Judicial and Journalistic Complicity with ‘do not speak’ Statutes. The so-called Patriot Act is not the first law to be accused of extending the red scare to the green scare on through the various color coded threat decrees since 2001. Consider 18 USC § 842(p)(2)(A) and (B), or the ‘Patriot Act’s’ §215, among others. *What judicial action is being taken by judicial players? *What has corporate and citizen media asked the legal system to do in this regard? Let’s analyze whether our 4th and 5th estates and academic suburbs are saying the emperor has no clothes. We seek a wide-ranging examination of entities who claim to encourage and protect all speakers, such as political players, sources, politically engaged entertainers, whistleblowers and others engaged in watchdog work or just biting or unpopular commentary. *Were court cases or specific statutes a factor? *Anything else we should consider? Deadline: September 25, 2009 halfwaythere@mac.com mailto:halfwaythere@mac.comCALL_FOR_PAPERS_files/FA09417syllmedlaw.docshapeimage_2_link_0

Judicial Activism and Media Vigor     

       Scholars and others often bristle at the very notion that the press protections emanating from Times v. Sullivan were of an activist judicial nature. 

*Why is that such an offensive notion?  *Are there other examples of judicial activism that has served mainstream media entities?  *Which ones and why/how?

*What were the ramifications for the discussion of various issues by the media?

*Anything else we should consider?

                 Deadline: October 31, 2009   halfwaythere@mac.com

Corporate Speech Rights vs. a Responsible "Press"? Often, media scholars refer to commercial speech cases as if the issue is settled and should never be discussed again. 

Let's re-open the issue of commercial speech rights and corporate rights at the same time and see what we find and where we're going. 

Is it where we should be headed?

                        Deadline: December 1, 2009 halfwaythere@mac.com