Death records nh 1800-2009 free


Navigation Menu

Indoor air pollution and poor urban air quality are listed as two of the world's worst toxic pollution problems in the Blacksmith Institute World's Worst Polluted Places report. An air pollutant is a material in the air that can have adverse effects on humans and the ecosystem. The substance can be solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. A pollutant can be of natural origin or man-made. Pollutants are classified as primary or secondary. Primary pollutants are usually produced by processes such as ash from a volcanic eruption.

Other examples include carbon monoxide gas from motor vehicle exhausts or sulphur dioxide released from factories. Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. Ground level ozone is a prominent example of secondary pollutants. Some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants. Persistent organic pollutants POPs are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes.

Because of this, they have been observed to persist in the environment, to be capable of long-range transport, bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue, biomagnify in food chains, and to have potentially significant impacts on human health and the environment. These sources can be classified into two major categories. Air pollutant emission factors are reported representative values that attempt to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the ambient air with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant.

These factors are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant e. Such factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution. In most cases, these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality, and are generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages.

There are 12 compounds in the list of persistent organic pollutants. Dioxins and furans are two of them and intentionally created by combustion of organics, like open burning of plastics. These compounds are also endocrine disruptors and can mutate the human genes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has published a compilation of air pollutant emission factors for a wide range of industrial sources.

Air pollution risk is a function of the hazard of the pollutant and the exposure to that pollutant. Air pollution exposure can be expressed for an individual, for certain groups e. For example, one may want to calculate the exposure to a hazardous air pollutant for a geographic area, which includes the various microenvironments and age groups. This can be calculated [35] as an inhalation exposure. This would account for daily exposure in various settings e. The exposure needs to include different age and other demographic groups, especially infants, children, pregnant women and other sensitive subpopulations.

The exposure to an air pollutant must integrate the concentrations of the air pollutant with respect to the time spent in each setting and the respective inhalation rates for each subgroup for each specific time that the subgroup is in the setting and engaged in particular activities playing, cooking, reading, working, spending time in traffic, etc. For example, a small child's inhalation rate will be less than that of an adult.

A child engaged in vigorous exercise will have a higher respiration rate than the same child in a sedentary activity. The daily exposure, then, needs to reflect the time spent in each micro-environmental setting and the type of activities in these settings. A lack of ventilation indoors concentrates air pollution where people often spend the majority of their time. Radon Rn gas, a carcinogen , is exuded from the Earth in certain locations and trapped inside houses. Building materials including carpeting and plywood emit formaldehyde H 2 CO gas.

Paint and solvents give off volatile organic compounds VOCs as they dry. Lead paint can degenerate into dust and be inhaled. Intentional air pollution is introduced with the use of air fresheners , incense , and other scented items. Controlled wood fires in stoves and fireplaces can add significant amounts of smoke particulates into the air, inside and out. Carbon monoxide poisoning and fatalities are often caused by faulty vents and chimneys, or by the burning of charcoal indoors or in a confined space, such as a tent. Traps are built into all domestic plumbing to keep sewer gas and hydrogen sulfide , out of interiors.

Clothing emits tetrachloroethylene , or other dry cleaning fluids, for days after dry cleaning. Though its use has now been banned in many countries, the extensive use of asbestos in industrial and domestic environments in the past has left a potentially very dangerous material in many localities. Asbestosis is a chronic inflammatory medical condition affecting the tissue of the lungs. It occurs after long-term, heavy exposure to asbestos from asbestos-containing materials in structures. Sufferers have severe dyspnea shortness of breath and are at an increased risk regarding several different types of lung cancer.

As clear explanations are not always stressed in non-technical literature, care should be taken to distinguish between several forms of relevant diseases. According to the World Health Organization WHO , these may defined as; asbestosis , lung cancer , and Peritoneal Mesothelioma generally a very rare form of cancer, when more widespread it is almost always associated with prolonged exposure to asbestos. Biological sources of air pollution are also found indoors, as gases and airborne particulates. Pets produce dander, people produce dust from minute skin flakes and decomposed hair, dust mites in bedding, carpeting and furniture produce enzymes and micrometre-sized fecal droppings, inhabitants emit methane, mold forms on walls and generates mycotoxins and spores, air conditioning systems can incubate Legionnaires' disease and mold, and houseplants , soil and surrounding gardens can produce pollen , dust, and mold.

