|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The Supreme Court and the Press: The Indispensable Conflict
Northwestern University Press, 2011 Paper: 978-0-8101-2621-3 Library of Congress Classification KF4772.M38 2010 Dewey Decimal Classification 342.730853
ABOUT THIS BOOK | AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY | REQUEST ACCESSIBLE FILE
ABOUT THIS BOOK
Although theirs has been a contentious relationship, Joe Mathewson shows that, since the framing of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has needed the press to educate the public about its actions, just as the press has depended on the Supreme Court to ensure the freedoms that give it life. The Court ignored the First Amendment for more than a century and then trampled it, but since the 1960s it has tended to uphold the rights of the press in the face of opposition, that coming from the Executive Branch. Still, the Court has repeatedly failed to fully inform the public of its decisions. Even today the Court permits only limited access to its audio tapes of oral arguments, and it famously refuses to allow television cameras into the courtroom. Mathewson argues that if the Supreme Court wants to maintain its legitimacy and authority in the internet age it must allow broader access for the press. See other books on: Mass media | Press | Press coverage | Supreme Court | United States. Supreme Court See other titles from Northwestern University Press |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nearby on shelf for Law of the United States / Federal law. Common and collective state law. Individual states:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Supreme Court and the Press: The Indispensable Conflict
ABOUT THIS BOOK | AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY | REQUEST ACCESSIBLE FILE
Northwestern University Press, 2011
Paper: 978-0-8101-2621-3
Paper: 978-0-8101-2621-3
Although theirs has been a contentious relationship, Joe Mathewson shows that, since the framing of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has needed the press to educate the public about its actions, just as the press has depended on the Supreme Court to ensure the freedoms that give it life. The Court ignored the First Amendment for more than a century and then trampled it, but since the 1960s it has tended to uphold the rights of the press in the face of opposition, that coming from the Executive Branch. Still, the Court has repeatedly failed to fully inform the public of its decisions. Even today the Court permits only limited access to its audio tapes of oral arguments, and it famously refuses to allow television cameras into the courtroom. Mathewson argues that if the Supreme Court wants to maintain its legitimacy and authority in the internet age it must allow broader access for the press.
ABOUT THIS BOOK | AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY | REQUEST ACCESSIBLE FILE
