Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Evaluated family use of the newly mandated V-Chip technology. A yearlong quasi-experiment with 150 families with children between the ages of 7 and 10 was conducted in which one group was given V-Chip equipped television sets along with training and information on how to use the technology (n=58), another group was only given V-Chip equipped television sets (n=52), and a third group was monitored over the course of the study for technology acquisition and use (n=40). The experimental manipulation was masked by informing participants that the study was about general family life and that the television was compensation for participation. Findings revealed that 33 of the 110 families attempted to use the V-Chip over the course of the study. Nine of these families had it successfully engaged when we visited the families’ homes at the conclusion of the study. Another 14 families engaged the V-Chip but opted to turn it off. And 10 families attempted to use the V-Chip but were thwarted by the technology. While training and information influenced attempts to try the V-Chip, these endeavors were not related to sustained use. Results suggest that access to supervisory technology alone is an insufficient indicator of adoption and use. Rather, family media supervision is better understood through the context of the family system.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, the Supreme Court ruled that providers of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technology could be held secondarily responsible for the copyright infringement committed by their users if they actively market and induce users to infringe. Through the analysis of the case law in both Arista Records v. Flea World and UMG v. Bertelsmann, this study examines the emerging impact of the inducement theory on third party liability in copyright infringement. Is a flea market analogous to a technological device? Can investors be held liable for the activities of the companies in which they invest? What is the impact of the inducement theory on contributory and vicarious liability? This article analyzes what the inducement theory might mean to the delicate balance between public and private interests which is the bedrock of intellectual property laws in this country.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the impact of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary v. ACLU on attitudes toward public displays of the Ten Commandments. I analyze original panel survey data and find understanding the cases increases the probability of attitude change.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Judicial scholars (Baum, 1998; Wasby, 1998; Canon & Johnson 1999) assert that members of the press play a crucial role in communicating Supreme Court decisions. In fact, they tell us that the public generally does not read Supreme Court decisions; rather they rely on press accounts to find out what the High Court has actually decided. Be that as it may, scholars emphasize the media coverage of Supreme Court directives is often limited and misleading (Baum, 1998, p. 238, Newland, 1964, p.15). Deadlines, space limitations, and the difficult process of reducing lengthy, convoluted, and legalistic language into brief, comprehendible and coherent sentences are some of the reasons why the press has not always done an effective job in explaining Supreme Court directives. Supreme Court justices have hinted or have even stated explicitly that press accounts do not accurately report what they have decided. For example, “Justice O’Connor has observed, ‘The summaries of the opinions of this Court carried in the media…frequently provide a perspective, not only on the work of the Court but also on the perceptions and judgments of the reporters and their editors.” Likewise, Justice Brennan “has suggested that the media’s attacks on the Court’s decisions affecting the media themselves are unreasonable, unintelligent, and inaccurate” (Baum, 1998, p. 381).
Given Justice Brennan’s observation, we set out to investigate whether the media has accurately described what the Supreme Court recently decided in the two affirmative action cases of Grutter v. Bolllinger 539 U.S. _____ (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. _____ (2003). The Grutter case centered on whether the University of Michigan Law School could consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, in making admission decisions. By contrast, Gratz focused on whether the University of Michigan Undergraduate Admission Office can utilize race as a factor in selecting students. In conducting our investigation, we analyzed 32 newspaper accounts of these decisions. In particular, we will assess whether these accounts contain articles that: 1) provide coverage of Grutter and Gratz, 2) mention the legal issues taken up these cases, 3) cite the reasoning of the Court’s majority and dissenting opinions, 4) express agreement or disagreement with these decisions, and 5) discuss the impact and implications of these decrees.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, there has been a call for the mentally ill to also be excluded from capital punishment. This article re-examines why the mentally ill should be excluded from capital punishment, the “evolving standard of decency” within state statutes addressing mental illness, and ties in the rationale of the newest categorical exclusion case Roper v. Simmons.