POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first collected the Safford papers for those who did one. I went over two recent Supreme Court decisions, FCC v. Fox regarding the FCC's indecency regulation changes for broadcast media, and Dean v. U.S. regarding the requirement of a mens rea for the accidental discharge of a gun during a bank robbery. We then watched portions of the oral argument in yesterday's Supreme Court argument in the NW Austin M.U.D. v. Holder voting rights case. Have a good summer.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/30, we went over the concepts in Chapter 10 of the text. I also discussed the constitutional implications of Tuesday's Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox. We also discussed an earlier FCC indecency case, FCC v. Pacifica, and two election debate exclusion cases, Arkansas E.T.C. v. Forbes and the Dennis Kucinich v. MSNBC case . Our third exam will be Tuesday May 5 at 8:00 am. The exam will be for 75 minutes, just like our previous exams, and will cover the material in Chapters 7-10, plus any previously discussed material that is relevant to these chapters.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
April 28, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we started with a discussion of a recent 4th Amendment case, Arizona v. Gant. We watched the c-span stakeout after the oral argument in the Safford case. Then I went over the background of the upcoming case of NW Austin M.U.D. #1 v. Holder, which will be argued tomorrow (Wednesday). The assignment if you are doing the Safford paper is to complete that paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, 4/30. If you are not doing the paper, I would like you to watch the c-span broadcast of the oral argument, which is the only argument authorized by the Court this term for same day audio release. (Go to c-span.org, and search around for the broadcast.)
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we began by going over today's Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox, which dealt with the issue of FCC regulation of "fleeting expletives". We then discussed the concepts of Chapter 9 of the text, including minority ownership and cross ownership FCC rules. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we started with a discussion of a recent 4th Amendment case, Arizona v. Gant. We watched the c-span stakeout after the oral argument in the Safford case. Then I went over the background of the upcoming case of NW Austin M.U.D. #1 v. Holder, which will be argued tomorrow (Wednesday). The assignment if you are doing the Safford paper is to complete that paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, 4/30. If you are not doing the paper, I would like you to watch the c-span broadcast of the oral argument, which is the only argument authorized by the Court this term for same day audio release. (Go to c-span.org, and search around for the broadcast.)
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we began by going over today's Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox, which dealt with the issue of FCC regulation of "fleeting expletives". We then discussed the concepts of Chapter 9 of the text, including minority ownership and cross ownership FCC rules. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
April 23, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the Safford oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to continue working on the Safford papers.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the concepts of trademark law. I distributed one handout, the Maine trademark statute. I went over three cases that were not in the text, Fox v. Franken, LL Bean v. Drake Publishers, and Best Flavors v. Mystic River Brewing. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text chapter 9 (pp. 351-385) and to read in the casebook the Red Lion case on p. 210.
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the Safford oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to continue working on the Safford papers.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the concepts of trademark law. I distributed one handout, the Maine trademark statute. I went over three cases that were not in the text, Fox v. Franken, LL Bean v. Drake Publishers, and Best Flavors v. Mystic River Brewing. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text chapter 9 (pp. 351-385) and to read in the casebook the Red Lion case on p. 210.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
April 21, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I briefly went over the week's oral argument schedule. We then went over a decision from earlier in the month, Entergy v. Riverkeeper, in which the majority of the Court approved of the EPA's use of a cost/benefit analysis in deciding what is the "best technology " available to minimize environmental impact. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to read the transcript of the oral argument in the case of Safford v. Redding, which was argued today.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I went over the previously assigned fair use cases of the Nation and Campbell. We then went over two Court of Appeals cases, Hustler Magazine v. Moral Majority, and Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to finish reading Chapter 8 in the text (trademark and unfair competition), and to read on p. 202 of the casebook the case of Time v. Petersen.
