University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 4 Number 3 (December 1973)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 4 Article 1 Number 3 December, 1973 12-1973 University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 4 Number 3 (December 1973) Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation (1973) "University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 4 Number 3 (December 1973)," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol4/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vol. IV, No. 3 UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE DECEMBER,1973 More. Stringent Guidelines Georgetown Loses for the Censor Board? University of BaltiDlo~e by Michael B. Hare censorship of too broad a spectrum of activities which can Takes'Regional Award A recent article in the foreseeably come within the by Les Auerba'ch Hel1:l in the Superior Court of na tional championship moot Baltimore Sun listed proposals scope of proposed guidelines. D.C., the finals On November 8 court team. of the Maryland State Board of Th\! danger of such legislation is The University of Baltimore pitted Baltimore against its The success of the Censors for consideration of the increased when we realize that Moot Court Team of . Steve cross-t own neighbors, while competition, it is observed , may General Assembly in 1974. If only three individuals and a Abrams, Larry Agleoff, and Tom Penn met ·Georgetown. Again , have a significant effect on the the proposals as listed go co urt must apply these Morrow, guided by Abrams and Mortow argued for school itself. Externall y, the through, the Board of Censor's standards. It is hard to conceive faculty-coach Paul Sandler, took the team , and i.!l a deliberate, and honor already achieved in the will have furnished itself with that the views of the average first place in Region Three confident manner defeated the Regionals enhances the stricter guidelines with which to ' . person are being adequately competition by defeating the University of Maryland. In the reputation of the law program , fight the evils of sexual activity represented in such a meager reigning nahonal champion, final match, Georgetown, who a nd the team is seen as in motion picture films. sampling of the community. Georgetown University. The had defeated Penn, met our representative of the type of As the law currently is While not attempting to team will now go to the National representatives in what was later students the school is now constituted, all films shown for make a comprehensive analysis Championship to be held in New des cribed as a brilliant attracting. Internally, this year's co m mercial profit must be . of the merits or demerits of the York - November 26-28, where exhibition of appellate success, co upled with last year's submitted to the Board of proposed legislation at this time, Baltimore's·first round opponent advocacy. The result was a fine showing (3rd place in the Censors.The Board must license the "Forum" editors feel that will be Boston College. perfect 4-0 record for Baltimore, regionals) may be the seeds of a the film or apply to the Circuit the citizens of this state are UB's road to success began and a defeat for national tradition of Moot Court Court of Baltimore for a judicial responsible enough to act as November 7, when Abrams and champion Georgetown. excellence. determination of whether such their own censors and that the Morrow , arguing on behalf of Observers saw the The team was thankful for film is obscene under standards proposed legislation should not "The Ihcorporated Village of Georgetown match as extremely the warm support they have set forth in Section 6, Artkle become the. law of this state. Bucolia," defeated the advocates close, but the judges were 66A,MarylandCodeAnnotated, Unfortunately, all too enjoyed from the student body , from Howard University Law . im pressed with two elements of' and in particular was grateful for within 5 days. The Circuit Court frequently, we citizens take no i w h .), j' e 'p 1 e s'e e dt h e B1aU f:nore ' s presentation in t~ the guidance received from th e of Baltimore is a court of equity action because we are (either "Amalgamated Workers Union." part icular: responsiveness to entire administration and and hence there is no jury trial uninformed or are too apathetic Later that evening, Agleoff and questions, ilnd preparation. faculty. But the most praise was for a determination of whether to voice disapproval, and as a Abrams, arguing this time on Abrams saw both attributes as for Sandler. whose contribution the film exceeds the guidelines conseq uence , legislation behalf of the Union, defeated ' characteristic of Baltimore Law was call ed " immeasurable." established by Section 6. It is becomes law by default, the team from Temple students. "That this team was so these guidelines which the Board especially in matters in which University. well prepared to argue the law in The team will conduct a seeks to make more stringent. legislators do not receive At the conclusion of the first . this case ," he explained , " is a formal practice session in Proposals for modification of fee d b a c k fro m t h'e i r day's competition, Baltimore, direct reflection on the faculty Langsdale Auditorium Tuesday the guidelines include: anything constituency and wish to take a Penn, and Georgetown were and entire program here at evening, November 20 at 9 PM , in a 'fiIm that "depicts or "safe" stance. undefeated. The University of Baltimore," Abrams emphasized at which time the Regional Moot describes patently offensive As law students, we should Maryland, with a I win - I loss that the positive attitude and Court trophy will be presented representations Of, descriptions h e ve an awareness of the record, was chosen as the winnin g technique directly to the schooL The judges for the of ultimate sexual acts, normal legi s lative process and "wild-card" team to participate resulted from the coaching of evening wil l be lawyers and the or perverted, actual or in .the Regional finals the next faculty adviso r, Paul Sandler, law school deans. Students are Contil1ued 011 page II simulated; anything in a film night. himself a former .advocate on a urged to attend. that "the average person, applying contemporary co m munity stand ard s would find that the work , taken as a Alaskan Pipeline: Oil Rides the Law whole, appeals to prurient interest ;" and any part of a film that "taken as a whole, lacks by Jennifer Bodine (NEPA) requires that prior to temperature of 145 degrees reaches Valdez, it must be ship serious literary , artistic, political any federal action that sha ll ad Farenheit under and over a vast ped by oil supertankers to the or scientific value." If these November 17, President versely affect the environment, stretch of Arctic wilderness on a U.S . west coast, risking chronic guidelines were currently in Nixon signed the authorization an environmenta l impact state daily basis. The building route, oil discharge a nd maj or oil effect, it is conceiveable that of the Trans-Alaskan oil and ment be submitted to the Coun crossing' three earthquake zones, spills. such films as "Last Tango in gas pipeline into law. So ended cil of Environmental Qua lity is renowned for its seismic acti- Perhaps the most devastating Paris" would -!lot be granted a five year struggle between and be made available to the affect of the Pipeline law is not permission to be shown in Congress, the Department of the public, detailing the affects of its direct adverse impact on the Maryland. Although there may Interior, the oil concerns, some the proposed action. Further environment but its ad ve rse im be room for debate as to the Alaskans and the environment~ more, NEPA provides for jud pact on environmental law. value of such films, a serious and alists. The necessary right of icial review conc'erning a ny ac NEPA provi des for the j udi cial basic question must be asked , to way has been granted to' the tion to be taken, to assure tha t review of governmenta I actions wit , 'Does the State of Alyseka Pipeline Company, a any act done, will be the best that will adversely affect the en Maryland , through its Board of consortium of seven oi I industry alternative available so as to vironment. This Act has been Censors, have a legitimate giants (Atlantic Richfield , assure maximum protection of considered the most fund interest in restricting the Exxon, Britiss Petroleum , our environment. Accordingly, amental of our environmental showing of such films?" Current Mobil, Phillips, Union, Amer a six volume, $42.50 enviro protection laws. The right to justifications rest upon the ada Hess) to start construction nmental impac t statement appeal to the courts is the back presumption that such materials of the pipeline. By 1976, a representing two years of work bone of the act, not to mention are harmful to society because 789 mile pipeline will stretch and thousands of man hours of the backbone of our entire legal of adverse effect upon from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez preparation was published last system in the United States. individuals who may be bringing- an anticipated 9.6 March, 1973. This new pipeline law in fluenced to anti-social billion barrels of oil out of the The statement does not emp provides that "no rights-of-way behavior by such materials.