Media Censorship and Access to Terrorism Trials: A Social Architecture Analysis
Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011
2011
- 561Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
This article contends that using the social architecture metaphor - which focuses on how the law creates and distributes power between groups - is particularly well suited to understanding the importance of access to the trials of terrorist suspects. Specifically, the article argues it is important that the "architecture of power" created by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases that have provided for a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials not be replaced with an architecture that more closely resembles cases that have dealt with access to national security information and locations. In these cases, rather than decide cases by focusing on the societal benefits of open government, courts have typically focused on the individual facts of each case without an eye toward the larger social architecture the decisions create. This article posits that an architecture of presumptive access that still allows for a case-by-case closure - as opposed to an architecture of presumptive secrecy with case-by-case disclosure - is consistent with the original architecture of the Constitution and First Amendment and advances trust in the government as it fights terrorism.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know