Prosecuting the press: First amendment balancing and state statutes that punish publication of information of crimes and official misconduct

The press has been sued and prosecuted under state criminal statutes prohibiting the truthful publication of information. These cases have involved the truthful publication of information of sexual assault victims, juvenile offenders and public officials under confidential investigation, as well as grand jury information. The Supreme Court generally has provided relief to the press, but has eschewed finding specific statutes facially unconstitutional. Instead, the Court has used an ad hoc balancing approach and rendered fact‐specific holdings. The article concludes that categorical First Amendment protection for truthful information of alleged crimes and acts of official misconduct is an appropriate goal.     

Criminal solicitation,entrapment, and the enforcement of law

This paper examines the optimal use of criminal solicitation as a law enforcement strategy. The benefits are greater deterrence of crime (due to the greater likelihood of apprehension), and the savings in social harm as some offenders are diverted away from committing actual crimes through solicitation. The costs are the expense of hiring undercover cops and the greater likelihood of punishment. The optimal use of solicitation balances these factors. The paper also examines the justification for the entrapment defense, which exonerates those caught in a criminal solicitation but who otherwise had no predisposition to commit a crime.     

论法人的基本权利主体地位

美国宪法并没有规定公司是基本权利主体,美国联邦最高法院在很多判例中亦认定美国宪法的特权与豁免条款不适用于公司。宪法第14修正案通过后,尤其是自19世纪80年代以来,美国联邦最高法院逐渐将宪法的保护扩大适用于公司,使得公司成为某些宪法基本权利的主体。这一转变迎合了美国经济发展的需要,使得国内统一大市场的建立成为可能。本文借鉴美国的宪法实践,细致梳理了公司作为基本权利主体的相关理论。     

Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so. Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings, thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood. There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.     

Originalism 2.0 Meets the First Amendment: The “New Originalism,” Interpretive Methodology,and Freedom of Expression

Constitutional originalism emerged as a legal and political movement in the last quarter of the twentieth century largely as a conservative reaction to perceived excesses of the Supreme Court of the United States. Early originalist attempts to formulate a coherent constitutional methodology were met with stinging criticism from many scholars. In recent years, a group of constitutional scholars has championed a different approach under the rubric “the New Originalism.” One of the key methodological innovations of New Originalism has been to reject the search for the intentions of the framer or ratifiers of constitutional provisions and instead seek to identify the “original public meaning” of such provisions. This article explores New Originalism in the context of the First Amendment speech and press clauses. The article also analyzes originalist opinions by Supreme Court justices to determine if New Originalism is affecting how the justices approach First Amendment interpretation.     

An Apologia To Radical Dissent And A Supreme Court Test To Protect It

Some framers of the Constitution of the United States, scholars and Supreme Court justices have argued that protection and encouragement of democratic deliberation are at the core purpose of the First Amendment. Most of these individuals would, nevertheless, exclude radical political dissent from constitutional protection. They seem to disagree with Thomas Jefferson, who believed in the salutary effects of revolutionary speech and even the occasional revolution. Government action targeting terrorist speech and association extends from this reasoning. This article argues that extreme political speech has benefit to society. Building on a varied body of First Amendment opinions, the author proposes a five-part test to better protect the radical speech vital to self-government and the search for truth.     

Policy of Secrecy-Pattern of Deception: What Federalist Leaders Thought About a Public Right to Know, 1794-98

Legal commentators and journalists have debated for years whether the First Amendment provides the press with special rights of access to government information and facilities. The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected arguments that such a constitutional right for newsgathering exists. This study examines the issue from a historical perspective. It looks at the question of whether there is historical evidence in the years immediately following ratification of the First Amendment to support the modern rationale that the press has a constitutional right of access to government.     

POSTAL 2 plays in US court - Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association

In an unprecedented legal development, the case of violence in video games has now reached the highest American court. The US Supreme Court is set to decide whether states can restrict minors from buying violent video games in the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The decision could have serious implications on the future of First Amendment rights and children’s ’welfare. To resolve Schwarzenegger, the Justices will need to decide how much First Amendment protection should be extended to violent video games and whether minors have a greater constitutional right to violence than they do to obscenity.     

The first amendment at the crossroads: Free expression and new media technology

A century and a half after it became part of the Constitution, the First Amendment finally began to fulfill its promise of protecting freedom of speech and press. Only in recent decades have courts extended that protection to a broad range of expressive activity. In an era of emerging media technology, courts will be called on to establish new constitutional principles to deal with the changing communications landscape. Once unleashed, the “new”; First Amendment standards will be available to change the legacy of landmark cases that some consider to be overly‐solicitous of freedom of speech and press. Protecting the First Amendment in the cyberspace era is best accomplished not by creating new standards, but by applying and thus preserving established First Amendment principles.     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

Are the similarities between a woman's right to choose an abortion and the alleged right to assisted suicide really compelling?

In this Article, Marc Spindelman examines the relationship between abortion and assisted suicide. He begins his discussion with the constitutional framework within which courts should consider the assertion that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual's decision to commit assisted suicide. The Author then considers and, based on relevant Supreme Court doctrine, rejects the conception of personal autonomy that undergirds the claimed constitutional right to assisted suicide. Finally, the Author points out some legal and cultural distinctions between abortion and assisted suicide, arguing that these distinctions offer courts good reasons for holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of liberty does not include the liberty to commit assisted suicide. In addition, the Author makes a few observations about recent assisted-suicide cases decided by the Ninth and Second Circuits.     

