Does A Recent Article In The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part Deceptively Conflate Record Keeping And Censorship Intentionally?
A recent article in the Yale Law Journal Pocket Part does an insidious job of conflating a law requiring record keeping with government censorship in the context of pornography. Is the falsity intentional? The analysis certainly seems driven by a libertarian, anti-regulatory, pro-porn agenda. Written by an entertainment lawyer who may represent pornographers, and entitled “How “Swingers” Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute,” one couldn’t exactly expect balance, but I would have expected at least more doctrinal accuracy from the Yale Law Journal editors (but see this article, entitled: “Want Your Opinions Questioned or Reversed? Hire a Yale Clerk,” which notes: “Using a sample of 12,966 opinions written by 95 federal district court judges, the portion of a judge’s non-permanent clerks from Yale Law School is found to be positively related to the likelihood the opinion will have a negative (warning) or questioned signal, which is statistically significant at the 1% le
Related Questions
- Does A Recent Article In The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part Deceptively Conflate Record Keeping And Censorship Intentionally?
- Does the law specify any promotion requirements, testing or record keeping by the home study program?
- What are the employers record keeping requirements of the Transportation Commute Benefit?
