Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003
S. Bates
The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn ranks among the most renowned First Amendment theorists. In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, published in 1948, he lays out four propositions: The First Amendment is intended to facilitate political discourse; its principal concern is the rights of listeners rather than those of speakers; the government has an affirmative obligation to improve the system of free expression; and effective political deliberation requires structure and rules. Together, these propositions add up to Meiklejohn’s self-government theory of the First Amendment. But he was not the first: All four propositions appear in a book published a year earlier by another philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, a member of the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This article critically examines the two men’s versions of self-government theory in the context of their backgrounds, their political philosophies, and their animating concerns about free speech.
哲学家亚历山大·米克尔约翰(Alexander Meiklejohn)是最著名的第一修正案理论家之一。在1948年出版的《言论自由及其与自治的关系》一书中，他提出了四个主张:第一修正案旨在促进政治话语;它主要关心的是听者的权利，而不是说话者的权利;政府有完善言论自由制度的积极义务;有效的政治审议需要结构和规则。综上所述，这些主张构成了米克尔约翰关于第一修正案的自治理论。但他并不是第一个:这四个主张都出现在另一位哲学家、新闻自由委员会成员威廉·欧内斯特·霍金(William Ernest hawking)一年前出版的一本书中。本文从他们的背景、他们的政治哲学以及他们对言论自由的关注等方面，批判性地考察了两人的自治理论版本。
{"title":"Meiklejohn, Hocking, and Self-Government Theory","authors":"S. Bates","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003","url":null,"abstract":"The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn ranks among the most renowned First Amendment theorists. In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, published in 1948, he lays out four propositions: The First Amendment is intended to facilitate political discourse; its principal concern is the rights of listeners rather than those of speakers; the government has an affirmative obligation to improve the system of free expression; and effective political deliberation requires structure and rules. Together, these propositions add up to Meiklejohn’s self-government theory of the First Amendment. But he was not the first: All four propositions appear in a book published a year earlier by another philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, a member of the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This article critically examines the two men’s versions of self-government theory in the context of their backgrounds, their political philosophies, and their animating concerns about free speech.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47175307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1937005
Rosalie C. Westenskow, Edward L. Carter
At a time when many U.S. newspapers find themselves at the edge of a financial precipice, The Salt Lake Tribune’s recent transformation into a 501(c)(3) public charity presents a potentially promising route to economic safety for other daily newspapers. Although the nonprofit, tax-exempt model has been an increasingly popular one for new media outlets, the IRS’s bestowal of such status on a major daily newspaper marks an historic event — one that other newspapers, and their legal counsel, can learn from. This article outlines several issues such practitioners and owners should be aware of as they consider taking the leap to nonprofit status. The nonprofit route can have not only financial advantages for news publications, but it may also provide a better environment for cultivating the type of high-quality journalism that is essential to preserving our democracy. The legal requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations, as well as the ownership structure, have the potential to drive hard-hitting reporting on the most important issues, particularly for local publications, many of which are currently hemorrhaging such coverage. This article argues that journalism is a public good, and as such, a natural fit for the non-profit model.
{"title":"Journalism as a Public Good: How the Nonprofit News Model Can Save Us from Ourselves","authors":"Rosalie C. Westenskow, Edward L. Carter","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1937005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1937005","url":null,"abstract":"At a time when many U.S. newspapers find themselves at the edge of a financial precipice, The Salt Lake Tribune’s recent transformation into a 501(c)(3) public charity presents a potentially promising route to economic safety for other daily newspapers. Although the nonprofit, tax-exempt model has been an increasingly popular one for new media outlets, the IRS’s bestowal of such status on a major daily newspaper marks an historic event — one that other newspapers, and their legal counsel, can learn from. This article outlines several issues such practitioners and owners should be aware of as they consider taking the leap to nonprofit status. The nonprofit route can have not only financial advantages for news publications, but it may also provide a better environment for cultivating the type of high-quality journalism that is essential to preserving our democracy. The legal requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations, as well as the ownership structure, have the potential to drive hard-hitting reporting on the most important issues, particularly for local publications, many of which are currently hemorrhaging such coverage. This article argues that journalism is a public good, and as such, a natural fit for the non-profit model.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59637144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1937004
Amy Sindik
The decision of the Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality regulations in 2018 was met with legal challenges arguing that the Commission did not have authority under administrative law to make such sweeping policy changes. In light of the net neutrality court battles, this historical analysis of FCC cases examines the way the Supreme Court of the United States has evaluated the FCC’s regulatory authority in cases that invoke economic considerations. The analysis indicates that the Court interprets both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedures Act as providing the FCC with considerable latitude to determine ways to regulate economic focused areas of communications, including the license application process, regulation of new technologies and challenges from citizens groups.
