{"id":2376,"date":"2017-06-08T15:52:00","date_gmt":"2017-06-08T15:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=2376"},"modified":"2026-04-14T20:21:47","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T20:21:47","slug":"mc1research","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/mc1research\/","title":{"rendered":"MC1 legal research"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>MC 1\u00a0 Researching and Supporting a legal argument\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Your problem\u00a0in legal research is to find support for an argument concerning a current legal case. An argument (as we all know) is a connected series of statements intended to prove a proposition.<\/p>\n<p>These statements might include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Constitutional and historical arguments<\/strong>\u00a0based on philosophical writings of founding fathers \/ mothers;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Decisions\u00a0from similar cases<\/strong>\u00a0that you think should be applied (precedents);<\/li>\n<li><strong>Legal tests\u00a0<\/strong>that can be applied:\n<ul>\n<li>Central Hudson f<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Commercial_speech\">our part intermediate scrutiny test \u00a0<\/a>(content neutral)<\/li>\n<li>Reed v Town of Gilbert four part strict <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Strict_scrutiny\">scrutiny test<\/a> (specific content)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Trends in law<\/strong>\u00a0based on legal scholarship (such as the trend toward deregulation of advertising or broadcasting);<\/li>\n<li><strong>Social research<\/strong>\u00a0that indicates support for your position (such as research about problems of social isolation and the need for freedom of speech on the internet\u00a0in the Reno v ACLU case);<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Get familiar with controversies in the law by reading up on recent cases or browsing through law reviews in a general area you find interesting. You could just log into Nexis \u2013 Uni and type in a few things you find interesting.\u00a0 Eventually you should end up reading law reviews about the history and jurisprudence \/ theory of a legal issue.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Examples of legal arguments:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Let\u2019s say you have a problem with the way the administration of your public college is cutting student funds for the school newspaper. You might start with a general search and find that the Student Press Law Center and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have a lot to say about this. They cite some cases that you can look up in Nexis or other sites. They also cite some \u00a0Law Review articles that give a general overview and some cases that are perhaps closer to the specific circumstances of your case.You go back to\u00a0 Nexis. \u00a0You notice that the cases all tend to point in a similar direction, and that by using a different key word you find more of the information you are seeking from a different point of view. \u00a0Perhaps you also find social research on the decline of political involvement among college students and base part of your argument on the need for a stronger student press to encourage more thinking and involvement.<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0Imagine a situation where you need to compare\u00a0US and European hate speech laws. You might contrast\u00a0 law review article X, which says European hate speech laws should be adopted in the US, against law review article Y, which says that punishing unpopular speech is not the way things are done in America, and only \u201ctrue threats\u201d and \u201cimminent action\u201d can be punished.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">You cite Brandenburg v Ohio and perhaps other cases along those lines. You consider constitutional theory, perhaps John Stuart Mill\u2019s argument against censorship.\u00a0 You also cite European laws on hate speech and note what effect they have had.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Next you consider the argument for changing American laws and what a legal test for hate speech might look like. Perhaps the test would involve a link to a hate crime or some other action or threatened action. Then you might consider the opposite point, saying that unless speech involves imminent lawless action, the law could be seen as overly broad.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">With several points of view, you structure an article that contrasts and balances the viewpoints and then you finally draw a conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<p><strong>Research sources<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/libguides.radford.edu\/az.php?a=n\">Nexis-Uni<\/a> (through the university library database)\n<ol>\n<li>Go to the<a href=\"http:\/\/library\u00a0http:\/\/www.radford.edu\/content\/library\/research\/a-z-databases.html\"> A &#8211; Z databases<\/a> in the library<\/li>\n<li>Click on N and then &#8220;Nexis-Uni<\/li>\n<li>Sign in with your university ID<\/li>\n<li>Under &#8220;Guided Search&#8221; click on Law Reviews<\/li>\n<li>Search for your topic<\/li>\n<li>Limit with date and search questions until you narrow down your field of research<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/library.radford.edu\/index.php\/\/dbfinder\/dbfinder?mode=alpha&amp;data=L\">Legal collection<\/a>\u00a0(EBSCO through library database)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/supremes.htm\">Cornell Law Institute<\/a>\u00a0( Supreme Court \u2014 Pre 1990\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/cases\/topic.htm\">by topic<\/a>; Recent cases\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supremecourt\/text\/home\">overview<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.freedomforuminstitute.org\/first-amendment-center\/supreme-court-cases\/\">Freedom Forum Institute<\/a> \u2013 Recent Supreme Court First Amendment cases<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mtsu.edu\/first-amendment\/encyclopedia\/\">First Amendment Encyclopedia<\/a> &#8211; MTSU &#8211; good general overviews<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\">Resources\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0 \u2014 Groups noted on the home page of this site<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MC 1\u00a0 Researching and Supporting a legal argument\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Your problem\u00a0in legal research is to find support for an argument concerning a current legal case. An argument (as we all know) is a connected series of statements intended to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/mc1research\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2376","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2376"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7477,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2376\/revisions\/7477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}