Search Details

Word: added (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...There was no one even conversant with CriticalLegal Studies on the ad hoc committee," she said...

Author: By Emily M. Bernstein, | Title: Bok Rejects Dalton Tenure Appeal | 3/11/1988 | See Source »

...very disappointed," said Warren Professorof Legal History Morton J. Horwitz, who appearedbefore Bok's external review committee in supportof Dalton. "President Bok's ad hoc committee didnot consider the question of whether there wasdiscrimination...

Author: By Jonathan S. Cohn, | Title: Profs Say Bok's Tenure Denial Ignored Discrimination Issues | 3/11/1988 | See Source »

...since the ban on new signs was passed, the value of the existing billboards has skyrocketed. The highway commission estimates that it would cost the prohibitive total of some $12.3 million to buy all the signs that are blocking construction. One billboard, which carries a Dewar's Scotch whisky ad and a promotion for Hilton hotels, is said to be worth...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Advertising: Battle of The Signs | 3/7/1988 | See Source »

...ever accused Hustler of good taste. Even so, it would require a tough hide not to be offended by the ad parody that it first ran in 1983. Taking off on a Campari Liqueur campaign that featured celebrities reminiscing about their "first time" -- with the drink, that is -- Hustler ran a spoof that portrayed the Rev. Jerry Falwell as a drunkard whose first sexual encounter was a tryst with his mother in an outhouse. Outrageous? Yes. Funny? Hardly. Plausible? No. But just in case, small print at the foot of the page warned the less discerning reader, "Ad parody...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Law: Taking The Peril out of Parody | 3/7/1988 | See Source »

...rest easier now. Last week the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Falwell's argument in terms that decisively reaffirmed First Amendment protections. Falwell had argued that "outrageous" parody like Hustler's should not be given the protection that more conventional satire and cartooning deserved. But while acknowledging that the ad was "gross and repugnant in the eyes of most," Chief Justice William Rehnquist said for the court that to define and penalize the outrageous would require some very fine judgments, allowing jurors to award damages on the basis of their personal taste or "their dislike of a particular expression." Protecting...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Law: Taking The Peril out of Parody | 3/7/1988 | See Source »

Previous | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | Next