Indoors, the lack of air circulation allows these airborne pollutants to accumulate more than they would otherwise occur in nature. In , air pollution caused premature deaths on average of 1 year in Europe, and was a significant risk factor for a number of pollution-related diseases , including respiratory infections , heart disease , COPD , stroke and lung cancer. These effects can result in increased medication use, increased doctor or emergency department visits, more hospital admissions and premature death. The human health effects of poor air quality are far reaching, but principally affect the body's respiratory system and the cardiovascular system.

Individual reactions to air pollutants depend on the type of pollutant a person is exposed to, the degree of exposure, and the individual's health status and genetics. Children aged less than five years that live in developing countries are the most vulnerable population in terms of total deaths attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution. The World Health Organization estimated in that every year air pollution causes the premature death of some 7 million people worldwide. India has the highest death rate due to air pollution. In December air pollution was estimated to kill , people in China each year.

The Portsmouth Herald from Portsmouth, New Hampshire on December 20, · Page 8

Annual premature European deaths caused by air pollution are estimated at , [45] , [41] An important cause of these deaths is nitrogen dioxide and other nitrogen oxides NOx emitted by road vehicles. Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 1. Children are particularly at risk due to the immaturity of their respiratory organ systems. The US EPA estimated in that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology Tier 2 could result in 12, fewer premature mortalities , 15, fewer heart attacks , 6, fewer emergency department visits by children with asthma, and 8, fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.

The US EPA has estimated that limiting ground-level ozone concentration to 65 parts per billion, would avert 1, to 5, premature deaths nationwide in compared with the ppb standard. The agency projected the more protective standard would also prevent an additional 26, cases of aggravated asthma, and more than a million cases of missed work or school.

A new economic study of the health impacts and associated costs of air pollution in the Los Angeles Basin and San Joaquin Valley of Southern California shows that more than 3, people die prematurely approximately 14 years earlier than normal each year because air pollution levels violate federal standards. The number of annual premature deaths is considerably higher than the fatalities related to auto collisions in the same area, which average fewer than 2, per year. Diesel exhaust DE is a major contributor to combustion-derived particulate matter air pollution.

In several human experimental studies, using a well-validated exposure chamber setup, DE has been linked to acute vascular dysfunction and increased thrombus formation. The mechanisms linking air pollution to increased cardiovascular mortality are uncertain, but probably include pulmonary and systemic inflammation. Air pollution is also emerging as a risk factor for stroke, particularly in developing countries where pollutant levels are highest. Research has demonstrated increased risk of developing asthma [66] and COPD [67] from increased exposure to traffic-related air pollution.

Additionally, air pollution has been associated with increased hospitalization and mortality from asthma and COPD. A study conducted in — in the wake of the Great Smog of compared London residents with residents of Gloucester, Peterborough, and Norwich, three towns with low reported death rates from chronic bronchitis.

All subjects were male postal truck drivers aged 40 to Compared to the subjects from the outlying towns, the London subjects exhibited more severe respiratory symptoms including cough, phlegm, and dyspnea , reduced lung function FEV 1 and peak flow rate , and increased sputum production and purulence.

The differences were more pronounced for subjects aged 50 to The study controlled for age and smoking habits, so concluded that air pollution was the most likely cause of the observed differences. It is believed that much like cystic fibrosis , by living in a more urban environment serious health hazards become more apparent.

Studies have shown that in urban areas patients suffer mucus hypersecretion, lower levels of lung function, and more self-diagnosis of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. A review of evidence regarding whether ambient air pollution exposure is a risk factor for cancer in found solid data to conclude that long-term exposure to PM2. Exposure to PM2. The reviewers also found suggestive evidence that exposure to PM2. In , a large Danish epidemiological study found an increased risk of lung cancer for patients who lived in areas with high nitrogen oxide concentrations. In this study, the association was higher for non-smokers than smokers.

In December , medical scientists reported that cancer is overwhelmingly a result of environmental factors , and not largely down to bad luck. In the United States, despite the passage of the Clean Air Act in , in at least million Americans were living in non-attainment areas —regions in which the concentration of certain air pollutants exceeded federal standards. Protective measures to ensure children's health are being taken in cities such as New Delhi , India where buses now use compressed natural gas to help eliminate the "pea-soup" smog.

Ambient levels of air pollution have been associated with preterm birth and low birth weight. A WHO worldwide survey on maternal and perinatal health found a statistically significant association between low birth weights LBW and increased levels of exposure to PM2. Women in regions with greater than average PM2. A study by the University of York found that in exposure to PM2. The source of PM 2. A study performed by Wang, et al.


