The First Amendment as a Check on Copyright Rights

Parties are increasingly raising the First Amendment as a potential limit on the scope of copyright rights. However, courts have traditionally found that copyright law already incorporates First Amendment interests, as it precludes protection of ideas and allows for the fair use of expression. This article addresses the issue of whether there needs to be additional First Amendment restraints. The author focuses on the broader principles of the First Amendment, and whether copyright law fully incorporates those principles. The author then discusses two recent cases, Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God and Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, which illustrate how First Amendment interests can be overlooked. Thus, the author recommends that there should be additional First Amendment restraints on copyright law to ensure that courts, as they keep one eye on protecting property rights, keep the other on protecting speech

How Conservative Justices Are Undertermining Our Democracy (or What\u27s at Stake in Choosing Justice Scalia

In this essay, Professor Garfield contends that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have allowed elected officials to manipulate laws to entrench themselves in office and to disenfranchise voters who threaten their power. The justices’ unwillingness to curb these abuses has largely redounded to the benefit of the Republican Party because Republicans control the majority of state legislatures and have used this power to gerrymander legislative districts and to enact voter‑suppressive laws such as voter ID laws. With Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing during the administration of a Democratic president, the conservatives’ control of the Court has been put into play. While the media and presidential candidates have focused on the implications of a shifting Court majority for individual rights, it is likely that, behind the scenes, politicians are much more focused on the implications of a shifting majority for their ability to hold onto power

To Swear or not to Swear: Using Foul Language During a Supreme Court Oral Argument

Swearing is not the first thing that comes to mind when preparing for a Supreme Court oral argument. But for lawyers arguing certain types of cases, it is something they must seriously consider. The issue comes up when a client claims his First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. This doesn’t happen often because the government doesn’t usually police for the use of expletives. But there are rare instances when using foul language can get one into trouble. Public schools, for instance, can regulate students’ use of foul language during class time and at school functions. And the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) also enforces limits on indecent radio and television broadcasts. A lawyer representing a defendant in one of these cases inevitably confronts the question of whether to use his client’s offensive language when arguing before the Court. After all, if the lawyer doesn’t use the words, she might implicitly concede that the words are so horrid they warrant suppression. Yet her job as an advocate is to convince the Court of just the opposite

Social Network Analytics for Advanced Bibliometrics: Referring to Actor Roles of Management Journals instead of Journal Rankings

Impact factors are commonly used to assess journals relevance. This implies a simplified view on science as a single-stage linear process. Therefore, few top-tier journals are one-sidedly favored as outlets, such that submissions to top-tier journals explode whereas others are short of submissions. Consequently, the often claimed gap between research and practical application in application-oriented disciplines as business administration is not narrowing but becoming entrenched. A more complete view of the scientific system is needed to fully capture journals ´ contributions in the development of a discipline. Simple citation measures, as e.g. citation counts, are commonly used to evaluate scientific work. There are many known dangers of miss- or over-interpretation of such simple data and this paper adds to this discussion by developing an alternative way of interpreting a discipline based on the positions and roles of journals in their wider network. Specifically, we employ ideas from the network analytic approach. Relative positions allow the direct comparison between different fields. Similarly, the approach provides a better understanding of the diffusion process of knowledge as it differentiates positions in the knowledge creation process. We demonstrate how different modes of social capital create different patterns of action that require a multidimensional evaluation of scientific research. We explore different types of social capital and intertwined relational structures of actors to compare journals with different bibliometric profiles. Ultimately, we develop a multi-dimensional evaluation of actor roles based upon multiple indicators and we test this approach by classifying management journals based on their bibliometric environment

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Abstract: Background: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years’ median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. Results: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. Conclusions: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man’s lifetime. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014)