Works matching DE "TELECOMMUNICATIONS Act of 1996"
1
- Journal of Corporation Law, 2014, v. 39, n. 2, p. 437
- Article
2
- Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 2018, v. 73, n. 3, p. 369, doi. 10.1177/1077695818773229
- Article
3
- Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 2018, v. 73, n. 3, p. 334, doi. 10.1177/1077695817714379
- Youngblood, Norman E.;
- Tirumala, Lakshmi N.;
- Galvez, Robert Anthony
- Article
4
- George Washington Law Review Arguendo, 2013, v. 81, n. 2, p. 589
- Article
5
- William & Mary Business Law Review, 2017, v. 9, n. 1, p. 29
- Article
6
- UMKC Law Review, 2014, v. 82, n. 3, p. 801
- Article
7
- St. John's Law Review, 2010, v. 84, n. 2, p. 657
- Article
8
- Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 2012, v. 27, n. 2, p. 67
- Article
9
- Journal of Information Policy, 2024, v. 14, p. 194, doi. 10.5325/jinfopoli.14.2024.0006
- Strover, Sharon;
- Oltmann, Shannon M.;
- Ali, Christopher;
- Kammer, Jenna
- Article
10
- American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 2023, v. 32, n. 1, p. 209
- Article
11
- Industrial & Corporate Change, 2013, v. 22, n. 5, p. 1373, doi. 10.1093/icc/dts041
- Article
12
- Harvard Political Review, 2014, v. 41, n. 4, p. 12
- Article
13
- Mercer Law Review, 2022, v. 73, n. 2, p. 635
- Article
14
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2016, v. 31, p. 905, doi. 10.15779/Z382S0F
- Article
15
- Tennessee Law Review, 2023, v. 90, n. 2, p. 299
- Article
16
- Bench & Bar of Minnesota, 2017, v. 74, n. 2, p. 33
- Article
17
- Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 2011, v. 18, n. 2, p. 281, doi. 10.1080/19376529.2011.616469
- Article
18
- Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 2011, v. 18, n. 2, p. 263, doi. 10.1080/19376529.2011.616468
- Article
19
- Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 2017, v. 37, n. 3, p. 237
- Article
20
- New England Law Review, 2023, v. 57, n. 2, p. 119
- Article
21
- Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2017, v. 61, n. 3, p. 518, doi. 10.1080/08838151.2017.1344668
- Vaala, Sarah E.;
- Bleakley, Amy;
- Castonguay, Jessica;
- Jordan, Amy B.
- Article
22
- Boston University Law Review, 2019, v. 99, n. 4, p. 1577
- Article
23
- Boston University Law Review, 2019, v. 99, n. 1, p. 177
- Article
24
- Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2018, v. 56, p. 199
- Article
25
- Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2018, v. 17, n. 3, p. 707
- Article
26
- Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 2013, v. 19, n. 4, p. 1
- Article
27
- George Washington Law Review, 2014, v. 82, n. 2, p. 589
- Article
28
- George Washington Law Review, 2013, v. 81, n. 2, p. 589
- Article
29
- Journal of Communication Inquiry, 2012, v. 36, n. 2, p. 149, doi. 10.1177/0196859912444879
- Article
30
- Georgia Law Review, 2017, v. 51, n. 3, p. 947
- Article
31
- Washington & Lee Law Review, 2013, v. 70, n. 3, p. 1981
- Article
32
- Urban Lawyer, 2014, v. 46, n. 4, p. 865
- Article
33
- Business Lawyer, 2011, v. 67, n. 1, p. 293
- Article
34
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 2024, v. 26, n. 4, p. 865
- Article
35
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2022, v. 37, p. 267, doi. 10.15779/Z38TT4FV0Z
- Article
36
- Brooklyn Rail, 2016, p. 226
- Article
37
- RAND Journal of Economics (Wiley-Blackwell), 2015, v. 46, n. 4, p. 751, doi. 10.1111/1756-2171.12109
- Article
38
- UMKC Law Review, 2019, v. 87, n. 3, p. 777
- Article
39
- American Economic Review, 2011, v. 101, n. 7, p. 3130, doi. 10.1257/aer.101.7.3130
- Article
40
- Emory Law Journal, 2018, v. 68, n. 2, p. 407
- Article
41
- Loyola Law Review, 2017, v. 63, n. 2, p. 321
- Article
42
- CounterPunch, 2024, p. 1
- Article
44
- Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 2016, v. 21, n. 2, p. 121
- Article