Results for “Bank of Credit and Commerce International”

I politely told Judge Aldrich that I would get back to him. I then called the head of the local Anti-Defamation League and inquired about the Club of Odd Volumes. “They don’t accept Jews

each assistant professor had to publish a “tenure piece.” I wrote an article on the relationship between law and psychiatry that was critical of the law’s overreliance on psychiatry in judging whether mentally ill criminals could be held responsible for their crimes

whenever states (or state-like institutions) take actions that affect the rights of individuals whether these actions are preventive or reactive in nature. This need may seem obvious

which was seen by its framers largely as a bill of restrictions on the power of the national legislature—namely “Congress.” There was considerable concern that the Constitution

it is clear that not all verbal and other form of expression are protected by the First Amendment. There is widespread disagreement over what are appropriate exceptions

I will recount my experiences—both professional and personal—with each of those purported exceptions to the First Amendment. I will describe how the First Amendment has changed over the half century I have been litigating freedom of expression cases. In some instances

those advocating censorship have cited a state supreme court that held that “Holmes’ aphorism . . . applies with equal force to pornography.” Another court analogized “picketing . . . in support of a secondary boycott” to shouting “Fire!” because in both instances “speech and con...

the comedian George Carlin listed the seven words that could never be uttered on radio or television. The list included such innocent words as “piss” and “tits.” (Use your imagination for the other 5!)

I was reminded of the old Jewish joke about the man with the broken watch who goes into a storefront window and asks the man behind the counter to fix his watch. “I don’t fix watches. I perform circumcisions

the three judges issued a decision written by Judge Aldrich. He bought my argument totally. He began by accepting my assumption about the nature of the film:

or to the public as a result of his exposure. Obscenity may be offensive; it is not per se harmful. Had the Court considered obscenity harmful as such

and 4.5 million had watched bear baiting or the filming of bear baiting. Would that have the slightest relevance in your judgment on whether the showing of bear baiting in Boston

it decided the case on a narrow procedural ground. We eventually settled the case to the advantage of the defendants. The film was shown throughout the country and no one went to prison. Judge Aldrich’s opinion

pornographic films acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are exhibited for consenting adults only…The States have a long-recognized legitimate interest in the quality of life and the total community environment

I continued to press my principle in the court of public opinion and in a series of other obscenity cases over the next several decades. Ultimately my view would prevail