PACs Americana: Reinventing Public Access Channel Cable Television Programming TERENCE R. BOGA

One source of diversity is often over- operate a public access channel. This Early Public Forum Cases looked in the ongoing debate regarding presents an opportunity for many ac- Congress all but assigned public forum concentration in the television indus- cess channel managers to circumscribe status to public access channels in con- try—the American public. Ordinary cit- the parameters of acceptable program nection with the Cable Communications izens throughout the nation produce content by developing and enforcing Policy Act of 1984,15 the first federal leg- programs that are transmitted on cable appropriate program guidelines. islation to address cable television. An television public access channels, oft-cited passage of the House Energy which typically are managed by a cable Federal Statutory Scheme and Commerce Committee report for the television operator, a local government Federal statutes allow local govern- 1984 Cable Act offers the following that issued the cable franchise, or a ments to determine whether cable tele- utopian assessment of the medium: nonprofit organization affiliated with vision operators must provide public ac- Public access channels are often the video the franchising authority. Access chan- cess channels as part of the considera- equivalent of the speaker’s soap box or the elec- nel managers determine the programs tion offered in exchange for a cable tel- tronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They pro- that are cablecast and increasingly, evision franchise.7 To paraphrase the vide groups and individuals who generally have their programming decisions are being D.C. Circuit, this authorization reflects not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in challenged in court. deference to the origin of such channels the electronic marketplace of ideas.16 From the perspective of access chan- more than congressional largesse.8 nel managers, the problem is obvious: Equally significant, federal statutes The “public forum” concept is cen- some programs do not deserve to appear vest local governments with primary re- tral to First Amendment jurisprudence, on a public access channel. Cablevision sponsibility for regulating program con- which generally classifies public prop- Systems Corporation evidently thought tent. A cable television operator may re- erty according to three categories. This so when it rejected several shows from fuse to transmit a public access program taxonomy, first delineated by the a producer that discussed pending per- (or portion of one) if it contains obscen- Supreme Court in the 1983 landmark sonal lawsuits.1 The State of Texas ap- ity, indecency or nudity; otherwise the case Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry parently did also when it prosecuted operator cannot exercise any editorial Local Educators Ass’n,17 consists of: two producers for exhibiting a sexually control over public access channel pro- 1) traditional public forums—areas, explicit film during their live call-in gramming.9 By contrast, rather obtusely such as streets and parks, that have program.2 The City of Kansas City, worded enabling legislation permits been used for expressive activity; Missouri, certainly held this sentiment franchising authorities to “require rules 2) designated public forums—areas when it chose to shut down its access and procedures” for the use of public that the government has set aside channel rather than air the Ku Klux access channel capacity.10 Without this for either general or limited ex- Klan’s “Race and Reason.”3 provision, federal law would preempt pressive activity; and Solving the problem of unworthy any effort by franchising authorities to 3) nonpublic forums. public access programs requires knowl- impose requirements regarding the con- Public forum status profoundly influ- edge of governing statutory and consti- tent of cable television services.11 ences the degree to which a governmen- tutional principles as well as a willing- tal entity may regulate private speech ness to be proactive rather than reac- State Preemption on public property. In both traditional tive. Commentators,4 access channel State laws also affect the degree to and designated public forums, the gov- managers,5 and a leading industry asso- which public access channel program- ernment may enforce a content-based ciation6 have championed “anything ming content may be regulated. speech restriction only if it is necessary goes” as an operating paradigm. Minnesota, for example, categorically to serve a compelling state interest, and However, unless state legislation pre- precludes cable television operators also is narrowly drawn to achieve