<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Juris Vodcast &#187; 1st Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jurisvodcast.com/category/1st-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jurisvodcast.com</link>
	<description>The Rule of Law: Protecting the Many from the Few</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<!-- podcast_generator="podPress/8.8" -->
		<copyright>&#xA9; </copyright>
		<managingEditor>scott_pearce@passthebar.com ()</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>scott_pearce@passthebar.com()</webMaster>
		<category></category>
		<itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Rule of Law</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:author></itunes:author>
		<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name></itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="http://jurisvodcast.com/wp-content/plugins/podpress/images/powered_by_podpress_large.jpg" />
		
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t Ask Don&#8217;t Tell</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/11/cook-v-gates-upholds-dont-ask-dont-tell/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/11/cook-v-gates-upholds-dont-ask-dont-tell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:52:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=34</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Circuit issued an important decision in Cook v. Gates. The plaintiffs challenged the &#8220;Don&#8217;t Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell&#8221; law on a number of constitutional grounds, including substantive due process, equal protection and the First Amendment&#8217;s right to free speech. The First Circuit decision was in favor of the military and against these plaintiffs. This [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="justify">The First Circuit issued an important decision in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Cook v. Gates</span>. The plaintiffs challenged the &#8220;Don&#8217;t Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell&#8221; law on a number of constitutional grounds, including substantive due process, equal protection and the First Amendment&#8217;s right to free speech. The First Circuit decision was in favor of the military and against these plaintiffs.</p>
<p align="justify">This decision is important to civil libertarians, because it recognizes that private sexual behavior is entitled to intermediate scrutiny.</p>
<p align="justify">Read a <a href="http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/4839.pdf">PDF of the 1st Circuit Decision</a> &#8211; Mainstream Articles <a href="http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/dadt061008.html">1</a> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080610/pl_usnw/sldn_statement_on_the1st_circuit_ruling_in__don___t_ask__don___t_tell__appeal">2</a> <a href="http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid55658.asp">3</a></p>
<p align="justify"></p>
<p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ezo1I0uArXY&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ezo1I0uArXY&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/11/cook-v-gates-upholds-dont-ask-dont-tell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080610_Pearce_Cook_v_Gates_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="9289174" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The First Circuit issued an important decision in Cook v. Gates. The plaintiffs challenged the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law on a number of constitutional ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The First Circuit issued an important decision in Cook v. Gates. The plaintiffs challenged the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law on a number of constitutional grounds, including substantive due process, equal protection and the First Amendment's right to free speech. The First Circuit decision was in favor of the military and against these plaintiffs.
This decision is important to civil libertarians, because it recognizes that private sexual behavior is entitled to intermediate scrutiny.
Read a PDF of the 1st Circuit Decision - Mainstream Articles 1 2 3
</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>1st,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baseball Fantasy League Case</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/03/baseball-fantasy-league-case/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/03/baseball-fantasy-league-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=33</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s OK to run a for-profit fantasy baseball league without paying Major League Baseball for the right to use the names and statistics of big league ball players. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on this point, coming out of the 8th Circuit. Read the 8th Circuit decision for yourself. Then go [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">
<p align="justify">It&#8217;s OK to run a for-profit fantasy baseball league without paying Major League Baseball for the right to use the names and statistics of big league ball players. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on this point, coming out of the 8th Circuit.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
<p style="text-align: justify;">Read the <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/063357P.pdf">8th Circuit decision</a> for yourself. Then go have a look at mainstream media coverage in the following locations: <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154//06-02-2008/20080602072004_43.html">1</a> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&amp;sid=a.5jCrvS31Uo&amp;refer=home">2</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/news/newsmakers/bc.apfn.scotus.fantasyba.ap/index.htm?section=money_latest">3</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2008-06-02-fantasy-lawsuit_N.htm">4</a> <a href="http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/jun/02/court-refuses-consider-fantasy-baseball-dispute/?printer=1/">5</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sh_qwQY1Ssk&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sh_qwQY1Ssk&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/03/baseball-fantasy-league-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080603_Pearce_Fantasy_League_Baseball_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="4347332" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>It's OK to run a for-profit fantasy baseball league without paying Major League Baseball for the right to use the names and statistics of big ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>It's OK to run a for-profit fantasy baseball league without paying Major League Baseball for the right to use the names and statistics of big league ball players. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on this point, coming out of the 8th Circuit.

Read the 8th Circuit decision for yourself. Then go have a look at mainstream media coverage in the following locations: 1 2 3 4 5
</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>1st,Amendment,,Intellectual,Property</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC v. Fox &#8211; Free Speech Case?</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/05/26/fcc-v-fox-free-speech-case/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/05/26/fcc-v-fox-free-speech-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 03:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=29</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Second Circuit says that recent FCC rule changes regarding indecency are &#8220;arbitrary and capricious.&#8221; The Supreme Court will hear the FCC&#8217;s appeal. This case has been discussed as a free speech case, but it&#8217;s really all about administrative law. Here is a link to the 2nd Circuit Opinion. While you&#8217;re at it, check out [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The Second Circuit says that recent FCC rule changes regarding indecency are &#8220;arbitrary and capricious.&#8221; The Supreme Court will hear the FCC&#8217;s appeal. This case has been discussed as a free speech case, but it&#8217;s really all about administrative law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Here is a link to the <a href="http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1144036">2nd Circuit Opinion</a>. While you&#8217;re at it, check out the FCC&#8217;s <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/7pet/2007-0582.pet.aa.pdf">Petition for Cert</a>.</p>
<p><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_S6zXovO4E&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_S6zXovO4E&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/05/26/fcc-v-fox-free-speech-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080525_Pearce_FCC_v_Fox_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="4299032" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The Second Circuit says that recent FCC rule changes regarding indecency are "arbitrary and capricious." The Supreme Court will hear the FCC's appeal. This case ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Second Circuit says that recent FCC rule changes regarding indecency are "arbitrary and capricious." The Supreme Court will hear the FCC's appeal. This case has been discussed as a free speech case, but it's really all about administrative law.
Here is a link to the 2nd Circuit Opinion. While you're at it, check out the FCC's Petition for Cert.

</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>1st,Amendment,,Supreme,Court</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

