Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 '[I]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.' 443 U.S. at 443 U. S. 103. According the press the ample protection provided by that principle is supported by at least three separate considerations, in addition to, of course, the overarching 'public interest, secured by the Constitution, in the dissemination of truth.'' Cox Broadcasting, s 420 U. S. 491, quoting Garrison at 379 U. S. 73 (footnote omitted). 

When a State attempts the extraordinary measure of punishing truthful publication in the name of privacy, it must demonstrate its commitment to advancing this interest by applying its prohibition evenhandedly, to the small-time disseminator as well as the media giant. Where important First Amendment interests are at stake, the mass scope of disclosure is not an acceptable surrogate for injury. A ban on disclosures effected by 'instrument[s] of mass communication' simply cannot be defended on the ground that partial prohibitions may effect partial relief. See Daily Mail, 443 U.S. at 443 U. S. 104-105 (statute is insufficiently tailored ...

Register or login to access full content