  • Multiple Discrepancies Theory (MDT).
  • find people by phone number canada.
  • UNLIMITED BOOKS;
  • public driver record texas harris counry.
  • yellow pages temporary job agencies reston va.

A group of 74, pregnant women, in four separate regions of Beijing, were monitored from early pregnancy to delivery along with daily air pollution levels of sulphur Dioxide and TSP along with other particulates. The estimated reduction in birth weight was 7. These associations were statistically significant in both summer and winter, although, summer was greater. This is the largest attributable risk ever reported for the known risk factors of low birth weight.

Brauer et al. Even in the areas with relatively low levels of air pollution, public health effects can be significant and costly, since a large number of people breathe in such pollutants. A study published in found that even in areas of the U. Data is accumulating that air pollution exposure also affects the central nervous system. In a June study conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives , it was discovered that early exposure to air pollution causes the same damaging changes in the brain as autism and schizophrenia.

The study also shows that air pollution also affected short-term memory , learning ability, and impulsivity. Lead researcher Professor Deborah Cory-Slechta said that "When we looked closely at the ventricles , we could see that the white matter that normally surrounds them hadn't fully developed. It appears that inflammation had damaged those brain cells and prevented that region of the brain from developing, and the ventricles simply expanded to fill the space. Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that air pollution may play a role in autism , as well as in other neurodevelopmental disorders.

In , experimental studies reported the detection of significant episodic situational cognitive impairment from impurities in indoor air breathed by test subjects who were not informed about changes in the air quality. Researchers at the Harvard University and SUNY Upstate Medical University and Syracuse University measured the cognitive performance of 24 participants in three different controlled laboratory atmospheres that simulated those found in "conventional" and "green" buildings, as well as green buildings with enhanced ventilation. Performance was evaluated objectively using the widely used Strategic Management Simulation software simulation tool, which is a well-validated assessment test for executive decision-making in an unconstrained situation allowing initiative and improvisation.

Significant deficits were observed in the performance scores achieved in increasing concentrations of either volatile organic compounds VOCs or carbon dioxide , while keeping other factors constant. The highest impurity levels reached are not uncommon in some classroom or office environments. In India in , it was reported that air pollution by black carbon and ground level ozone had reduced crop yields in the most affected areas by almost half in when compared to levels.

One out of ten deaths in was caused by diseases associated with air pollution and the problem is getting worse. The problem is even more acute in the developing world. The world's worst short-term civilian pollution crisis was the Bhopal Disaster in India. In six days more than 4, died and more recent estimates put the figure at nearer 12, Various air pollution control technologies and strategies are available to reduce air pollution.

In most developed countries, land-use planning is an important part of social policy, ensuring that land is used efficiently for the benefit of the wider economy and population, as well as to protect the environment. Because a large share of air pollution is caused by combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and oil , the reduction of these fuels can reduce air pollution drastically. Most effective is the switch to clean power sources such as wind power , solar power , hydro power which don't cause air pollution. Titanium dioxide has been researched for its ability to reduce air pollution.

Ultraviolet light will release free electrons from material, thereby creating free radicals, which break up VOCs and NOx gases. Rather, because the teacher had spoken as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the Court balanced "the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.

In this case, while the teacher did have an employment relationship with the school board, the relationship was not a close working relationship and therefore the teacher's speech was too tenuous in relation to the board to be considered within the scope of his employment or a threat to the proper functioning of the particular school that employed him. In Arnett v. Kennedy , the Supreme Court again balanced governmental interests and employee rights, and this time sustained the constitutionality of a federal statute that authorized removal or suspension without pay of an employee "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service," where the "cause" cited was an employee's speech.

The Court interpreted the statute to proscribe: "only that public speech which improperly damages and impairs the reputation and efficiency of the employing agency, and it thus imposes no greater controls on the behavior of federal employees as are necessary for the protection of the Government as employer. In Connick v. Myers , an assistant district attorney was fired for insubordination after she circulated a questionnaire among her peers soliciting views on matters relating to employee morale. We hold only that when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual of circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.

In Rankin v. McPherson , the Court upheld the right of an employee to remark, after hearing of an attempt on President Reagan's life, "If they go for him again, I hope they get him. Furthermore, as the employee's duties were purely clerical and encompassed "no confidential, policymaking, or public contact role," her remark did not indicate that she was "unworthy of employment.

