{"id":52388,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"julie-hilden-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Julie Hilden Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Julie Hilden Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n

LARA CROFT, STARRING AS LOLITA? “VIRTUAL” CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, THOUGHT CRIMES, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and auther Julie Hilden discusses the First Amendment implications of a federal law banning “virtual” child pornography \n\n— which involves digitized or animated images, not actual children — as well as the general concept of “thought crimes.” Hilden notes that the Supreme Court as much as invited pseudo- and virtual child pornograpy when it upheld a ban on actual child pornography. And she draws on sources as\t\n\ndisparate as Orwell’s “1984,” the movies “Lolita” and “Hannibal,” and the video game Tomb Raider to illustrate the dangers of a virtual child pornography ban.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Mar. 05, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE NINTH CIRCUIT\u0092S NAPSTER DECISION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the\n\nramifications of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in the Napster case. Hilden\n\ncontends that peer-to-peer file sharing technology is effectively\n\nunstoppable, and notes that other courts confronted with unstoppable or\n\nvirtually unstoppable technologies, such as VCRs and portable MP3 players,\n\nhave allowed them to flourish. In breaking with this pattern, Hilden\n\nargues,\n\nthe Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Napster that irreconcilably\n\nconflicts with both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, and\n\ntechnological reality.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Feb. 19, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IS RAP MUSIC ON TRIAL ALONG WITH SEAN “PUFFY” COMBS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden reflects on the first week of the ongoing trial of rap star and businessman Sean “Puffy” Combs and two others. Hilden argues that the prosecution is making a critical error in suggesting to the jury that Combs’ status as a purportedly arrogant rap celebrity is relevant to the case against him, and criticizes prosecutors’ earlier suggestion that they may use rap lyrics against Combs’ co-defendant Jamal “Shyne” Barrow.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Feb. 05, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY THE GOVERNMENT OPPOSES PRISONERS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS RIGHTS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the Supreme\n\nCourt case, argued this month, that addresses the question of whether\n\nprisoners\n\nhave a First Amendment right to provide each other with legal assistance.\n\nHilden contends that the governments’ arguments against the recognition of\n\nsuch a right — including its contentions that “jailhouse lawyer” inmates\n\nwould enjoy too high a status, and that inmate “clients” would get too angry\n\nat inmate “lawyers” — are strikingly weak. Accordingly, she suggests that\n\nthe government’s real motivation for opposing this right lies elsewhere.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 30, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AN INTERVIEW WITH AMY GUTMAN, AUTHOR OF THE LEGAL THRILLER “EQUIVOCAL DEATH”<\/a>\n\n
\nAmy Gutman worked at the top New York firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and\n\nwas\n\na journalist, before writing the legal thriller “Equivocal Death,” published\n\nthis month. “Equivocal Death”‘s clever, two-level plot has young law firm\n\nassociate Kate Paine both litigating a sexual harassment case and exploring\n\na murder in which she believes sexual harassment issues may have turned\n\nlethal. FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden asks Amy about\n\ntopics ranging from how the author of “Rent” posthumously inspired her, to\n\nwhat Catharine MacKinnon’s reaction to the book’s use of her sexual\n\nharassment manual was, to her thoughts about real-life female associates’\n\nsituations. BOOK EXCERPT: Read the first chapter of Amy Gutman’s “Equivocal\n\nDeath.”\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jan. 22, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AN INTERVIEW WITH BRAD MELTZER, AUTHOR OF THE LEGAL THRILLER “THE FIRST COUNSEL”<\/a>\n\n
\nBrad Meltzer became the envy of his Columbia law school classmates when his\n\nlegal thriller “The Tenth Justice” — proving that a Supreme Court clerkship\n\nmight actually be your worst nightmare — hit the bestseller list. On\n\nJanuary 9, Brad’s new thriller, “The First Counsel,” about a White House\n\nlawyer who dates the President’s daughter, with disastrous consequences,\n\nwill\n\nappear. FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden checks in with\n\nBrad on how he plots, what he learned about First Daughters, and which\n\nformer\n\nWhite House counsels were willing to dish about their jobs.\n\n\n\nBOOK EXCERPT: Read the first chapter of Brad Meltzer’s “The First Counsel”<\/a>\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jan. 08, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY ANONYMOUS INTERNET SPEAKERS CAN’T COUNT ON ISPS TO PROTECT THEM<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden contends that anonymous \n\nInternet speakers enjoy far less legal protection, in practice, than \n\nconfidential newspaper sources do, and suggests that this disparity should be \n\nremedied. Internet Service Providers, Hilden argues, have far less \n\nmotivation to go to bat to protect anonymous speech than, for example, \n\nnewspapers do. Thus, despite the advent of the Internet, elite speakers who \n\ncan get the attention of more traditional media remain more likely to enjoy \n\nthe privilege of permanent anonymity.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jan. 01, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A CASE OF FREE SPEECH VERSUS FREE SPEECH?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses a First\n\nAmendment case the Supreme Court heard earlier this month. That case raised\n\nthe issue of whether, consistent with the First Amendment, the government\n\ncan\n\nmake illegal the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications (such as\n\ne-mails, cellphone calls, and faxes) by persons who were not involved in the\n\ninitial interception. Hilden examines two issues the case raises: free\n\nspeech (of journalists) versus free speech (of cellphone users, e-mailers,\n\nand others); and free speech (of journalists) versus the privacy of those\n\nwho\n\nwant to know their communications are secure.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Dec. 25, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COULD THE ELECTION HAVE COME OUT DIFFERENTLY, IF ONLY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD ACTED DIFFERENTLY?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden contends that the\nFlorida Supreme Court’s failure to respond promptly to the U.S. Supreme\nCourt’s remand order in the first Gore v. Bush case, concerning the manual\nrecount deadline, may have insulted and piqued a majority of the U.S.\nSupreme\nCourt. Moreover, she suggests that absent this insult, the U.S. Supreme\nCourt’s decision this week might have come out differently — and a Bush\npresidency might not have resulted.
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 15, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

READING THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S OPINION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden analyzes the Florida Supreme Court’s Friday \nopinion, which requires manual recounts of “undervotes” that could extend statewide, and which will \nbe the subject of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument. She outlines a number of respects in \nwhich the opinion diverges from traditional appellate court decision making, and explains why the \nFlorida opinion, from a lawyer’s perspective, is an unusual one.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Dec. 11, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 6<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n