{"title":"Administrative Law and the Federal Communications Commission","authors":"Amy Sindik","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1937004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1937004","url":null,"abstract":"The decision of the Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality regulations in 2018 was met with legal challenges arguing that the Commission did not have authority under administrative law to make such sweeping policy changes. In light of the net neutrality court battles, this historical analysis of FCC cases examines the way the Supreme Court of the United States has evaluated the FCC’s regulatory authority in cases that invoke economic considerations. The analysis indicates that the Court interprets both the Communications Act and Administrative Procedures Act as providing the FCC with considerable latitude to determine ways to regulate economic focused areas of communications, including the license application process, regulation of new technologies and challenges from citizens groups.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59637135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096
D. Riffe, Kyla P. Garrett Wagner
Since World War II, U.S. citizens have reported overwhelming agreement that freedom of expression is a basic right. But, like the law on free expression, public opinion shows that citizen rights to free expression are not absolute or unidimensional, but conditional. To better understand the extent of citizen rights to free expression according to the U.S. public, this study examines data from an online national survey (N = 2,600) in which twenty-five types of expression were offered for respondent agreement that “U.S. citizens should have a right to….” According to the respondents, the free expression types to which citizens have the most rights were expressing political opinions, making a political speech, picketing as a union member, and wearing a black armband in protest. The least endorsed rights were lying in the news, lying generally, protesting outside a church funeral service for a veteran, using racist language in a speech, and burning the American flag. Demographic analyses showed agreement with rights to free expression was highest among younger respondents, non-whites and males. Further analysis confirmed that freedom of expression is not unidimensional, with four main dimensions underlying perceptions of the twenty-five types. These dimensions were identified as repugnant expression, historical political expression, un-patriotic expression, and avoiding compelled expression.
{"title":"Freedom of Expression: Another Look at How Much the Public Will Endorse","authors":"D. Riffe, Kyla P. Garrett Wagner","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","url":null,"abstract":"Since World War II, U.S. citizens have reported overwhelming agreement that freedom of expression is a basic right. But, like the law on free expression, public opinion shows that citizen rights to free expression are not absolute or unidimensional, but conditional. To better understand the extent of citizen rights to free expression according to the U.S. public, this study examines data from an online national survey (N = 2,600) in which twenty-five types of expression were offered for respondent agreement that “U.S. citizens should have a right to….” According to the respondents, the free expression types to which citizens have the most rights were expressing political opinions, making a political speech, picketing as a union member, and wearing a black armband in protest. The least endorsed rights were lying in the news, lying generally, protesting outside a church funeral service for a veteran, using racist language in a speech, and burning the American flag. Demographic analyses showed agreement with rights to free expression was highest among younger respondents, non-whites and males. Further analysis confirmed that freedom of expression is not unidimensional, with four main dimensions underlying perceptions of the twenty-five types. These dimensions were identified as repugnant expression, historical political expression, un-patriotic expression, and avoiding compelled expression.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45951540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1893106
Jared Schroeder, Monica Chadha
As traditional news organizations have struggled to adapt their content and financial models to networked information environments, and community journalism startups have begun to test a variety of new business and organization models, the line between journalistic and commercial expression has become opaque. This article examines the challenges emerging, twenty-first-century media organizations pose to how the courts have historically understood press and commercial-related speech protections. The article analyzes how the Supreme Court of the United States has rationalized its standards for press and commercial safeguards and considers how the Court has decided in recent cases involving citizen publishers who claimed protections historically reserved for traditional journalists. Ultimately, the article draws the building blocks from these ideas to propose how courts can separate the two types of communication in the twenty-first century. In doing so, the article also proposes ways in which such fledgling organizations can ensure they remain journalistic in nature.