These Supreme Court cases indicate the relevant factors in determining whether a government employee's speech is protected by the First Amendment. It should be emphasized that the Court considers the time, place, and manner of expression. Also, a governmental employer could not allow employees to make speeches in support of one political candidate on work time, but not allow employees to make speeches in support of that candidate's opponent.

But a Secret Service agent assigned to guard the President would not have the same right as the clerical worker in Rankin to express the hope that the President would be assassinated. In Garcetti v. Ceballos , the Court appeared to limit First Amendment protection for government employees by holding that there is no protection— Pickering balancing is not to be applied—"when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties," even if those statements are about matters of public concern. The deputy district attorney claimed that he was subjected to retaliatory employment actions, and sued.

The Supreme Court held "that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Rather, the "controlling factor" was "that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties. In these two instances, a court would apply Pickering balancing. In , the Court further clarified the distinction between the speech of an employee as a public citizen and speech of an employee during the course of employment.

In Lane v. Franks , the Court found that the First Amendment protected the testimony of a public employee in a criminal trial where the employee was called to testify to crimes he had witnessed in the course of his employment. The Court, therefore, applied the Pickering test, and found that "the employer's side of the Pickering scale [was] entirely empty.

In Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr , the Court held that "the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech. In Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel , the Supreme Court held that "[g]overnment officials may not discharge public employees for refusing to support a political party or its candidates, unless political affiliation is a reasonably appropriate requirement for the job in question.

Northlake , the Court held "that the protections of Elrod and Branti extend to Such a statute is not content-neutral if it is designed to protect "a perceived need to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of our Nation and certain national ideals. By contrast, the Court upheld a federal statute that made it a crime to burn a draft card, finding that the statute served "the Government's substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates," and imposed only an "appropriately narrow" incidental restriction of speech.

In , in R. City of St. Paul , the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that prohibited the placing on public or private property of a symbol, such as "a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others, on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender. Therefore, the question for the Supreme Court was whether the ordinance, construed to apply only to fighting words, was constitutional. The Court held that it was not, because, although fighting words may be proscribed " because of their constitutionally proscribable content ," they may not "be made the vehicles for content discrimination unrelated to their distinctively proscribable content.

The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects. In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court held that its opinion in R. Such statutes imposed enhanced sentences not for bigoted thought, but for the commission of crimes that can inflict greater and individual and societal harm because of their bias-inspired motivation. A defendant's motive has always been a factor in sentencing, and even in defining crimes; "Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of ], for example, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee ' because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

In Virginia v. Black , the Court held that its opinion in R. The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burning done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages.

Supreme Court cases supporting all the prohibitions and restrictions on speech noted in this and the next paragraph are cited in footnotes accompanying the subsequent discussion of these prohibitions and restrictions. Stevens, U. But if so, there is no evidence that "depictions of animal cruelty" is among them. We need not foreclose the future recognition of such additional categories to reject the Government's highly manipulable balancing test as a means of identifying them.

Roth v. United States, U. However, Justice Douglas, dissenting, wrote: "[T]here is no special historical evidence that literature dealing with sex was intended to be treated in a special manner by those who drafted the First Amendment. Pope v. Illinois, U. In Hamling v. United States , U. In Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , U. New York v. Ferber, U. The definition of "sexually explicit conduct" in the federal child pornography statute includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person [under 18], and "is not limited to nude exhibitions or exhibitions in which the outlines of those areas [are] discernible through clothing.

A subset of laws that prohibit "fighting words" are laws that prohibit speech expressed with the intent to threaten. The Supreme Court has found that true threats may be punished without offending the constitution. See Virginia v. Black, U. See Odem v. Mississippi, So. King, P. Pike, N. Brandenburg v. Ohio, U. See also , Stewart v. McCoy, U. Watts v. Claiborne Hardware Co. American Coalition of Life Activists, F. Sable Communications of California, Inc.

Federal Communications Commission, U. The Court does not apply strict scrutiny to another type of content-based restrictions—restrictions on commercial speech, which is discussed below. Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.

Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction. The Florida Star v. The Court left open the question "whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, the government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well.

In Bartnicki v. Vopper , U. Freedman v. Maryland, U. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, U. Injunctions that are designed to restrict merely the time, place, or manner of a particular expression are subject to a less stringent application of First Amendment principles; see, " Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions ," below. Pittsburgh Press Co. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, U. Universal Amusement Co. See , Mark A.

