@article{oai:suac.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000517,
 author = {藤田, 憲一 and フジタ, ケンイチ and Fujita, Kenichi},
 journal = {静岡文化芸術大学研究紀要, Shizuoka University of Art and Culture bulletin},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {P(論文), Today in most states, electronic coverage of court proceedings is permitted. States are classified according to relavent categories. Rules of states restrict the coverage in some cases. Kelli L.Sager & Karen N. Frederiksen, who specialize in media litigation, insist that absent a showing in a given case that televised coverage will prejudice or interfere with the conduct of justice, televised coverage should be permitted as a matter of constitutional right. On the contrary, Peter L. Arenella, a professor at U.C.L.A., doubt if media have constitutional right of access. And he asserts that in high profile cases trial judges have discretion whether to permit televising the courtroom proceedings. These opinions seemingly contradict to each other, but can be harmonized by interpretation.},
 pages = {9--20},
 title = {アメリカ各州の法定テレビの現状とアクセス権をめぐる論議},
 volume = {2},
 year = {2002},
 yomi = {フジタ, ケンイチ}
}