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I briefly went over the week's oral argument schedule. We then went over a decision from earlier in the month, Entergy v. Riverkeeper, in which the majority of the Court approved of the EPA's use of a cost/benefit analysis in deciding what is the "best technology " available to minimize environmental impact. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to read the transcript of the oral argument in the case of Safford v. Redding, which was argued today.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I went over the previously assigned fair use cases of the Nation and Campbell. We then went over two Court of Appeals cases, Hustler Magazine v. Moral Majority, and Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to finish reading Chapter 8 in the text (trademark and unfair competition), and to read on p. 202 of the casebook the case of Time v. Petersen.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
April 16, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we went over and discussed the Santa Fe v. Doe oral argument that had been previously assigned. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to work on the Safford paper. If you are not doing the paper, finish reading the Greenburg book.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we continued out discussion about copyright law. I went over five current copyright cases, Fairey v. Associated Press, The Author's Guild v. Google, The Football Association Premier League v. Youtube, Brave New Films v. Weiner, and the one that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick. The assignment for Tuesday 2/21 is to read in the text pp. 331-335, and to read in the casebook the Grokster case, p. 196
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we went over and discussed the Santa Fe v. Doe oral argument that had been previously assigned. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to work on the Safford paper. If you are not doing the paper, finish reading the Greenburg book.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we continued out discussion about copyright law. I went over five current copyright cases, Fairey v. Associated Press, The Author's Guild v. Google, The Football Association Premier League v. Youtube, Brave New Films v. Weiner, and the one that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick. The assignment for Tuesday 2/21 is to read in the text pp. 331-335, and to read in the casebook the Grokster case, p. 196
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
April 14, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed the optional third assignment, which is included below. We discussed the assignment, and I then went over the decisions in two cases we had talked about earlier in the semester, the Navajo case, and the improperly denied peremptory challenge case (Rivera). We will discuss the Santa Fe oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday is to begin work on the Safford paper.
Assignment #3 (Optional)*
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case
of Safford Unified School District v. Redding, Supreme Court Docket # 08-479. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 8 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 30. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
1) The first step in preparation for the prediction is to read the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this case, Redding v. Safford Unified School, 531 F.3d. 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). You can access the case through Lexis/ Nexis or you can go directly to the Ninth Circuit’s site;
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/
select “advanced search” and type into the “by case name” box “redding v. safford”
The opinion was issued 7/11/2008, and the docket number in the Ninth Circuit was 05-15759
2) The second step is to read the briefs of the parties. (They are available through the Supreme Court’s website, or directly through the ABA website).
3) The third step is to read one already decided Supreme Court case. That case New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985). The case are available through the LexisNexis site.
4) The final step in preparation for the prediction is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2009.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.
The only important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.
Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Safford), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. The case raises two issues: the reasonableness of the search, and the existence of qualified immunity for the school. Your prediction should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Redding’s position is correct, how do you answer the school’s objections to the many practical problems in dealing with drugs in schools.
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position with reference to the assigned briefs. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
For this paper, I have decided not to allow you to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
*Previously Announced Change in the syllabus:
The syllabus had said that grading in this class would consist of three homework assignments, each counting as 30% of the final grade, as well as 10% based on class participation and attendance. As previously announced, I have decided to modify this scheme as follows: the third assignment is now optional. If you choose to complete a third assignment, the syllabus plan is unchanged. If you choose not to complete a third assignment, each of the two graded assignments will be worth 40% of the final grade, and 20% of the grade will be based on class participation and attendance.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, we began by going over the Maine Reporter's Shield Law
(which I had distributed last week). We looked specifically at the changes in that law from its earlier version to the version that was eventually passed. We then started our discussion of copyright law. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read in the textbook pp.323-331, and to read in the casebook the Nation case (p.186) and the Campbell case (p.191).
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed the optional third assignment, which is included below. We discussed the assignment, and I then went over the decisions in two cases we had talked about earlier in the semester, the Navajo case, and the improperly denied peremptory challenge case (Rivera). We will discuss the Santa Fe oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday is to begin work on the Safford paper.
Assignment #3 (Optional)*
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case
of Safford Unified School District v. Redding, Supreme Court Docket # 08-479. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 8 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 30. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
1) The first step in preparation for the prediction is to read the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this case, Redding v. Safford Unified School, 531 F.3d. 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). You can access the case through Lexis/ Nexis or you can go directly to the Ninth Circuit’s site;
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/
select “advanced search” and type into the “by case name” box “redding v. safford”
The opinion was issued 7/11/2008, and the docket number in the Ninth Circuit was 05-15759
2) The second step is to read the briefs of the parties. (They are available through the Supreme Court’s website, or directly through the ABA website).
3) The third step is to read one already decided Supreme Court case. That case New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985). The case are available through the LexisNexis site.
4) The final step in preparation for the prediction is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2009.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.
The only important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.
Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Safford), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. The case raises two issues: the reasonableness of the search, and the existence of qualified immunity for the school. Your prediction should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Redding’s position is correct, how do you answer the school’s objections to the many practical problems in dealing with drugs in schools.
