Microstructural changes in Beta-silicon nitride grains upon crystallizing the grain-boundary glass

Crystallizing the grain boundary glass of a liquid phase sintered Si3N4 ceramic for 2 h or less at 1500 C led to formation of gamma Y2Si2O7. After 5 h at 1500 C, the gamma Y2Si2O7 had transformed to beta Y2Si2O7 with a concurrent dramatic increase in dislocation density within beta Si3N4 grains. Reasons for the increased dislocation density is discussed. Annealing for 20 h at 1500 C reduced dislocation densities to the levels found in as-sintered materials

The Unusual Suspects: Journalists as Thieves

The publication of confidential information by the press stands in stark contrast to the press\u27 dedication to protecting the confidentiality of sources. While the Supreme Court has taken the position that the press may publish confidential information acquired through routine newsgathering methods, the contours of the phrase routine newsgathering methods are poorly defined In this Article, Professor Lee describes the link between the manner in which information is obtained and the First Amendment\u27s protection of the publication of the information. He concludes that the proper analysis would separate the interests affected by publication from the interests affected by illegal newsgathering

Cable Franchising and the First Amendment

In awarding and regulating cable franchises, cities often extract from cable operators promises and conditions such as access channels in exchange for exclusive use of public rights-of-way. Professor William Lee in this Article argues that this cable franchising process violates the first amendment rights of cable operators. Professor Lee rejects the two rationales for municipal cable regulation by contending that cable is not a natural monopoly in every market and that cable\u27s use of public rights-of-way requires content neutral regulation. The exacting of conditions such as access channels, however, is not content neutral regulation. Furthermore, censorship decisions that municipalities require of cable operators are sufficiently subjective to violate the first amendment. Professor Lee concludes that an open entry policy for cable operators will allow existing law and natural economic forces to regulate the cable market in accordance with the strong first amendment tradition that limits government interference with freedom of expression

Antitrust Enforcement, Freedom of the Press, and the Open Market : The Supreme Court on the Structure and Conduct of Mass Media

This Article examines the Supreme Court\u27s attempts to foster open markets by altering either the structure or the conduct of mass media enterprises. Structure and conduct are the two main determinants of market performance. Market structure means those characteristics of the organization of a market that seem to exercise a strategic influence on the nature of competition and pricing within the market. Some characteristics of market structure include degree of buyer concentration, degree of seller concentration, degree of product differentiation, and entry conditions. Market conduct, on the other hand, comprises the practices, policies, and devices which firms employ in adjusting to changes in their markets. Structure can have an impact on conduct, and conversely, conduct can affect structure. Thus, when the Supreme Court addresses the structure of mass media enterprises, their conduct and performance can also be affected, and vice versa. The total mass media marketplace includes such diverse media as newspapers, books, periodicals, recordings, broadcasting stations, and motion pictures. Enterprises in each medium compete not only against each other but also against enterprises in other media as well. This Article will discuss several media separately because conditions for entry, competitive practices, and other factors differ among mass communications industries. Moreover, the Supreme Court has formulated distinct first amendment standards for each medium it has confronted. This Article explores first whether the Court\u27s antitrust decisions promote open market conditions for mass media. Second, this Article analyzes the important first amendment problems that are posed by such cases. Finally, this Article will argue that the Court should apply uniform antitrust and first amendment standards for all media

Citizen-Critics, Citizen Journalists, and the Perils of Defining the Press

Media lawyers frequently describe New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as a great win for the press. Certainly the Court\u27s ruling saved the New York Times from financial ruin. However, four Alabama ministers active in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Ralph D. Abernathy, Joseph E. Lowery, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, and S.S. Seay Sr., were also targeted by Sullivan as defendants. Despite testimony that the ministers had not authorized the use of their names in the advertisement, Heed Their Rising Voices, and learned of the ad only when Sullivan asked them for a retraction, the jury found each liable for defamation along with the New York Times. In partial settlement of the $500,000 libel judgment, Alabama authorities confiscated the ministers\u27 bank accounts and sold automobiles and real estate owned by the ministers. Sullivan was not the only successful plaintiff; a few months after the New York Times v. Sullivan verdict, Earl James, mayor of Montgomery, also won a$500,000 verdict against the New York Times and the four ministers. The financial persecution of the ministers drove the leadership of the SCLC out of the toughest parts of the South. \u27 As William P. Rogers, attorney for the ministers, told the Court, should the libel judgment against the ministers stand, the cause of civil rights will be set back a great many years

The First Amendment Doctrine of Underbreadth

This Article explains why the Supreme Court approaches differential treatment in such diverse ways. Because the topic of differential treatment of categories of expression has been explored elsewhere, this Article primarily focuses on differential treatment of communicators. In addition, because the press is frequently singled out for special treatment, the author discusses the question whether the press should be regarded as special. This Article argues that there are powerful reasons for preventing the government from discriminating among members of the press. These reasons also require that the government not discriminate between the press and nonpress communicators