Student privacy rights involving strip searches

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protection of all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against unreasonable intrusive searches by governmental officials. Since students possess constitutional rights and public school officials are considered governmental officials for Fourth Amendment purposes, privacy protection is afforded students in public schools within reasonable limits. A reasonable search is one that clearly does not violate the constitutional rights of students. What is reasonable, however, depends on the context within which a search occurs. Strip searches involving students in public schools are the most intrusive form of all searches. Extreme caution should be exercised by school officials regarding these types of searches.     

Facing the Fear: A Free Market Approach for Economic Expression

Commentators differ on whether a diminished constitutional status for profit-driven speech is consistent with free speech theory. Most recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission largely embraced an unfettered marketplace approach for political speech financed by corporate treasuries. Given the harm a free market approach is said to have produced in the economic realm, is this approach useful for structuring the constitutional protection economic expression receives? This article discusses the placement of economic expression within First Amendment theory and contends that restrictions on economic speech should be aimed at combating deceptive economic activities while overall regulatory goals should focus on requirements that enrich the supply of accurate and timely information.     

A Doctrine at Risk: Content Neutrality in a Post-Reed Landscape

Although the Supreme Court of the United States has deployed the content-neutrality doctrine at least twenty-three times in the last decade, two recent cases — McCullen v. Coakley and Reed v. Town of Gilbert — demonstrate that disagreement among the justices over the meaning of the doctrine is endangering its utility for First Amendment jurisprudence. This article describes the manifestations of this disagreement and suggests that without further clarification about the doctrine's nature, purpose and application, the venerable First Amendment canon may soon either lose practical tenability or disintegrate into constitutional oblivion. Such an outcome, the article suggests, is both ill advised and avoidable. By taking several practical steps, the Supreme Court can go a long way toward preserving the doctrine's usefulness for upholding legitimate government interests and protecting the freedom of expression.     

Could Wild Horses Drag Access Away From Courtrooms? Expanding First Amendment Rights to New Pastures

More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States created a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. At the time—and in the Supreme Court cases that immediately followed Richmond Newspapers—the assumption was that such a right of access would apply only to judicial proceedings. This article examines a small but significant body of case law that extends the First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings to new venues far removed from courtrooms. Using the 2012 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Leigh v. Salazar as an analytical springboard, this article analyzes how the so-called experience-and-logic test fashioned by the high Court in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court in 1986 is being applied in such cases. Cases like Leigh also provide an excellent opportunity for courts to clarify precisely the nature and extent of the history required to find qualified rights of access given the relatively recent government program to which the plaintiff in that case now seeks access.     

生命的守护还是疏离——评醉驾入刑的情节

鉴于醉酒驾驶机动车发生交通意外、危害公共安全的现象日益严重,《刑法修正案（八）》适时增设了危险驾驶罪,将醉酒驾驶行为纳入刑法调整范围。但是,单从《刑法修正案（八）》第22条条文本身以及立法原意来看,醉驾入刑似乎并不需要考虑情节问题。最高人民法院、最高人民检察院和公安部在对待此问题上的看法也不相一致。为此,有必要从理论上对该问题进行梳理、论证,以树立“情节”在醉驾入刑中的核心地位。     

美国打击色情物品犯罪的司法实践及困境

美国联邦最高法院从1957年开始掀起审查色情案件的高潮,形成了一系列先例,确立了"硬核色情物品"和"儿童色情物品"不受宪法第一修正案保护的原则.但是美国社会,尤其是联邦最高法院的大法官们对色情物品的危害、淫秽物品的标准以及色情物品受不受宪法第一修正案的保护等问题一直争论不休,导致色情物品泛滥成灾.     

Dimensions of criminal justice policy: The Supreme Court,the Fourth Amendment and the trial court system

A full understanding of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over the criminal justice process must recognize that the political and social environment affects local responses to Supreme Court directives. This paper reviews the development of Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions in which criminal court deliver justice. The authors suggest that future treatment of problems in Supreme Court’s supervisory role and the prospects of demands for Reform being generated from the larger political community.     

对交通肇事罪有关司法解释的探讨

最高人民法院审判委员会于2000年11月10日通过了《关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》。应当引起注意的是,该《解释》的一项内容规定,交通肇事只造成财产重大损失的情况下,只有行为人无能力赔偿数额在30万元以上的,才构成交通肇事罪。笔者认为,这一规定从实质上改变了《刑法》第133条对交通肇事罪客观要件内容的规定;违反了民事责任和刑事责任不得相互转换的法律原理;并且与《刑法》第4条所规定的刑法面前人人平等原则相冲突,应当修改。     

关于器官移植活动中涉及的犯罪现象的刑事法律认定

本文论述了器官移植活动中涉及的犯罪现象,其中包括合法化下的犯罪和非法状态下的犯罪现象,指出了如何对器官移植活动中引发的故意伤害罪,盗窃、侮辱尸体罪等进行法律认定。针对目前器官移植中可能出现的犯罪倾向,建议通过刑事立法对这一领域进行规制,促进器官移植的健康发展。