that
"produce" those rules. Moreover, although a significant body of
scholarship has explored Supreme Court doctrine, this work is one
of the few that trace the influence of those doctrines through
lower federal court decisions. The hope is to produce a reasonably
accurate -- if partial -- picture of how intermediate appellate and
trial courts use U.S. Supreme Court doctrine to decide First
Amendment cases.
Note: This book is necessarily influenced by the 'round-the-clock'
press coverage of the recent O.J. Simpson trial. Although the
Simpson case did not make new law, the trial and its outcome seem
to be -- at this writing -- an inescapable part of how many people
think about these issues. The simple truth, however, is that the
Simpson case was an anomaly that has little relation to the
everyday concerns of media coverage of the criminal justice system.
While the venerable "parade of horribles" can be an effective
strategy for the legal advocate, it is not always the ideal way to
address larger concerns, particularly when fundamental rights are
at stake.
In this exceptional volume, Matthew D. Bunker explores the work of
contemporary free speech critics and argues that, while at times
these critics provide important lessons, many of their conclusions
must be rejected. Moreover, Bunker suggests that we be wary of
interdisciplinary approaches to free speech theory that--by their
very assumptions and techniques--are a poor "fit" with existing
free speech theory and doctrine. In his investigation of diverse
critiques of free speech theory and his sophisticated rebuttal, he
provides an innovative and important examination of First Amendment
theory. In doing so, he establishes a new agenda for First
Amendment theory scholarship that incorporates some of the critics'
insights without abandoning the best aspects of the free speech
tradition. COPY FOR MAILER: Distinctive features in this volume
include: * an overview of the traditional approaches to First
Amendment theory, * an examination of work from key First Amendment
scholars and theorists, at both the individual and group level, *
an emphasis on interdisciplinarity ranging from femi- nist and
critical legal scholars to economists and literary theorists, and *
a new agenda for First Amendment theory scholar- ship which
incorporates critical comment while pre- serving the best aspects
of the free speech tradition.
USE THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH ONLY FOR GENERAL CATALOGS... The First
Amendment right of free speech is a fragile one. Its fragility is
found no less in legal opinions than in other, less specialized
forms of public discourse. Both its fragility and its sometimes
surprising resiliency are reflected in this book. It provides an
examination of how the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with the
problem of restrictions on media coverage of the criminal justice
system, as well as how lower courts have interpreted the law
created by the Supreme Court. The author explores the degree to
which the Court has created a coherent body of law that protects
free expression values while permitting reasonable government
regulation, and examines the Supreme Court's jurisprudence
concerning prior restraints, post-publication sanctions on the
press, and their right of access to criminal proceedings.
This is a study of the evolution of constitutional doctrine --
particularly when transported from the rarefied air of the Supreme
Court to lower court judges who may not share the values of the
jurists above them in the judicial hierarchy. The book's greatest
strength lies in its thorough analysis and critique of how judges
apply First Amendment doctrine to the complex problem of providing
for both a "free press" and "fair trials." Much of the available
literature on this topic focuses on legal doctrine, but with
attention to the legal rules that emerge from the courts, rather
than examining and critiquing the judicial techniques that
"produce" those rules. Moreover, although a significant body of
scholarship has explored Supreme Court doctrine, this work is one
of the few that trace the influence of those doctrines through
lower federal court decisions. The hope is to produce a reasonably
accurate -- if partial -- picture of how intermediate appellate and
trial courts use U.S. Supreme Court doctrine to decide First
Amendment cases.
Note: This book is necessarily influenced by the 'round-the-clock'
press coverage of the recent O.J. Simpson trial. Although the
Simpson case did not make new law, the trial and its outcome seem
to be -- at this writing -- an inescapable part of how many people
think about these issues. The simple truth, however, is that the
Simpson case was an anomaly that has little relation to the
everyday concerns of media coverage of the criminal justice system.
While the venerable "parade of horribles" can be an effective
strategy for the legal advocate, it is not always the ideal way to
address larger concerns, particularly when fundamental rights are
at stake.
In this exceptional volume, Matthew D. Bunker explores the work of
contemporary free speech critics and argues that, while at times
these critics provide important lessons, many of their conclusions
must be rejected. Moreover, Bunker suggests that we be wary of
interdisciplinary approaches to free speech theory that--by their
very assumptions and techniques--are a poor "fit" with existing
free speech theory and doctrine. In his investigation of diverse
critiques of free speech theory and his sophisticated rebuttal, he
provides an innovative and important examination of First Amendment
theory. In doing so, he establishes a new agenda for First
Amendment theory scholarship that incorporates some of the critics'
insights without abandoning the best aspects of the free speech
tradition.
COPY FOR MAILER:
Distinctive features in this volume include:
* an overview of the traditional approaches to First Amendment
theory,
* an examination of work from key First Amendment scholars and
theorists, at both the individual and group level,
* an emphasis on interdisciplinarity ranging from femi- nist and
critical legal scholars to economists and literary theorists, and
* a new agenda for First Amendment theory scholar- ship which
incorporates critical comment while pre- serving the best aspects
of the free speech tradition.
|
|