New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, F. City of Moreno Valley, F. Bunner, 75 P. For the test regarding content-neutral injunctions, see the section on " Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions ," below. Bosley , supra footnote 46, at ; Lemley and Volokh, supra footnote 41 arguing that intellectual property should have the same First Amendment protection from preliminary injunctions as other speech. United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, U. Greer v. Spock, U. See also, United States v. Apel, No. Adderley v. Florida, U. Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.

Playtime Theaters, Inc. Although singling out "adult" material might appear to be a content-based distinction, the Court in Renton said that regulations of speech are content-neutral if they "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Zoning restrictions are justified as measures to "prevent crime, protect the city's retail trade, maintain property values, and generally 'protec[t] and preserv[e] the quality of [the city's] neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life,' not to suppress the expression of unpopular views.

McCullen v. Coakley, No. Madsen v. In this case, the Court held that the challenged injunction was content-neutral, even though it was directed at abortion protesters, because its purpose was to protect patients, not to interfere with the protesters' message. This is not "prior restraint analysis," which courts apply to content-based injunctions; see , " Content-Based Restrictions ," supra. United States Olympic Committee, U. This is known as the " O'Brien test," which was first formulated in the case United States v.

O'Brien, U. Ward , U. This case makes clear that, although both "strict scrutiny" and the O'Brien test for incidental restrictions require "narrow tailoring," "the same degree of tailoring is not required" under the two; under the O'Brien test, "least-restrictive-alternative analysis is wholly out of place. It is also out of place in applying the Central Hudson commercial speech test.

Clark , U. And, "the validity of time, place, or manner restrictions is determined under standards very similar to those applicable in the commercial speech context. Edge Broadcasting Co. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. David Cole describes Turner as "effectively giving bite to the O'Brien standard. The O'Brien standard is extremely deferential. Fox, U. In Nike, Inc. Kasky , 45 P. The California Supreme Court ruled that the suit could proceed, and the Supreme Court granted certioriari, but then dismissed it as improvidently granted, with a concurring and two dissenting opinions.

The issue left undecided was whether Nike's statements, though they concerned a matter of public debate and appeared in press releases and letters rather than in advertisements for its products, should be deemed "'commercial speech' because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions.

Nike subsequently settled the case. See Cincinatti v. Discovery Network, Inc. Fane, U. Florida Board of Accountancy, U. Coors Brewing Co. Went For It, Inc. The nine Justices were unanimous in striking down the law, which prohibited advertising the price of alcoholic beverages, but only parts of Justice Stevens' opinion for the Court were joined by a majority of justices.

The Court also found "that the point-of-sale advertising regulations fail both the third and fourth steps of the Central Hudson analysis. In Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. Public Utilities Commission of California , U. While a plurality opinion adhered to by four Justices relied heavily on Tornillo , there was not a Court majority consensus as to rationale.

American Meat Institute v. Dep't of Ag. State Rest. Ass'n v. City Bd. Care Mgmt. Rowe, F. The Court found that the marketing orders did not raise a First Amendment issue, but "simply a question of economic policy for Congress and the Executive to resolve. New York Times v. Sullivan, U. Butts, U. FCC, U. A federal district court noted that, in cases that involve a restriction of minors' access to sexually explicit material, "the Supreme Court's jurisprudence does not require empirical evidence. Only some minimal amount of evidence is required By contrast, in cases not involving access of minors to sexually explicit material, the Supreme Court generally requires that the government, to justify a restriction even on speech with less than full First Amendment protection, "must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.

See also, Edenfield v. In the case of content-based regulations, narrow tailoring requires that the regulation be "the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. Ginsberg v. New York, U. The Supreme Court held that this standard does not extend to violent speech. Brown v. Ass'n, S.

New Hampshire Vital Records

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, U. Federal Communications Commission, 58 F. The Supreme Court has stated that, to be indecent, a broadcast need not have prurient appeal; "the normal definition of 'indecent' refers merely to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality," Pacifica , U. The FCC holds that the concept "is intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held "that the FCC's new policy regarding 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal Communications Commission, F. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Second Circuit's decision, finding that the FCC's explanation of its decision was adequate; it left open the question whether censorship of fleeting expletives violates the First Amendment. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Similarly, the FCC fined broadcast stations for broadcasting Janet Jackson's exposure of her breast for nine-sixteenth of a second during a Super Bowl halftime show, but a federal court of appeals overturned the fine on non-constitutional grounds.

