{"id":52391,"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-5.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"julie-hilden-archive-5","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-5.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

DOES CELEBRITY DESTROY PRIVACY?
NAOMI CAMPBELL AND NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden uses model Naomi Campbell’s recent win in a suit against the British Tabloid “The Mirror” as the focus for a discussion of the broader issue — common to both British and American law — of whether a celebrity retains privacy rights. Hilden examines the argument that celebrities trade privacy for fame, as well as the argument that celebrities who set themselves up as role models, or lie about their private lives, cannot claim that their privacy has been invaded when the truth comes out.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 02, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CANDIDATES \n FOR ELECTED JUDGESHIPS BE CURTAILED?
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SCRUTINIZES A STATE JUDICIAL \nCONDUCT CODE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden comments on a First Amendment case to be argued next week before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was brought by a Minnesota Supreme Court candidate who tried and failed to get a court order stating that Minnesota Judicial Code of Conduct provisions barring certain political speech and activity were unconstitutional. The state defends the provisions by claiming they preserve the judiciary’s independence and integrity, but Hilden disagrees.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 21, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW MUCH SHOULD THE PUBLIC BE TOLD ABOUT THREATS OF TERRORISM?:
EVERYTHING, UNLESS SECURITY IS COMPROMISED BY DISCLOSURE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden contends that — especially in the wake of the revelation of a credible October 2001 New York City nuclear threat that went undisclosed — all terrorist threat information should be made public, unless disclosure of such information poses an additional security risk. Hilden argues that fears of panic are overstated, and chances of prevention will be greatly increased by disclosure.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 07, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SHOULD BOOKSTORE PURCHASE SUBPOENAS BE ENFORCED? WHY A MORE NUANCED FIRST AMENDMENT TEST IS NECESSARY<\/a>\n\n
\nEver since Kenneth Starr attempted to find out what Monica Lewinsky had\n\npurchased at Washington, D.C.’s Kramerbooks, book purchase records subpoenas\n\nhave come into favor as a prosecutorial tool. FindLaw columnist, attorney,\n\nand author Julie Hilden takes issue with the current legal test for\n\nassessing the legality of such subpoenas, and proposes a new one.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Feb. 21, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A LEGAL REMEDY FOR PLAGIARISM?
RETHINKING THE AMBROSE AND GOODWIN PLAGIARISM SCANDALS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the plagiarism scandals that have plagued historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Hilden details the currently available legal remedies for plagiarism, and considers whether others should be adopted. She argues, among other points, that the harm of plagiarism to the plagiarized writer is greater than the harm to the reader who unwittingly reads plagiarized work.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Feb. 07, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY THE ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI TRIAL SHOULD BE TELEVISED<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses the recent \ndecision by a Virginia federal judge not to allow television coverage of the \ntrial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man alleged to have been the planned fifth \nhijacker on United Airlines Flight 93, which went down in Pennsylvania. \nHilden considers both the First Amendment argument to televise the trial and \nthe government’s and judge’s arguments against doing so.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 22, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHO COUNTS AS A JOURNALIST, FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES?:
\n THE STRANGE CASE OF VANESSA LEGGETT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses the case of Vanessa Leggett, who recently went to jail for over five months — and may soon return there — because she refused to turn over to prosecutors interview notes, and confidential sources, relating to a book she was working on about a murder. Prosecutors maintain that Leggett is not entitled to the journalist’s qualified privilege to protect confidential sources because she is not a journalist in the first place; Hilden argues to the contrary. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Jan. 10, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEPTEMBER 11, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE ADVOCACY OF VIOLENCE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses whether the First Amendment tradition of protecting speakers who advocate violence, as long as the violence is not imminent, can possibly survive after September 11. Hilden surveys past Supreme Court precedents and contrasts them with the government’s domestic and international position on those who support organizations connected to violence.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Dec. 27, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE DUBIOUS LOGIC OF PROHIBITING JOURNALISTS FROM POSTING \n OR EVEN LINKING TO CODE THAT CIRCUMVENTS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION \n MEASURES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the late November decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Universal City Studios v. Corley. Hilden contends that while Corley may seem similar to the Napster civil action and the Sklyarov prosecution, in fact in one sense it raises even more serious First Amendment concerns, because it exposes journalists to potential liability under the Digital Music Copyright Act. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Dec. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE DEATH OF ANONYMOUS SPEECH ON THE INTERNET?
\n HOW SEPTEMBER 11 MAY ALTER OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ONLINE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the way, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the government has undermined anonymity online, and how it may in the future continue to compromise Internet anonymity. Hilden also analyzes the Supreme Court’s leading opinion on the First Amendment right to anonymity, warning that it provides far less protection for online speech than might appear to be the case.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Nov. 29, 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