Entertainment Network, Inc. (ENI), a business that provided news, entertainment, and information via the Internet, sued government officials who prohibited the company from filming the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and selling the footage of the execution online. The government officials argued that a Justice Department regulation prohibiting audio and visual recording devices at federal executions applied in the case at hand. ENI, however, argued that the regulation violated the company's First Amendment right to free speech. How do you think the court should have ruled in this case? Do you think ENI might have altered its decision to broadcast the execution if it had applied the Golden Rule?
Answer to relevant QuestionsWhat are the main distinctions between the different schools of legal interpretation? In Arkansas, methamphetamine (meth) was manufactured primarily in small toxic labs (STLs) located in homes, tents, barns, or hotel rooms. According to the plaintiff s (a number of counties in Arkansas), Arkansas had one of ...Missouri was International Shoe Corporation's principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from ...What are the limits on agency power? In 1996 Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. This legislation addressed growing public concern that children could access, at least in part, sexually explicit programming through a phenomenon called "signal bleed." ...
Post your question