CBS Corp. FCC, F. For additional information, including an analysis of whether prohibiting the broadcast of "fleeting expletives" would violate the First Amendment, see CRS Report RL, Regulation of Broadcast Indecency: Background and Legal Analysis , by [author name scrubbed]. Thornburgh, F. American Civil Liberties Association v. Reno, 31 F. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, U. See also , footnote 8 of this report. American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, F. Mukasey, F. Barker, F. Harrington, F. Pico, U. The Court noted that "nothing in our decision today affects in any way the discretion of a local school board to choose books to add to the libraries of their schools.

In Action for Children's Television v. Fox Television, Inc. Attempting to apply this test, however, the Court found "genuine issues of material fact still to be resolved" as to whether "broadcast television is in jeopardy" and as to "the actual effects of must-carry on the speech of cable operators and cable programmers. On remand, the lower court upheld the must-carry rules, and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding "that the must-carry provisions further important governmental interests; and Alliance for Open Society v.

Speiser v. Randall, U. Taxpayers who donated to c 3 organizations could deduct those donations from their taxes. Taxpayers who donated to c 4 organizations could not deduct those donations from their federal income taxes. TWR had been operating with a dual structure wherein its lobbying activities were accomplished via contributions to a c 4 organization and its other activities were funded through a c 3.

Florian Heider European Central Bank. Marie Hoerova European Central Bank. Kerr Harvard University. Josh Lerner Harvard Business School. Discussants: Dalida Kadyrzhanova University of Maryland. Bruce Carlin Duke University. Manju Puri Duke University. Who Writes the News? Ahern University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Danling Jiang Florida State University.

source url Alok Kumar University of Texas-Austin. Discussants: Paul Tetlock Columbia University. Lauren Cohen Harvard Business School. Carola Frydman Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Zhiguo He University of Chicago. Bo Becker Harvard Business School. Mark Leary Duke University. Presiding : Amit Seru University of Chicago.

Hann University of Maryland. Maria Ogneva Stanford University. Oguzhan Ozbas University of Southern California. Belen Villalonga Harvard Business School. Andrei Simonov Michigan State University. Daniel Paravisini Columbia University. David Robinson Duke University. Gordon Phillips University of Maryland. Carr New York University. Lemmon University of Utah. Sophie X. Anthony Neuberger University of Warwick. Paul Georg Schneider University of Warwick. Wei Xiong Princeton University. Discussants: George Panayotov Georgetown University. Bing Han University of Texas-Austin.

John Cochrane University of Chicago. Simon Johnson Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Raghuram Rajan University of Chicago. Scott Joslin Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ngoc-Khanh Tran University of Cambridge. Jessica A. Wachter University of Pennsylvania. Fabio Trojani Swiss Finance Institute. Paolo Porchia University of St. Discussants: Ian Martin Stanford University. Lars Lochstoer Columbia University. Mikhail Chernov London Business School. Pietro Veronesi University of Chicago. Zhenguo Lin Mississippi State University. Yingchun Liu Texas Tech University.

Downs Virginia Commonwealth University. Thomas Thibodeau University of Colorado-Boulder. Shaun Bond University of Cincinnati. Elaine Worzala Clemson University. Carrillo George Washington University. Dirk W. Early Southwestern University. Edgar O. Olsen University of Virginia.


  • Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment - pexolylo.cf!
  • UNLIMITED BOOKS?
  • public records obituary california patirica jahr.
  • Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment - pexolylo.cf.
  • Paper statistics!
  • Free, Unlimited Access.
  • Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment.

Weinstein Syracuse University. Eric C. Fesslemeyer National Univeristy of Singapore. Kien T. Le Qatar University. Evidence from an Internet Field Experiment in U. Cities Andrew R. Hanson Georgia State University. Zackary Hawley Georgia State University. Liang Choon Chang World Bank. Presiding : Piet Eichholtz Maastricht University. Tammie X. Antonio Mello University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Timothy R. Riddiough University of Wisconsin-Madison. Walter I. Boudry New York University. Jarl G. Kallberg Thunderbird School of Management. Discussants: Erasmo Giambona University of Amsterdam. Dirk Brounen Erasmus University. Piet Eichholtz Maastricht University. Thies Lindenthal Maastricht University. Ilan Noy University of Hawaii-Manoa. Discussants: William T. Lucjan Orlowski Sacred Heart University. Pierre Siklos Wilfrid Laurier University. Hakan Yilmazkuday Temple University. Changing Role of the IMF? Presiding : Jane Clary College of Charleston. Avsar University of Utah.