that empts programming regulation, that from prohibiting or limiting a “program interest.18 By contrast, a content-neutral paradigm is not compulsory for local or class or type of program” presented restriction on speech in a traditional or governments or nonprofit operators that over a public access channel.12 New designated public forum is permissible York imposes a similar ban, but its leg- provided it is narrowly drawn to serve a Terence R. Boga ([email protected]) is islation also preempts any regulation by significant state interest and leaves open a shareholder of Richards, Watson & the New York State Public Service ample alternative channels of communi- Gershon in the Los Angeles office, and is Commission and municipalities.13 The cation.19 Nonpublic forums afford the the city attorney of the City of Westlake New York statute even precludes the government the greatest regulatory lati- Village, California. The author thanks imposition of “discriminatory or prefer- tude, and speech restriction in such fo- Ginetta Giovinco, a 2002 summer associ- ential franchise fees” in an attempt to rums is valid as long as it is reasonable ate, for debating the thesis of this article. influence programming.14 and viewpoint neutral.20

American Bar Association ¥ Spring 2003 ¥ Number 1¥ Volume 21 ¥ Communications Lawyer 9 Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Where to place public access channels a producer who objected to cancellation eschewed the public forum doctrine al- in the public forum continuum has di- of her weekly public access series about together in favor of some other analyti- vided the courts for some time. In 1989, a her various pending suits.26 cal framework.31 In one notable excep- federal district court in Missouri an- tion, however, a federal district court in nounced its intent to deem Kansas City’s Denver Area Educational Georgia split the baby by simultane- privately operated public access channel Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. ously declaring a public access chan- to be a public forum if the Ku Klux Klan and Its Aftermath nel’s cablecasting facilities to be a des- could prove allegations that the public’s In 1996, the issue of whether a public ignated public forum and its production use of the channel was guaranteed on a access channel constitutes a public fo- facilities a nonpublic forum.32 first-come, first-serve basis and that the rum reached the U.S. Supreme Court in city council held ultimate control over the Denver Area Educational Telecommu- PBS Analogy channel.21 A federal district court in nications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Broadcast television does not offer an Pennsylvania subsequently relied on this Communications Commission.27 The equivalent to cable television’s public proclamation to support its conclusion that question arose in connection with the access channels, but a loose analogy can the City of Erie’s publicly operated public Court’s review of the D.C. Circuit’s en be drawn to noncommercial educational access channel was a public forum.22 Both banc ruling regarding the sexually ex- stations, which traditionally have en- cases arose from a municipality’s plan to plicit programming restrictions of the joyed a reputation for embodying public eliminate the public access channel rather 1992 Cable Act. television.33 The federal government li- than present controversial programs; each Although the Supreme Court invali- censes these stations to nonprofit educa- court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with dated the provisions affecting public ac- tional organizations, and to municipali- the lawsuit. As a final example, after rul- cess channels, there was no consensus on ties and other political subdivisions that ing that San Francisco’s privately oper- the public forum status of such facilities. do not have an independent educational ated public access channel was meant to Justices Breyer, Stevens, O’Connor, and organization, such as a board of educa- be a public forum,23 a federal district court Souter considered it premature to resolve tion.34 Generally, the licensees are al- in California issued a preliminary injunc- the issue because of rapid changes in the lowed to transmit only educational, cul- tion enjoining the cable television opera- law, technology, and infrastructure of the tural, and entertainment programs.35 tor from banning or otherwise regulating telecommunications industry.28 Noncommercial educational stations indecent programs. Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg, by wield carte blanche authority, vis-à-vis There are decisions at the opposite contrast, unhesitatingly determined that a the general public, as to programming end of the spectrum as well. The D.C. public access channel is indeed a public selection. Most public broadcasters in Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled in 1995 forum, reasoning that “[r]equired by the the spring of 1980 aired “Death of a that a public access channel is not a franchise authority as a condition of the Princess,” a controversial program public forum because the channel be- franchise and open to all comers, [public about the execution of a Saudi Arabian longs to the cable television operator access channels] are a designated public princess and her adulterous lover. Two and not the government. 24 The court forum of unlimited character.”29 stations, the Alabama Educational also emphasized that the imposition of Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Television Commission and the common carrier obligations on a cable Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, University of Houston’s KUHT-TV, television operator does not transmute reached the opposite conclusion. They cancelled their previously scheduled considered the public fo- broadcasts, ostensibly due to concern rum doctrine applicable for the safety of American citizens in Noncommercial educational only to property owned the Middle East and respect for objec- by the government and to tions by the Saudi government, and stations wield carte blanche property in which the were sued by disappointed viewers. The government holds a sig- Fifth Circuit ruled in an en banc deci- authority, vis-à-vis the general nificant property interest, sion that the plaintiffs had “no right of consistent with the com- access to compel the broadcast of any public, as to programming selection. municative purpose of particular program.”36 the forum to be estab- A more recent example of program- lished. In their estima- ming discretion involves televised elec- the operator’s facilities into a public fo- tion, public access channels satisfied tion debates. In 1992, the Arkansas rum. This ruling prompted the court to neither criterion because the require- Educational Television Commission re- dismiss a constitutional challenge to ments for such facilities “are a regula- fused to allow Ralph Forbes, an independ- provisions in the Cable Television tory restriction on the exercise of cable ent candidate for Congress, to participate Consumer Protection and Competition operators’ editorial discretion, not a in its debate on the grounds that neither Act of 199225 that allowed cable televi- transfer of a sufficient property interest the voters nor the press considered his sion operators to prohibit sexually ex- in the channels to support a designation campaign viable. The Supreme Court af- plicit programming on leased access of that property as a public forum.”30 firmed the exclusion, finding that the de- and public access channels. Shortly Not surprisingly, the fractured deci- bate was a nonpublic forum and that thereafter, a federal district court in sion has generated confusion among AETC had acted reasonably in a view- New York echoed the D.C. Circuit in an lower courts called upon to resolve pub- point neutral manner.37 Significantly, the order denying dismissal of a lawsuit by lic access channel litigation. Many of Court emphasized that “in most cases, the

10 Communications Lawyer ¥ Volume 21 ¥ Number 1 ¥ Spring 2003 ¥ American Bar Association Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. First Amendment of its own force does not the Mountain Valley Television ticism, however, is their endorsement of compel public broadcasters to allow third Corporation (MVTC), which operates a public access channel programming con- parties access to their programming.” 38 public access channel in Ukiah Valley, trol by governmental and nonprofit ac- California. MVTC somehow identified cess channel managers. Justices Breyer, A New Public Spirit subliminal advertising inserted in video- Stevens, and Souter stressed that such Public access channel litigation typically tapes submitted by an access program entities can enforce program guidelines involves disputes over programming, producer and successfully relied on that by “requiring indemnification by pro- which means that choosing an operating operating policy violation and the pro- grammers, certification of compliance paradigm is one of the most important ducer’s false representations as grounds with local standards, time segregation, decisions that access channel managers for suspension of access privileges.41 adult content advisories, or even by pre- must make. Many quite reasonably adopt Determining whether an advertise- screening individual programs.”47 The a policy of cablecasting nearly all sub- ment is commercial occasionally pres- availability of these policing options missions, based on