From paparazzi to hidden cameras: The aggressive side of a free and responsible press

This article examines the complex of cultural effects and possible legal responses in the wake of the Princess of Wales' death. To say that the paparazzi were complicit in her death is to forget that, in spite of their frequently invasive means of obtaining news, these were also the kind of journalists who were complicit in the public celebration of her life. Had the Hutchins Commission this tragedy to include in its deliberations about press responsibility, it likely would have stated its indignation and suggested Diana's death as more evidence that journalists be regulated. But this article argues that aggressive journalism, as with any other of the press' activities, is beholden to a balance of public interests. These interests include the need for the public to be both informed and protected from invasion of privacy or criminal conduct by any journalist.     

Clashing conceptions of press duties: Public journalists and the courts

This article bridges the growing, but controversial, public journalism movement with First Amendment jurisprudence and libel law. It examines whether the movement finds support in laws that affect the press and, in particular, in court‐created defenses and privileges that protect journalists in modern defamation law. Do defenses that safeguard journalists in their traditional routines as fact gatherers and reporters also protect them in the kinds of roles and duties envisioned by public journalism advocates? Furthermore, has the United States Supreme Court, in non‐defamation cases involving the First Amendment, expressed concern for protecting what might be called the “public journalism functions” of the press? Does the Court create a different image for the press than the one envisioned by public journalism advocates? This article addresses these questions. It ultimately concludes that public journalists and courts have two very different conceptions about the role that journalists play in a democracy.     

Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research

The growth of mass media has complicated the relatioship between the courts and the media. Free press and fair trial rights are kept in balance by the use of judicial restraints and remedies such asvoir dire, change of venue, and gag orders. This balance has shifted back and forth during the past two decades. Current case law and legal codes are inconsistent and provide insufficient guidance to judges in their use of restraints and remedies. Nor is there a body of empirical research on the impact of news coverage and juror behavior capable of informing the courts at this time. In this paper, we review and critically assess the empirical social science literature as it pertains to the legal issues involving free press and fair trial. We argue that carefully conducted empirical research could provide important information to the courts. We suggest research directions and methodological caveats to increase legal relevance and scientific validity.     

Antitrust, health care quality, and the courts

Antitrust law represents the principal legal tool that the United States employs to police private markets, yet it often relegates quality and nonprice considerations to a secondary position. While antitrust law espouses the belief that vigorous competition will enhance quality as well as price, little evidence exists of the practical ability of courts to deliver on that promise. In this Article, Professors Hammer and Sage examine American health care as a vehicle for advancing understanding of the nexus among competition, quality, and antitrust law. The Article reports results of a comprehensive empirical review of judicial opinions in health care antitrust litigation between 1985 and 1999, with specific attention to courts' handling of quality and other nonprice concerns. Professors Hammer and Sage conclude that, although antitrust law cannot be expected to serve as the sole oversight mechanism for industries as complex and quality dependent as health care, courts have been successful incorporating some nonprice factors into antitrust analysis.     

Science and the courts: a fruitful experiment of interaction.

The authors report on the European Seminar on Hot Genetic Issues and the Courts, held in Pavia (I), September 2005. They examine the new possible concerns regarding bio-sciences practical applications and the stronger need for a closer interaction between jurists, judges and scientists. They highlight the importance of the ENLSC's networking experience in judicial education and the originality of its approach.     

Patients as consumers: courts, contracts, and the new medical marketplace

The persistent riddle of health-care policy is how to control the costs while improving the quality of care. The riddle's once promising answer--managed care--has been politically ravaged, and consumerist solutions are now winning favor. This Article examines the legal condition of the patient-as-consumer in today's health-care market. It finds that insurers bargain with some success for rates for the people they insure. The uninsured, however, must contract to pay whatever a provider charges and then are regularly charged prices that are several times insurers' prices and providers' actual costs. Perhaps because they do not understand the healthcare market, courts generally enforce these contracts. This Article proposes legal solutions to the plight of the patient-as-consumer and asks what that plight tells us about market solutions to the health-care quandary.     

Occupational health ethics: OSHA and the courts

Recent court decisions have stressed the necessity for cost-benefit analysis in evaluating Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) standards, thus raising difficult ethical questions which this paper analyzes using classical approaches of deontology and teleology. Since both modes of analysis have deficiencies, the need for a synthesis using economic and noneconomic measures is suggested.     

Federal administrative health courts are unconstitutional: a reply to Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith

This commentary responds to the essay by Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith wherein they propose that the federal government may preclude plaintiffs with medically inflicted injuries from bringing state common-law tort claims against those whose negligence caused their injury. The administrative system championed by Elliott and other proponents is a radical departure from the current civil justice system. Specifically, we argue that the administrative health courts, as proposed, violate the commerce clause, the spending clause, the Seventh Amendment, and separation of powers principles. The commentary concludes that such a system is fatally flawed and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Congress will be able to ground such a radical constitutional restructuring in any sound public policy, as the majority of studies do not evidence Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith's presumption that the civil justice system has failed in the medical malpractice context.     

Reporting guidelines for social and psychological intervention trials: considering the special context of crime and justice interventions

We comment on Grant and colleagues’ proposal to develop an extension to the CONSORT statement for social interventions, and propose that crime and justice interventions should be considered a special case, due to the added complexities of reporting consent, coercion and harm in criminal justice experiments.     

Obesity, courts, and the new politics of public health

Health care politics are changing. They increasingly focus not on avowedly public projects (such as building the health care infrastructure) but on regulating private behavior. Examples include tobacco, obesity, abortion, drug abuse, the right to die, and even a patient's relationship with his or her managed care organization. Regulating private behavior introduces a distinctive policy process; it alters the way we introduce (or frame) political issues and shifts many important decisions from the legislatures to the courts. In this article, we illustrate the politics of private regulation by following a dramatic case, obesity, through the political process. We describe how obesity evolved from a private matter to a political issue. We then assess how different political institutions have responded and conclude that courts will continue to take the leading role.