Discussants: Gar Alperovitz University of Maryland. David George La Salle University. Presiding : Roger Betancourt University of Maryland. Betancourt University of Maryland. Discussants: Carmen M. Reinhart University of Maryland. Luis Locay University of Miami. Presiding : David Mustard University of Georgia.

Free, Unlimited Access

Henderson Baylor University. Firouz Gahvari University of Illinois. Ken Leonard University of Maryland. David B. Mustard University of Georgia. Kevin Boyle Virginia Tech. John List University of Chicago. Joseph Herriges Iowa State University. Ted McConnell University of Maryland. Peter Nijkamp Free University. Subash Ray University of Connecticut. Meenakshi Rishi Seattle University. Rajeev Sooreea Pennsylvania State University. Mark Jacobs Cornell University. Qi Sun University of Southern California.

Zheyu Yang University of Hong Kong. Xiangguo Yao Zhejiang University. Junsen Zhang University of Hong Kong. Seonghoon Kim Ohio State University. Olmstead University of California-Davis. Paul W. Rhode University of Michigan. Pritchett Tulane University. Whatley University of Michigan. Rob Gillezeau University of Michigan. Alessandro Tarozzi Duke University. Maria Valdes Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Nathaniel Hendren Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Robert Townsend Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Aprajit Mahajan Stanford University. Presiding : Christopher Sims Princeton University. Mueller Princeton University. Discussants: Keisuke Hirano University of Arizona. Juan F. Rubio-Ramirez Duke University. Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde University of Pennsylvania.

Hongjun Yan Yale School of Management. Jinfan Zhang Yale School of Management. Lasse H. Jiang Wang Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Joshua Coval Harvard Business School. Arvind Krishnamurthy Northwestern University. Presiding : Markus Brunnermeier Princeton University.

Hyun Shin Princeton University. Thorsten V. Koeppl Queen's University. Vish Viswanathan Duke University. Presiding : George Pennacchi University of Illinois. Myerson University of Chicago. Alp Simsek Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jonathan A. Parker Northwestern University. Gary B. Gorton Yale University. George Pennacchi University of Illinois. Presiding : J. Roger Feldman University of Minnesota.

Dennis Scanlon Pennsylvania State University. Zhen Lei Pennsylvania State University. Guoen Liu Peking University. Jennifer M. Mellor College of William and Mary. Presiding : Francine Lafontaine University of Michigan. Ali Hortacsu University of Chicago. Jakub Kastl Stanford University. Discussants: Daniel Ackerberg University of Michigan.

Jeremy Fox University of Michigan. John Asker New York University. Justine Hastings Brown University. Edward J. Kane Boston College. Pierre Collin-Dufresne Columbia University. Niko Doetz Deutsche Bundesbank. Christoph Fischer Deutsche Bundesbank. Glenn D. Rudebusch Federal Reserve Board. Discussants: James A. Wilcox University of California-Berkeley. Mark C. Greg Murray inv. International Association of Machinists. Roxana Barbulescu McGill University. Kate Kellogg Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Discussants: Peter Cappelli University of Pennsylvania. Ratification J5 Panel Discussion. Labor Law. Deborah Greenfield U. Department of Labor U. Ratification of Core Convention. Cahit Guven Deakin University. Hatice Ozer-Balli Massey University. Rukmani Gounder Massey University. Majbouri Iran. Daniel Egel University of California-Berkeley. Mohamed Benbouziane University of Tlemcen, Algeria.

David C Colander Middlebury College. Michael T. Kiley Federal Reserve Board. David E. Altig Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Presiding : Samuel Myers Jr. University of Minnesota. Benjamin Senauer University of Minnesota. Frederic Wandey University of Minnesota. Rodrigo Lovaton University of Minnesota. Juliet Elu Morehouse College. Jan Christopher Delaware State University. Linda Loubert Morgan State University. William Darity Duke University. Garfinkel University of California-Irvine. Stergios Skaperdas University of California-Irvine.

