{"id":52389,"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-3.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"julie-hilden-archive-3","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-3.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\n

AN ECONOMY OF INFORMATION IN THIS INFORMATION ECONOMY: THE STRANGE PARADOXES BEHIND THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF SECRET INFORMATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the Supreme Court’s recent Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, which allowed media disclosure of cell phone conversations illegally recorded by a third party, because the conversations addressed a topic of intense public interest. Hilden uses Bartnicki to discuss how the law regulates situations where only partial disclosure of information is optimal.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Jun. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AN INTERVIEW WITH AUSTIN SARAT, AUTHOR OF “WHEN THE STATE KILLS,” ON THE MCVEIGH EXECUTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY IN AMERICA<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden interviews author \n\nAustin \n\nSarat, death penalty expert and Amherst College professor of law and \n\npolitical science. Professor Sarat discusses, among other topics, Timothy \n\nMcVeigh’s trial and execution, the late-produced FBI documents, and capital \n\npunishment issues nationwide. Read the introductory chapter from When the State Kills<\/a> \n\non Timothy McVeigh and the politics of Capital Punishment.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jun. 11, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USER POLICING ON WEBSITES: SHOULD EBAY, NAPSTER AND OTHER SITES USE THEIR USERS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses the phenomenon of user policing on websites — a strategy already used by e-Bay — and why sites might, and might not, want to deputize their users as informants or even private attorneys general. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jun. 04, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW THE INTERNET CAN HELP CRIME VICTIMS AND HOW TOO MUCH PRIVACY CAN HURT THEM<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden argues that a recent \nVanity Fair article targeting the Internet as an accomplice to a serial \nkiller is off base. In fact, she argues, the Internet has much more \npotential to solve serial crimes than to create them.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRADE SECRETS: NOT SO SECRET ON THE INTERNET<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist,attorney and author Julie Hilden explains why trade secret law offers companies less protection on the Internet than in the offline \n\nbusiness world. By way of example, she contrasts the risks taken by CBS when in 1995 it debated whether to run an interview with ex-tobacco company employee Jeffrey Wigand, and those taken now by the website Fuckedcompany.com when it posts confidential corporate information procured by other companies’ employees.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“GONE WITH THE WIND” VERSUS “THE WIND \n DONE GONE:” PARODY, COPYRIGHT, AFRICAN- AMERICANS, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw Columnist, author, and attorney Julie Hilden discusses the First Amendment issues raised by the recent injunction against the publication of Alice Randall’s “The Wind Done Gone,” which re-tells the story of Margaret Mitchell’s Southern saga “Gone with the Wind” from the perspective of an African-American slave. The Mitchell Trust and the judge claim Randall is infringing copyright by pirating scenes and characters. Randall, with novelist Toni Morrison behind her, argues she has a First Amendment right to parody.\tHilden discusses the question of who is right. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Apr. 30, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: THE FALLACIOUS SUPREME COURT REASONING THAT PUTS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD IN JEOPARDY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses why, if the McCain-Feingold bill becomes law, the Supreme Court will probably uphold its \n\n“hard money” ceiling but strike down its “soft money” limitations as violating the First Amendment.\tHilden argues, however, that the Court’s likely contrasting treatment of “soft money” and “hard money” is illogical, given that we’ve seen recently how the two can easily substitute for one another. Hilden also contends that in other respects, the basic Court precedent that will probably be used to assess the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, Buckley v. Valeo, is full of fallacies. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Apr. 16, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE PROBLEM WITH SETTING SPECIAL RULES FOR “COMMERCIAL SPEECH”<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden explores two aspects of our First Amendment tradition that are raised in the United Foods Supreme \n\nCourt case to be argued this month: the imposition of separate constitutional standards for political and “commercial” speech, such as advertisements, and the right not to be forced to express or sponsor statements that one does not believe. In United Foods, a lower court upheld a mushroom producer’s First Amendment right not to be forced by a statute to fund an industry-wide advertising campaign with which it did not agree. If the Supreme Court affirms the decision — as, Hilden argues, it should — it will have taken another step towards destroying the distinction between commercial speech and political speech.\t
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Apr. 02, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY AN UPCOMING SUPREME COURT CASE MAY PUSH “ADULT” SPEECH\t \n\t OUT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND ONTO THE INTERNET <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the Alameda Books case, which the Supreme Court recently announced that it would hear. Alameda Books raises the issue of the constitutionality of Los Angeles’s regulation of businesses that combine adult stores with adult video arcades. Hilden argues that the Los Angeles regulation — and the case, in which the Court will likely give the regulation its blessing — are part of a growing legal trend by which adult businesses are strictly regulated in the real \n\nworld, but little-regulated online. The logical consequence of the difference between the online and offline legal regimes, Hilden contends,will be to drive more adult businesses online — a development that may dismay protective parents and civil libertarians alike. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Mar. 19, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN\n THE KU KLUX KLAN ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY CASE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden argues that the Supreme\n\nCourt should have granted review of the case as to whether Missouri can\n\nexclude the Ku Klux Klan from its Adopt-A-Highway program — rather than\n\ndenying review, as the Court did this week. Hilden contends that the case\n\nis not really about the question of whether the Klan can be penalized for\n\nits views, and exclusionary membership practices, by being denied an\n\nopportunity for volunteerism; under prior Court precedent, it cannot. What\n\nmakes the case new, different, and worthy of the Court’s review, Hilden\n\nargues, is the “government speech” argument it raises: the argument that\n\nhighway signs honoring the Klan’s volunteerism would convey a hostile\n\nmessage that Missouri can rightfully decide not to send.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 08, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\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