Suchergebnisse

This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment protects confidential attorney-client communications from unreasonable government intrusion, including unreasonable court orders compelling production of attorney-client communications. The Article begins by focusing on the elements of a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Part II identifies the elements and subsequent sections address each element in the context of attorney-client communications. Part III considers the legitimate expectation of privacy in confidential attorney-client communications. Part IV addresses the search and seizure requirement, explores authority distinguishing between "actual" and "constructive" searches, and concludes that, in addition to searches, court-ordered production of attorney-client communications (a "constructive" search and seizure) can implicate the Fourth Amendment. Part V addresses the requirement of government action for a Fourth Amendment claim and analyzes the ways in which government action might exist in criminal and civil cases involving court-ordered disclosure or production of attorney-client communications. Part VI explores the reasonableness requirement of a Fourth Amendment claim and examines when an order compelling disclosure of an attorney-client can be unreasonable. Part VII identifies several circumstances in which jurisdictions' privilege rules are inconsistent and explains how Fourth Amendment protection of attorney-client communications in those circumstances could lead to consistent and predictable protection. Finally, Part VIII discusses why recognition of Fourth Amendment protection is a necessary and prudent means of protecting the reasonable expectation of privacy in attorney-client communications.

This article examines the FCC's vigorous new approach to indecency and profanity determinations, including both the legal issues and the greater cultural, political, economic, and social contexts in which that approach is developing. Part I describes the FCC's initial decision regarding the Golden Globes' 2003 broadcast and then compares it with the March 2004 reversal. In the process, Part I lays the historical framework for the FCC's power over indecent expression on the public airwaves. Part II then contextualizes the FCC's new course of action within the framework of the ongoing cultural wars and political battles in the United States and suggests that the FCC and Congress have unfairly singled out broadcasters for attack with an underinclusive approach to addressing what supposedly ails the nation. Part III more thoroughly addresses the negative ramifications of the FCC's actions and argues that the Commission must temper its approach lest the contentious concept of the "public interest,, which has long been left to marketplace forces, be dictated by the political forces that influence the five FCC commissioners and inevitably shift with the hot-button cultural movement of the day. Finally, the Conclusion calls for the FCC to abandon its new line of "profanity" enforcement and for Congress to cease being guided by election-year politics when it foists new obligations on the Commission. First Amendment rights must not be sacrificed for the short-term political gain of pandering politicians.

This Article uses the Pahler legal battle as a case study to examine the current culture wars that have placed the Hollywood recording and entertainment industries in the legal crosshairs of both legislative and judicial efforts to redefine popular teen culture. The first section demonstrates how the theories at issue in Pahler mirror the tactics used in the recent war against tobacco industry advertising that also allegedly targeted minors. Next, the Article situates Pahler within the context of Congressional hearings in the fall of 2000 that focused attention on the alleged Hollywood marketing of products featuring violent content to minors. It then scrutinizes the Second Amended Complaint in Pahler to show the types of framing mechanisms variously used by the plaintiffs to pitch the case within the context of advertising and to place it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. The Article ultimately concludes that the proper solution to the problems and issues raised by cases like Pahler can be found not in the creative application (or misapplication) of unique legal theories to First Amendment issues, but rather in fighting fire with fire--by implementing aggressive media literacy programs in the nation's elementary schools.

Examines the state of Washington Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. giving precedence to a newspaper's right to enforce a no-conflict-of-interest ethics code over journalists' First Amendment rights to off-duty political participation.