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position with reference to the assigned briefs. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
For this paper, I have decided not to allow you to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
*Previously Announced Change in the syllabus:
The syllabus had said that grading in this class would consist of three homework assignments, each counting as 30% of the final grade, as well as 10% based on class participation and attendance. As previously announced, I have decided to modify this scheme as follows: the third assignment is now optional. If you choose to complete a third assignment, the syllabus plan is unchanged. If you choose not to complete a third assignment, each of the two graded assignments will be worth 40% of the final grade, and 20% of the grade will be based on class participation and attendance.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, we began by going over the Maine Reporter's Shield Law
(which I had distributed last week). We looked specifically at the changes in that law from its earlier version to the version that was eventually passed. We then started our discussion of copyright law. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read in the textbook pp.323-331, and to read in the casebook the Nation case (p.186) and the Campbell case (p.191).
Thursday, April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we continued watching the video of the Nurre v. Whitehead ("Ave Maria") oral argument. I also went over the recent Supreme Court decision in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to listen on the internet to the oral argument of a 2000 Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Here's how to find it:
Go to oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999_99_62/argument
From that screen, first select the Santa Fe case(the tenth one down) and then select "expanded view"
This should give you the version of the oral argument that has the audio synchronized with the transcript, and which also identifies each of the Justices. (It will take a little while to load, so be patient).
After you have listened to the oral argument and thought about where each Justice is headed, read the case itself at 530 US 290.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed one handout, which included both the enacted version of the Maine Reporter's Shield Law, and the earlier version that was not enacted. We continued our discussion of a journalist's right of access to court proceedings, and we looked at the Maine closed-court statutes that I had distributed on Tuesday. I talked about one Maine Supreme Court case, in re Bailey M. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text pp. 296-323 and the Feist case on p. 179 of the casebook.
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we continued watching the video of the Nurre v. Whitehead ("Ave Maria") oral argument. I also went over the recent Supreme Court decision in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to listen on the internet to the oral argument of a 2000 Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Here's how to find it:
Go to oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999_99_62/argument
From that screen, first select the Santa Fe case(the tenth one down) and then select "expanded view"
This should give you the version of the oral argument that has the audio synchronized with the transcript, and which also identifies each of the Justices. (It will take a little while to load, so be patient).
After you have listened to the oral argument and thought about where each Justice is headed, read the case itself at 530 US 290.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed one handout, which included both the enacted version of the Maine Reporter's Shield Law, and the earlier version that was not enacted. We continued our discussion of a journalist's right of access to court proceedings, and we looked at the Maine closed-court statutes that I had distributed on Tuesday. I talked about one Maine Supreme Court case, in re Bailey M. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text pp. 296-323 and the Feist case on p. 179 of the casebook.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
April 7, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I returned the Caperton papers, and we went over them. I then showed a video of an oral argument from the Ninth Circuit regarding high school graduation ceremony. We'll finish the discussion of that case on Thursday, and then start catching up on recent Supreme Court decisions. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read Chapter 8 of Greenburg.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I distributed one handout containing some Maine Rules and statutes regarding closed hearings, evidence, and publicity. We went over the beginning of Chapter 7 of the text, and discussed the assigned Nebraska Press Assoc. and Kobe Bryant cases. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read the remainder of Chapter 7 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I returned the Caperton papers, and we went over them. I then showed a video of an oral argument from the Ninth Circuit regarding high school graduation ceremony. We'll finish the discussion of that case on Thursday, and then start catching up on recent Supreme Court decisions. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read Chapter 8 of Greenburg.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I distributed one handout containing some Maine Rules and statutes regarding closed hearings, evidence, and publicity. We went over the beginning of Chapter 7 of the text, and discussed the assigned Nebraska Press Assoc. and Kobe Bryant cases. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read the remainder of Chapter 7 of the text.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
April 2, 2009
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we went over the Caperton case--the predictions of how the case would come out, and the thoughts about how it should be decided. I plan to return the papers next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read Chapter 7 in Greenburg.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/2, I returned the exams, and we went over them. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read pp. 259-281 in the textbook. Also read the Nebraska Press case on p. 140 of the casebook and the Bryant case on p. 145 of the casebook.
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we went over the Caperton case--the predictions of how the case would come out, and the thoughts about how it should be decided. I plan to return the papers next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read Chapter 7 in Greenburg.
CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/2, I returned the exams, and we went over them. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read pp. 259-281 in the textbook. Also read the Nebraska Press case on p. 140 of the casebook and the Bryant case on p. 145 of the casebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)