Talk:Time, Inc. v. Hill/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Time, Inc. v. Hill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Notices posted to WikiProject talkpages

I've notified the following WikiProjects and other talkpages, regarding the creation of this new article:

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Source notes, additional sources from Wehwalt

link = Some additional pending sources and research from Wehwalt (talk · contribs). :) — Cirt (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I admire the creation of such an impressive article. Thanks for all the hard work. One thought re: improvement. As I read it, I noticed the complications of the case and my own difficulty in following them. I also wondered how the whole business affected the Hills. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, thank you! I'll put in some more info on that stuff. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, just to make sure you don't miss my response to your note on my talk page, I am pasting it here, too. I hesitate to do any edits on the Time, Inc. v. Hill until I find out what you advise for research, etc. but as I said there, "... it will be a privilege to help. Let me know how to do so, what research, etc. is needed." DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Further Secondary Sources on Time, Inc. v. Hill

1. Ball, Howard (2004). The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans: Birth, Sex, Marriage, Childrearing, and Death. New York City: New York University Press. pp. 83–87. ISBN 0-8147-9862-4.

Howard Ball 1 Review NYU Press, 2004 - Law - 278 pages Choice Outstanding Academic Title 2003 Personal rights, such as the right to procreate--or not--and the right to die generate endless debate. This book maps out the legal, political, and ethical issues swirling around personal rights. Howard Ball shows how the Supreme Court has grappled with the right to reproduce and to abort, and takes on the issue of auto-euthanasia and assisted suicide, from Karen Ann Quinlan through Kevorkian and just recently to the Florida case of the woman who was paralyzed by a gunshot from her mother and who had the plug pulled on herself.For the last half of the twentieth century, the justices of the Supreme Court have had to wrestle with new and difficult life and death questions for them as well as for doctors and their patients, medical ethicists, sociologists, medical practitioners, clergy, philosophers, law makers, and judges.The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans offers a look at these issues as they emerged and examines the manner in which the men and women of the U.S. Supreme Court addressed them.

Time Inc. v. Hill

Quotes included by Ball:

Justice Fortas' paragraph starting, "The facts in this case are unavoidably distressing...", p. 84
Justice Black's marginal notes in Fortas' opinion, excerpts, p. 84
Diary of Elizabeth, wife of Black. Quote demonstrating Black's intense interest in the case, p. 85
Black's assessment of the importance of the case, p. 85

Ball refers to the Conference Session of the Court, as an underst=ood aspect of Supreme Court protocol.
On p. 86, Ball summarizes the Sullivan case.
Submitted by DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Devol, Kenneth S. (Ed.) (1990). Mass media and the Supreme Court: the legacy of the Warren years (4th ed.). Mamaroneck, New York: Hastings House. pp. 351–356. ISBN 0-8038-9305-1.

Records the Supreme Court's key decisions concerning freedom of expression and the mass media, with excerpts from court opinions

Time Inc. v. Hill

Devol includes for the final decision:

Brennan's opinion which includes Life's text
Black's opinion
Portas' dissenting opinion

Devol's notes in italics — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldRichardSands (talk • contribs)

Thanks for these helpful suggestions! I'll go through it, and I'm sure Wehwalt (talk · contribs) will take a look, but it may take some time. — Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration project with Wehwalt

This article is part of a collaboration project with Wehwalt (talk · contribs) to improve the quality of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases, see diff diff. Others are most welcome to help out with copyediting, research, writing, and many other areas. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started to focus on this with the main Nixon article more or less done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Redlink, could be potential for possible article

Harold R. Medina, Jr.

— Cirt (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A fresh trial

The article currently states "[Brennan] permitted that Life could have a fresh trial where it could be determined whether or not the magazine's reporting was reckless or willfully inaccurate.[16]" Was such a trial ever held? NW (Talk) 21:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Oyez Project, "The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction." Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and I will have to do some additional research on this. Perhaps for a new subsection, entitled, Subsequent litigation. — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the case settled at that point. This source [1] says so, though frankly I'm not sure what it is. I'll try to find a better reference if you can't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank very much, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), most appreciated! ;) — Cirt (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, after examining that source, yes, we'd need a reference better than that one, unfortunately. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Upon further examination, Newyorkbrad, the source you cited above [2], also appears here: [3]. According to that link, that source is attributed as: "Essay by katib_1980, High School, 10th grade, October 2006". Unfortunately not exactly suitable for our purposes as an WP:RS source. — Cirt (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will check my sources, the case did settle, fairly generously I think $30K or $50K. I don't have an online source for that but believe there was a note to file in the papers on the litigation from the Nixon library. I am on a cruise ship, give me a week to get home.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, keep us posted, Wehwalt. ;) — Cirt (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on collaboration switch

Just a note: We've improved the article a bit, but Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and I are likely going to switch to another project. Possibly United States v. The Progressive or Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although this article is already very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)