Constantinos Syropoulos Drexel University. Todd Sandler University of Texas-Dallas. Carlos Seiglie Rutgers University. Discussants: Walter Isard Cornell University. Jeff Dumas University of Texas-Dallas. Levin Federal Reserve Board. Tack Yun Federal Reserve Board. Thomas J. Sargent New York University. The Great Escape? Nobuhiro Kiyotaki Princeton University. Discussants: Sanjay Chugh University of Maryland. Kenneth Kasa Simon Fraser University.

Sharon Kozicki Bank of Canada. Presiding : Dominick Salvatore Fordham University. Jeroen van de Ven, University of Amsterdam. Nicholas Burger Rand Corporation. Daniel Schunk University of Zurich. Erte Xiao Carnegie Mellon University. Zack Grossman University of California-Berkeley. Stefano dellaVigna University of California-Berkeley. Stephan Meier Columbia University. Housing Bubbles and Their Impact on the U. Follain, LLC. Land Loans and Failed U. Joe Nichols Federal Reserve Board. Jason Seligman Ohio State University. Airline Competition and Domestic U.

Brueckner University of California-Irvine. Jia Yan Washington State University. Clifford Winston Brookings Institution. Senay Sokukku Toulouse School of Economics. Tuba Toru Toulouse School of Economics. Monica Hartmann University of St. Discussants: B. Wesley Wilson University of Oregon. Gender Implications of the Decline in Migration within the U. Ramya M. Osterreich Ithaca College. Caren Grown American University.

James Heintz University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Peters College. Discussants: Richard Weisskopf University of Miami. Presiding : Wallace Tyner Purdue University. Don Fullerton University of Illinois. Gilbert Metcalf Tufts University. Benjamin M. Gramig Purdue University.

Discussants: Wallace E. Tyner Purdue University. Ufuk Akcigit University of Pennsylvania. Presiding : Orley Ashenfelter Princeton University. John Taylor Stanford University. Shaun A. Bond University of Cincinnati. Brian Hatch University of Cincinnati. Crocker Liu Cornell University. Cristian Tiu University of Buffalo.

A Genealogy Records Guide

Vaneesha Boney University of Denver. Guiseppe Fontana University of Leeds. Aurelie Charles University of Leeds. Robert McMaster University of Glasgow. Broady Benedict College. Robert Prasch Middlebury College. Stephanie Seguino University of Vermont. Presiding : Suhas Ketkar Vanderbilt University. Tibor Besedes Georgia Institute of Technology. Rabindra Bhandari Westminister College.

Arun University of Central Lancashire. Phillip Kostov University of Central Lancashire. Samuel Annim University of Manchester. Chandana Chakraborty Montclair State University. Sweta Saxena International Monetary Fund. Zahara Siddique IZA. Frank Song Hong Kong University. Shangjin Wei Columbia University. Wei Zhang Cambridge University.

Holly Wang Purdue University. David L. Ortega Purdue University. Laping Wu China Agricultural University. Nicole Olynk Purdue University. Le Wang University of New Hampshire. Discussants: Chen Xi Cornell University. Bruce L. Belton Fleisher Ohio State University.

Alexander Field Santa Clara University. Naval Academy. Ahmed Rahman U. Presiding : Harro Maas University of Amsterdam. Kevin D. Hoover Duke University. Andrej Svorencik University of Amsterdam. Discussants: Kevin D. Adams Federal Reserve Board. Elizabeth K. Kiser Federal Reserve Board. Mark D.

Manuszak Federal Reserve Board. Gary M. Fournier Florida State University. Feinberg American University. Thomas A. Husted American University. Christopher M. Snyder Dartmouth College. Discussants: Evren Damar Bank of Canada. Martin Gaynor Carnegie Mellon University. Lawrence J.


  • sprint cellular phone tower repoll list;
  • Pollutants.
  • June - ALT-GENEALOGY - pexolylo.cf.
  • finding who owns an ip address!
  • The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change;

White New York University. Mo Xiao University of Arizona. Peter Hartley Rice University. Xinya Zhang Rice University. Marianna Riggi Bank of Italy. George Pennachi University of Illinois. Wayne Passmore Federal Reserve Board. Viral Acharya New York University. Randall S. Markus K. Brunnermeier Princeton University.

Wade Hands University of Puget Sound. Presiding : Sohrab Behdad Denison University. Are Islamic Investment Certificates Special? Laurent Weill University of Strasbourg, France. Sieffert University of Southern California.

death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free
death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free
death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free
death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free
death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free
death records nh 1800-2009 free Death records nh 1800-2009 free

Related death records nh 1800-2009 free



Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved