Millennials, Equity, and the Rule of Law: 2014 National Lawyers Convention, \u3ci\u3eHow First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance\u3c/i\u3e

A panel, at the National Lawyers Convention, discussed procedure as it relates to First Amendment rights. The panel set forth how First Amendment procedures have historically protected First Amendment substance and discussed modern applications of the issue. For example, the prior restraint doctrine, overbreadth doctrine, the allocation of the burden of proof and relaxation of ripeness rules have important implications for challenging restrictions on speech and defending against libel and defamation. The interaction of free speech and due process is often seen in litigation involving civil harassment orders, or civil protection orders. In many jurisidictions the definition of harassment permits the finding that harassment can be based solely on speech, meaning speech itself can provide a basis for liabilty. In addition, speech may be restricted as a remedy in litigation addressing harassment. Investigations of wrongdoing in the realm of campaign finance law and political speech cases can also have serious implications for speech, both reputational and legal. Further cases involving political speech and campaign finance once exclusively litigated in the civil arena, are now the subject of criminal investigations and prosecutions. This is particularly problematic where many issues in this area remain unsettled. Good lawyering is particularly important in First Amendment cases. Ineffective assistance of counsel can be considered as great an evil in First Amendment cases as in criminal cases. Unfortunately, practicing lawyers often do not understand the process by which constitutional facts are pleaded and proved in First Amendment cases and this problem begins with the way Constitutional Law 101 is taught in law schools. In proving facts in First Amendment litigation the question becomes how does the government prove its justification of a restriction on speech or how does one opposing the government’s restriction on speech respond when the government asserts certain interests as being their justification. In First Amendment litigation the government often relies on legislative facts – newspaper reports, television stories, and criminal cases discussed in the media, arguably the government should be obligated to present more than rumors and speculation

Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Procedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a low-income country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Evidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.</p

Millennials, Equity, and the Rule of Law: 2014 National Lawyers Convention, \u3ci\u3eHow First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance\u3c/i\u3e

A panel, at the National Lawyers Convention, discussed procedure as it relates to First Amendment rights. The panel set forth how First Amendment procedures have historically protected First Amendment substance and discussed modern applications of the issue. For example, the prior restraint doctrine, overbreadth doctrine, the allocation of the burden of proof and relaxation of ripeness rules have important implications for challenging restrictions on speech and defending against libel and defamation. The interaction of free speech and due process is often seen in litigation involving civil harassment orders, or civil protection orders. In many jurisidictions the definition of harassment permits the finding that harassment can be based solely on speech, meaning speech itself can provide a basis for liabilty. In addition, speech may be restricted as a remedy in litigation addressing harassment. Investigations of wrongdoing in the realm of campaign finance law and political speech cases can also have serious implications for speech, both reputational and legal. Further cases involving political speech and campaign finance once exclusively litigated in the civil arena, are now the subject of criminal investigations and prosecutions. This is particularly problematic where many issues in this area remain unsettled. Good lawyering is particularly important in First Amendment cases. Ineffective assistance of counsel can be considered as great an evil in First Amendment cases as in criminal cases. Unfortunately, practicing lawyers often do not understand the process by which constitutional facts are pleaded and proved in First Amendment cases and this problem begins with the way Constitutional Law 101 is taught in law schools. In proving facts in First Amendment litigation the question becomes how does the government prove its justification of a restriction on speech or how does one opposing the government’s restriction on speech respond when the government asserts certain interests as being their justification. In First Amendment litigation the government often relies on legislative facts – newspaper reports, television stories, and criminal cases discussed in the media, arguably the government should be obligated to present more than rumors and speculation

Molecular imaging of the initial inflammatory response in atherosclerosis : implications for early detection of disease

Background- We hypothesized that molecular imaging of endothelial cell adhesion molecule expression could noninvasively evaluate prelesion atherogenic phenotype. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mice deficient for the LDL-receptor and the Apobec-1 editing peptide (DKO mice) were studied as an age-dependent model of atherosclerosis. At 10, 20, and 40 weeks of age, ultrasound molecular imaging of the proximal thoracic aorta was performed with contrast agents targeted to P-selectin and VCAM-1. Atherosclerotic lesion severity and content were assessed by ultrahigh frequency ultrasound, histology, and immunohistochemistry. In wild-type mice at all ages, there was neither aortic thickening nor targeted tracer signal enhancement. In DKO mice, lesions progressed from sparse mild intimal thickening at 10 weeks to widespread severe lesions with luminal encroachment at 40 weeks. Molecular imaging for P-selectin and VCAM-1 demonstrated selective signal enhancement (P>0.01 versus nontargeted agent) at all ages for DKO mice. P-selectin and VCAM-1 signal in DKO mice were greater by 3-fold at 10 weeks, 4- to 6-fold at 20 weeks, and 9- to 10-fold at 40 weeks compared to wild-type mice. En face microscopy demonstrated preferential attachment of targeted microbubbles to regions of lesion formation. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ultrasound molecular imaging of endothelial activation can detect lesion-prone vascular phenotype before the appearance of obstructive atherosclerotic lesions