considerations such ents difficulties. Cablevision Systems contributed to their conclusion that the as ease of implementation, risk aversion, Corporation refused to show a program 1992 Cable Act unnecessarily afforded and an uncompromising devotion to the on military issues called “America’s cable television operators the power to electronic soapbox principle. Yet public Defense Monitor” until the producer veto sexually explicit programming on access need not be equated with “any- deleted a twenty-five-second closing public access channels. thing goes,” and there is an alternative to segment on how to purchase transcripts such an operating paradigm. and copies of the videotape. The Second Miscellaneous Controversial The Fifth Circuit has recognized that Circuit vacated a summary judgment in Programming public access channels “would enjoy favor of the company and remanded the Commercial advertising and pornography virtually unfettered programming dis- case for a determination of whether the do not exhaust the field of controversial cretion” if courts applied a different le- primary purpose of the advertisement public access channel programming. The gal standard.39 It viewed this autonomy was dissemination of the program’s best known hate speech example involves as being contingent upon either the message or profit for the producer.42 the “racialist” social and political com- pressing of the analogy to broadcast mentary of the Ku Klux Klan’s program television’s noncommercial educational Real Sex (PAC Style) “Race and Reason.” Kansas City’s futile stations or the rejection of the public fo- Access program producers nationwide attempt to avoid airing the program by rum doctrine in the public access chan- have sought to transmit pornography via shutting down its access channel has al- nel context. Whether the former comes public access channels. In Texas, for ex- ready been mentioned. to pass, the Denver Area Educational ample, the producers of a live call-in pro- Defamatory and privacy-invading Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. gram on Austin Community Television speech also has generated controversy. decision heralded the latter, precisely Cable exhibited a film depicting fellatio, The Fairfield Public Access Television because of the Court’s splintered public analingus, and other sexual activity be- Committee in Iowa suspended the ac- forum analysis. tween male couples. They subsequently cess privileges of a producer whose live Thus, a regulatory opportunity is were convicted of promoting obscenity.43 program included audience telephone available for many access channel man- In Nebraska, a producer submitted a calls speculating about sexual activity at agers who are frustrated by perceived video containing a scene in which he a particular residence. The Eighth abuses of their facilities. Unless subject masturbated for more than a minute Circuit reversed a summary judgment in to preemptive state statutes, local gov- while costumed as “Crotchy the Clown.” favor of the Committee and the ernments and nonprofit organizations He too was prosecuted successfully on Fairfield City Council, which had up- can promulgate program guidelines to obscenity charges.44 As a final example, held the suspension, and remanded the circumscribe the parameters of accept- the producer of a live call-in program on litigation for further fact-finding.48 able program content. Cable television Seattle’s public access channel showed a Even political speech has run afoul of operators that oversee public access video, entitled “Lactomania,” that con- access channel managers. Cablevision channels lack this discretion because, as tained such “depths of bizarre depravity” Systems Corporation refused to cablecast noted above, a federal statute strictly that a federal district court was rendered a segment of the “Hippie Talk Show” that limits the grounds on which they can re- speechless.45 His access privileges were featured Marijuana Reform Party candi- fuse transmission of a public access suspended, though he appears to have dates running for office in New York. The program. Notably, the Second Circuit avoided prosecution. company defended the exclusion on the has interpreted that statute as allowing Curiously, a plurality of the Supreme basis that the program constituted a cam- cable television operators to bar pro- Court in Denver Area Educational paign advertisement and therefore was a grams that do not qualify for cablecast- Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. prohibited commercial use of the channel. ing on an access channel.40 doubted the prevalence of sexually ex- Not surprisingly, a federal district court plicit programming on public access rejected this argument and issued a pre- Commercial Interruptions channels. Justices Breyer, Stevens, and liminary injunction requiring that the pro- Public access channel program guide- Souter found no “significant nationwide gram be aired before the election.49 lines usually prohibit commercial ad- pattern” in the “few examples” contained vertising. If an award were given for in the legislative history of the 1992 Must the Show Go On? strictest enforcement of such a ban, one Cable Act and in the case record.46 Access channel managers who pre- of the front-runners certainly would be Much more important than this skep- screen submissions presumably do so in