{"title":"Journalist, Advertiser or Both: Reevaluating Legal Distinctions Between Journalistic and Commercial Speech in the Networked Era","authors":"Jared Schroeder, Monica Chadha","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1893106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893106","url":null,"abstract":"As traditional news organizations have struggled to adapt their content and financial models to networked information environments, and community journalism startups have begun to test a variety of new business and organization models, the line between journalistic and commercial expression has become opaque. This article examines the challenges emerging, twenty-first-century media organizations pose to how the courts have historically understood press and commercial-related speech protections. The article analyzes how the Supreme Court of the United States has rationalized its standards for press and commercial safeguards and considers how the Court has decided in recent cases involving citizen publishers who claimed protections historically reserved for traditional journalists. Ultimately, the article draws the building blocks from these ideas to propose how courts can separate the two types of communication in the twenty-first century. In doing so, the article also proposes ways in which such fledgling organizations can ensure they remain journalistic in nature.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46882397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1893100
Anthony L. Fargo
One mission of the institutional media, recognized by journalists and judges alike, is to uncover the government’s secrets. This mission often involves obtaining information from sources who would face perils if identified. Journalists have historically risked legal penalties to protect sources’ identities, but now surveillance technology allows investigators to unmask leakers through their communication records. Meanwhile, the last two presidential administrations expanded efforts to prosecute leakers of classified information. This article examines the increasingly risky atmosphere for journalists and sources and whether the reporter-source relationship can survive the risks. After examining recent leak prosecutions and the troubling legal and ethical issues they raise, the article concludes that legal solutions are unlikely. However, journalists can combat chilling effects on sources by making source protection a higher ethical priority and by proactively guiding sources to ways they can avoid detection.
{"title":"The End of the Affair: Can the Relationship Between Journalists and Sources Survive Mass Surveillance and Aggressive Leak Prosecutions?","authors":"Anthony L. Fargo","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1893100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893100","url":null,"abstract":"One mission of the institutional media, recognized by journalists and judges alike, is to uncover the government’s secrets. This mission often involves obtaining information from sources who would face perils if identified. Journalists have historically risked legal penalties to protect sources’ identities, but now surveillance technology allows investigators to unmask leakers through their communication records. Meanwhile, the last two presidential administrations expanded efforts to prosecute leakers of classified information. This article examines the increasingly risky atmosphere for journalists and sources and whether the reporter-source relationship can survive the risks. After examining recent leak prosecutions and the troubling legal and ethical issues they raise, the article concludes that legal solutions are unlikely. However, journalists can combat chilling effects on sources by making source protection a higher ethical priority and by proactively guiding sources to ways they can avoid detection.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47639039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1856603
A. Jay Wagner
Politics have a profound influence on the design and administration of nearly all government laws and policies. And the executive branch, a highly political institution, is given significant latitude in shaping the primary mechanism for accessing government information, the Freedom of Information Act. This article explores the political nature of the FOIA by examining legislative history, party messaging, presidential actions and a quantitative analysis of FOIA use and implementation from 1975 until the present. The outcomes are both predictable — Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump having poor records — and surprising — President George W. Bush producing a relatively transparent record. The study’s findings suggest the failures of FOIA are likely less a consequence of presidencies and political parties than an indiscriminate symptom of contemporary U.S. governance.
