{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015681544028950542, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036188178528347406, 'mean_word_length': 5.434108527131783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Courtroom Access After 9/11: A Pathological Perspective

The dangers that times of national stress inevitably pose for First Amendment freedoms led legal scholar Vincent Blasi to formulate what he called the "pathological perspective." Blasi argued that, because the nation is more willing to give up fundamental liberties during these periods, it is incumbent upon the courts to anticipate such times and create legal rules that will withstand such pressures. This article examines the Supreme Court's courtroom access doctrine from a pathological perspective. It concludes that the confusing legacy of the Court's decisions in courtroom access cases has increased the danger to First Amendment rights during this critical time, and it proposes a more robust doctrine of courtroom access drawn from the pathological perspective.