Another Worthy Tradition: How the Free Speech Curriculum Ignores Electronic Media and Distorts Free Speech Doctrine

This Article argues that there are two traditions in American free speech scholarship that result in two opposing speech doctrines, but that American law students are exposed to only one of them. Without a complete understanding of speech doctrine, current law students are unprepared to guide American jurisprudence on the issue

Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech

Scholars and judges generally assume that the cornerstone of free speech doctrine is the distinction between content-based and content-neutral laws. Despite its wide acceptance, the distinction lacks any precedential or normative basis, unless it also accounts for another equally important distinction. The scholars\u27 conventional view of content-analysis overlooks the difference between the government banning a book or recommending it. Content-based laws that suppress specific content, like banning a television show, should be problematic, but content-based laws that promote specific content, such as promoting educational and political shows, should not be. Precedent and the First Amendment\u27s underlying normative concerns both require this distinction and support content-based laws promoting democratic content. The precedent in almost every area of First Amendment doctrine applies minimal scrutiny to content-based promotion. To reach these results, courts usually claim to apply one of several exceptions to content-analysis, but these many exceptions actually add up to a rule: content-based promotion of speech does not receive heightened scrutiny. This rule serves the normative goals of the First Amendment. Exceptions to this rule-the most notable of which applies to emerging electronic media-are a judicial mistake that should be corrected

A Shadow Government: Private Regulation, Free Speech, and Lessons from the Sinclair Blogstorm

Because of the economics of online information, thousands who do not know each other can band together in hours, without previous organizational coordination or any persistent central coordination, to affect others and conform society to their idea of the social good. This changes the dynamic of political action and the ability of unaffiliated, lone individuals to respond to social acts where government and the market have not. Through ad hoc volunteerism, the Sinclair participants produced regulatory action against a private party with whom they were not transacting--because they believed government failed to do so. Although ad hoc volunteerism has received sustained attention as a mode of economic production of information, it has received little attention as a mode of private regulation or a cure for government failure. By private regulation, I mean actions by private actors which deliberately constrain and influence other private actors. Although private regulation is common, often including boycotts, scholars predicted that cheap speech through the internet would weaken, not strengthen, the power of private speech regulations. [...] This paper analyzes the emerging phenomenon of private regulation through ad hoc online coalitions where the coalitions believe that markets and government have failed. It evaluates the underlying collective action problems and the online cost structures, motivation, and capacity that permit individuals to overcome these problems. It provides a taxonomy of issues and problems in collective action, and how technology affects these issues and problems. Because the paper\u27s primary case study is the Sinclair blogstorm, which targeted speech, many of the paper\u27s conclusions are particularly relevant for private speech regulation, and the paper explicitly considers normative implications of such private regulation targeting speech

The biomechanics of lower limb injuries in frontal-impact road traffic collisions

Aim: We aimed to review the biomechanics of lower limb injuries caused by frontal-impact road traffic collisions.Methods: In this narrative review, we identified articles through pubmed, Scopus and Science Direct search engines for the period of 1990-2014. Search terms included: “biomechanics”, “lower limb injury”, “hip injury”, “knee injury”, “foot and ankle injury” and “frontal impact collision”. We studied factors affecting the anatomical site, frequency and severity of the injuries.Results: The most common reported mechanisms of injury were: the impaction of the knee with the dashboard resulting in acetabular fracture or posterior hip dislocation; and toepan intrusion in combination with forceful application of the brake resulting in foot and ankle fractures. The probability of an occupant sustaining significant injury to the hip is increased in taller males, and being out of position during the collision. The probability of an occupant sustaining a fracture to the foot and ankle is increased in shorter female occupants with a large overlap impact or a near oblique collision.Conclusion: Understanding the biomechanics of frontal-impact road traffic collisions is useful in alerting clinicians to the potential lower limb injuries sustained in these collisions.Keywords: Biomechanics, frontal-impact collisions, lower limb injury, knee, thigh and hip injury, lower leg, foot and ankle injury

Case Mix, Quality and High-Cost Kidney Transplant Patients

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73363/1/j.1600-6143.2009.02592.x.pd

Lower limb and associated injuries in frontal-impact road traffic collisions

Objectives: To study the relationship between severity of injury of the lower limb and severity of injury of the head, thoracic, and abdominal regions in frontal-impact road traffic collisions.Methods: Consecutive hospitalised trauma patients who were involved in a frontal road traffic collision were prospectively studied over 18 months. Patients with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥3 or AIS 2 injuries within two AIS body regions were included. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the severity of injury to the head, chest or abdomen. Low severity group had an AIS < 2 and high severity group had an AIS ≥ 2. Backward likelihood logistic regression models were used to define significant factors affecting the severity of head, chest or abdominal injuries.Results: Eighty-five patients were studied. The backward likelihood logistic regression model defining independent factors affecting severity of head injuries was highly significant (p =0.01, nagelkerke r square = 0.1) severity of lower limb injuries was the only significant factor (p=0.013) having a negative correlation with head injury (Odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45-0.91).Conclusion: Occupants who sustain a greater severity of injury to the lower limb in a frontal-impact collision are likely to be spared from a greater severity of head injury.Keywords: Frontal-impact, road traffic collision, lower limb injur

The biomechanics of lower limb injuries in frontal-impact road traffic collisions

Aim: We aimed to review the biomechanics of lower limb injuries caused by frontal-impact road traffic collisions. Methods: In this narrative review, we identified articles through pubmed, Scopus and Science Direct search engines for the period of 1990-2014. Search terms included: \u201cbiomechanics\u201d, \u201clower limb injury\u201d, \u201chip injury\u201d, \u201cknee injury\u201d, \u201cfoot and ankle injury\u201d and \u201cfrontal impact collision\u201d. We studied factors affecting the anatomical site, frequency and severity of the injuries. Results: The most common reported mechanisms of injury were: the impaction of the knee with the dashboard resulting in acetabular fracture or posterior hip dislocation; and toepan intrusion in combination with forceful application of the brake resulting in foot and ankle fractures. The probability of an occupant sustaining significant injury to the hip is increased in taller males, and being out of position during the collision. The probability of an occupant sustaining a fracture to the foot and ankle is increased in shorter female occupants with a large overlap impact or a near oblique collision. Conclusion: Understanding the biomechanics of frontal-impact road traffic collisions is useful in alerting clinicians to the potential lower limb injuries sustained in these collisions

Lower limb and associated injuries in frontal-impact road traffic collisions.

Objectives: To study the relationship between severity of injury of the lower limb and severity of injury of the head, thoracic, and abdominal regions in frontal-impact road traffic collisions. Methods: Consecutive hospitalised trauma patients who were involved in a frontal road traffic collision were prospectively studied over 18 months. Patients with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 653 or AIS 2 injuries within two AIS body regions were included. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the severity of injury to the head, chest or abdomen. Low severity group had an AIS < 2 and high severity group had an AIS 65 2. Backward likelihood logistic regression models were used to define significant factors affecting the severity of head, chest or abdominal injuries. Results: Eighty-five patients were studied. The backward likelihood logistic regression model defining independent factors affecting severity of head injuries was highly significant (p=0.01, nagelkerke r square = 0.1) severity of lower limb injuries was the only significant factor (p=0.013) having a negative correlation with head injury (Odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45-0.91). Conclusion: Occupants who sustain a greater severity of injury to the lower limb in a frontal-impact collision are likely to be spared from a greater severity of head injury