政治对几乎所有政府法律和政策的设计和执行都有深远的影响。作为一个高度政治化的机构，行政部门在制定获取政府信息的主要机制——《信息自由法》(Freedom of information Act)——方面被赋予了很大的自由度。本文通过对《信息自由法》的立法历史、政党信息、总统行为以及1975年至今《信息自由法》使用和实施情况的定量分析，探讨了《信息自由法》的政治本质。结果是可以预见的——罗纳德·里根总统和唐纳德·特朗普总统的政绩不佳——以及令人惊讶的——乔治·w·布什总统的政绩相对透明。研究结果表明，《信息自由法》的失败与其说是总统和政党的结果，不如说是当代美国治理不分青红皂白的症状。
{"title":"Pandering, Priority or Political Weapon: Presidencies, Political Parties & the Freedom of Information Act","authors":"A. Jay Wagner","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856603","url":null,"abstract":"Politics have a profound influence on the design and administration of nearly all government laws and policies. And the executive branch, a highly political institution, is given significant latitude in shaping the primary mechanism for accessing government information, the Freedom of Information Act. This article explores the political nature of the FOIA by examining legislative history, party messaging, presidential actions and a quantitative analysis of FOIA use and implementation from 1975 until the present. The outcomes are both predictable — Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump having poor records — and surprising — President George W. Bush producing a relatively transparent record. The study’s findings suggest the failures of FOIA are likely less a consequence of presidencies and political parties than an indiscriminate symptom of contemporary U.S. governance.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856603","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42560222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601
Karen M. Markin
Scientists are increasingly involved in defamation claims. Sometimes they are defendants in disputes over the accuracy of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In other instances, scientists are plaintiffs, filing suits against those who have attacked them in the popular media, harming their reputations. Both situations represent efforts to quell scientists’ speech, generally because their research threatens established commercial interests, and they pose a threat to scientific inquiry. This article examines these two trends. It recommends that, for journal articles, courts recognize a scientific debate privilege, which is emerging in some jurisdictions. It presents evidence that reputational attacks are intimidating scientists, causing them to pursue fewer controversial lines of research. It notes that, in their efforts to maintain vigorous debate on matters of public concern, courts are allowing brutal criticism of scientists that is having the opposite effect by driving researchers’ voices out of the public sphere.
{"title":"Libel and the Lab: Scientists and Defamation","authors":"Karen M. Markin","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","url":null,"abstract":"Scientists are increasingly involved in defamation claims. Sometimes they are defendants in disputes over the accuracy of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In other instances, scientists are plaintiffs, filing suits against those who have attacked them in the popular media, harming their reputations. Both situations represent efforts to quell scientists’ speech, generally because their research threatens established commercial interests, and they pose a threat to scientific inquiry. This article examines these two trends. It recommends that, for journal articles, courts recognize a scientific debate privilege, which is emerging in some jurisdictions. It presents evidence that reputational attacks are intimidating scientists, causing them to pursue fewer controversial lines of research. It notes that, in their efforts to maintain vigorous debate on matters of public concern, courts are allowing brutal criticism of scientists that is having the opposite effect by driving researchers’ voices out of the public sphere.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856601","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43944173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-29DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602
Mi-Kyu Park
Although the Supreme Court of the United States has described academic freedom as a “special concern,” the Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of academic freedom reserved for the professoriate. Legal disputes involving scholarship and classroom speech have overwhelmingly favored institutions over individual academics. However, the lack of uniformity and inconsistent application of the current public speech framework to academia speaks to the uneasiness of applying general public employee speech principles to academic speech. This article addresses how Supreme Court jurisprudence has shaped the arc of academic freedom toward an institutional right, and how the current public employee speech framework has displaced academic speech protection tied to scholarship and teaching. Finally, the article offers both descriptive and normative arguments, including a functional theory of academic freedom and the Madisonian-Meiklejohnian conception of the First Amendment, to make the case for constitutional consideration of speech pursuant to scholarship and teaching.
{"title":"A Matter of Public Concern: The Case for Academic Freedom Rights of Public University Faculty","authors":"Mi-Kyu Park","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","url":null,"abstract":"Although the Supreme Court of the United States has described academic freedom as a “special concern,” the Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of academic freedom reserved for the professoriate. Legal disputes involving scholarship and classroom speech have overwhelmingly favored institutions over individual academics. However, the lack of uniformity and inconsistent application of the current public speech framework to academia speaks to the uneasiness of applying general public employee speech principles to academic speech. This article addresses how Supreme Court jurisprudence has shaped the arc of academic freedom toward an institutional right, and how the current public employee speech framework has displaced academic speech protection tied to scholarship and teaching. Finally, the article offers both descriptive and normative arguments, including a functional theory of academic freedom and the Madisonian-Meiklejohnian conception of the First Amendment, to make the case for constitutional consideration of speech pursuant to scholarship and teaching.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44370170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-22DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1805940
W. Hopkins
{"title":"Editor’s Note","authors":"W. Hopkins","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2020.1805940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2020.1805940","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2020.1805940","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43953352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：