American Bar Association ¥ Spring 2003 ¥ Number 1¥ Volume 21 ¥ Communications Lawyer 11 Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. order to reject those in violation of their 2. Rees v. State, 909 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. 24. Alliance for Community Media v. program guidelines, as illustrated by App. 1995). Fed. Communications Comm’n, 56 F.3d MVTC’s refusal to cablecast the video- 3. Mo. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. 105, 122Ð23 (D.C. Cir. 1995). tape containing subliminal advertising. Kansas City, Mo., 723 F. Supp. 1347 (W.D. 25. Pub. L. No. 102Ð385, 106 Stat. 1460 The notion that cablecasting of an Mo. 1989). (1992) (1992 Cable Act). 4. See Jonathon H. Beemer, Comment, 26. Glendora v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., access program involving constitution- Denver Area Telecommunications 893 F. Supp. 264, 270 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). ally protected speech can be denied Consortium, Inc. v. FCC and the Public 27. 518 U.S. 727 (1996). consistent with the First Amendment is Forum Status of Cable Access Channels, 63 28. Id. at 742. counterintuitive. Nevertheless, in BROOKLYN L. REV. 955 (1997); James N. 29. Id. at 791. Denver Area Educational Telecommu- Horwood, Public, Educational, and 30. Id. at 831. nications Consortium, Inc., three mem- Governmental Access on Cable Television: A 31. E.g., Rhames v. City of Biddeford, bers of the Supreme Court identified Model to Assure Reasonable Access to the 204 F. Supp. 2d 45, 51 (D. Me. 2002); prescreening by governmental and non- Information Superhighway for All People in Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community profit access channel managers as a le- Fulfillment of the First Amendment Guarantee Television, 188 F. Supp. 2d 82, 93 (D. Mass. gitimate option for policing program of Free Speech,” 25 SETON HALL L. REV. 2002); Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d 1413 (1995); Jason Roberts, Note, Public 188, 192Ð93 (5th Cir. 1999); Coplin v. content. That ruling, although not dis- Access: Fortifying the Electronic Soapbox, 47 Fairfield Public Access Television, 111 F.3d positive, supports the viability of show FED. COMMUNICATIONS L.J. 123 (1994). 1395, 1402 n.4 (8th Cir. 1997). exclusion as a program guideline en- 5. See GLEN DARBY, HOW TO STAR IN YOUR 32. Jersawitz v. People TV, 71 F. Supp. forcement technique. OWN TV SHOW FOR $50 OR LESS! (1999); 2d 1330, 1341Ð42 (N.D. Ga. 1999). LAURA R. LINDER, PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION: 33. For a comprehensive history of non- Pulling the Plug AMERICA’S ELECTRONIC SOAPBOX (1999). commercial educational broadcast television Several access channel managers have 6. ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA, stations, see RALPH ENGELMAN, PUBLIC RADIO prevailed in federal district court in chal- CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMMING: A GUIDE FOR AND TELEVISION IN AMERICA: A POLITICAL lenges to their revocation of access privi- PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY (1996); JAMES DAY, THE VANISHING leges of producers who violate program ACCESS TELEVISION ADVOCATES (1999). VISION: THE INSIDE STORY OF PUBLIC 7. 47 U.S.C. ¤ 531(b). In addition to TELEVISION (1995); JAMES LEDBETTER, MADE guidelines. As previously noted, MVTC public access channels, this provision allows POSSIBLE BY . . . THE DEATH OF PUBLIC suspended the producer who included franchise authorities to require cable opera- BROADCASTING IN THE UNITED STATES (1998). subliminal advertising in his videotape.50 tors to provide channel capacity for educa- 34. 47 C.F.R. ¤ 73.621(a)-(b). TCI Cablevision of Washington similarly tional and governmental use. Public, educa- 35. Id. ¤ 73.621(c). refused to cablecast new programs from tional, and governmental cable television 36. Muir v. Alabama Educ. Television two producers who aired obscene mate- channels commonly are referred to collec- Comm’n, 688 F.2d 1033, 1042 (5th Cir. rial during their live shows.51 People TV tively as “PEG channels.” 1982). The history of the “Death of a in Atlanta even barred a producer from its 8. See Time Warner Entertainment Co., Princess” litigation is dramatic in its own production facilities on the basis of his L.P. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 93 fashion. On March 12, 1980, the day the disrespectful letters, telephone calls, and F.3d 957, 972 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“In passing program had been scheduled to premiere, a 52 the PEG provision, Congress thus merely three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit va- faxes to its employees. Thus, producer recognized and endorsed the preexisting cated a district court order requiring the exclusion should be considered as a pro- practice of local franchise authorities condi- University of Houston’s KUHT-TV to gram enforcement technique. tioning their cable franchises on the granting broadcast the show. The plaintiffs appealed of PEG channel access.”) (citation omitted). to the Supreme Court that afternoon and, Conclusion For a comprehensive history of public ac- less than an hour before the original broad- The promise of public access channels is cess channels, see LINDER, supra note 5, at cast time, based on informal consultations that ordinary citizens can contribute to 2Ð16. with three colleagues, Justice Powell de- the marketplace of ideas on television. 9. 47 U.S.C. ¤ 531(e). clined to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s judg- All too often, however, reality falls short 10. 47 U.S.C. ¤ 531(b). ment. Barstone v. Univ. of Houston, 446 of this ideal. Vendors hawk their wares, 11. 47 U.S.C. ¤ 544(f)(1). U.S. 1318 (1980). 12. MINN. STAT. ¤ 238.11. 37. Arkansas Educ. Television v. Forbes, pornographers exhibit their smut, racists 13. N.Y. PUB. SERV. LAW ¤ 229. 523 U.S. 666 (1998). promote their bigotry, the litigious de- 14. Id. 38. Id. at 675. ride their adversaries, rumor mongers 15. Pub. L. No. 98Ð549, 98 Stat. 2779 39. Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d spread their gossip, and so it goes. (1984) (1984 Cable Act). 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1999) (“If one were either Access channel managers, of course, 16. H.R. REP. NO. 98Ð934, reprinted in to press the analogy between Access and a may, and a number of them must, permit 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4667. classic public television station or to reject all of this. Many managers, however, 17. 460 U.S. 37 (1983). the public forum doctrine for local access can eliminate some of these activities by 18. Id. at 45Ð46. channels, then Access would enjoy virtually developing and enforcing appropriate 19. Id. unfettered programming discretion.”). program guidelines. Exercising that op- 20. Id. at 46. 40. Time Warner Cable of NYC v. 21. Mo. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Bloomberg L.P., 118 F.3d 917, 928Ð29 (2d tion is the key to public access channel Kansas City, Mo., 723 F. Supp. 1347, 1352 Cir. 1997). programming reinvention. (W.D. Mo. 1989). 41. Rickel v. Mountain Valley Television 22. Britton v. City of Erie, 933 F. Supp. Corp., No. C-96-1033 DLJ, 1996 U.S. Dist. Endnotes 1261, 1268 (W.D. Pa. 1995). LEXIS 19961 (N.D. Cal.). 1. Glendora v. Dolan, 871 F. Supp. 174 23. Altmann v. Television Signal Corp., 42. Goldberg v. Cablevision Systems (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 849 F. Supp. 1335, 1340 (N.D. Cal. 1994). (Continued on page 31)

12 Communications Lawyer ¥ Volume 21 ¥ Number 1 ¥ Spring 2003 ¥ American Bar Association Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. PACs Americana (Continued from page 12) Corp., 261 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 2001). 43. Rees v. State, 909 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. App. 1995). 44. State v. Harrold, 593 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1999). 45. TCI Cablevision v. Aivaz, No. C98- 665C, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20570, at *8 (W.D. Wash. 1998). 46. 518 U.S. 727, 764 (1996) (citation omitted). 47. Id. at 762. 48. Coplin v. Fairfield Public Access Television, 111 F.3d 1395, 1402 n.4 (8th Cir. 1997). 49. Moss v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 22 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). 50. Rickel v. Mountain Valley Television Corp., No. C-96-1033 DLJ, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19961 (N.D. Cal.). 51. TCI Cablevision v. Aivaz, No. C98- 665C, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20570, at *8 (W.D. Wash. 1998). 52. Jersawitz v. People TV, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1341Ð42 (N.D. Ga. 1999).

American Bar Association ¥ Spring 2003 ¥ Number 1¥ Volume 21 ¥ Communications Lawyer 31 Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.