Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans Section 230 Immunity, Danielle K. Citron, Benjamin Wittes
The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans Section 230 Immunity, Danielle K. Citron, Benjamin Wittes
Faculty Scholarship
What do a revenge pornographer, gossip-site curator, and platform pairing predators with young people in one-on-one chats have in common? Blanket immunity from liability, thanks to lower courts’ interpretation of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) beyond what the text, context, and purpose support. The CDA was part of a campaign — rather ironically in retrospect — to restrict access to sexually explicit material online. Lawmakers thought they were devising a safe harbor for online providers engaged in self-regulation. The CDA’s origins in the censorship of “offensive” material are inconsistent with outlandishly broad interpretations that have served to …
"Free Speech, First Amendment, And New Media For Cons And Festivals" From Pop Culture Business Handbook For Cons And Festivals, Jon Garon
Faculty Scholarship
This article is part of a series of book excerpts from The Pop Culture Business Handbook for Cons and Festivals, which provides the business, strategy, and legal reference guide for fan conventions, film festivals, musical festivals, and cultural events.Although most events are organized by private parties, the location of these events in public venues and the crowd management issues involving free speech make First Amendment and free speech issues a critical component of event management. This excerpt provides a framework for understanding the legal and security issues involving free speech at public events.
Contemplating Masterpiece Cakeshop, Terri R. Day
Contemplating Masterpiece Cakeshop, Terri R. Day
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Tip Of The Iceberg Ii: How The Intended-Uses Principle Produces Medical Knowledge And Protects Liberty, Christopher Robertson
Tip Of The Iceberg Ii: How The Intended-Uses Principle Produces Medical Knowledge And Protects Liberty, Christopher Robertson
Faculty Scholarship
In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration’s pre-market approval process has come under increasing scrutiny as an infringement on liberty and a regulation of speech. In the first part of this symposium contribution, we offer a case study of Seroquel XR, showing how the FDA’s premarket approval process – and the restrictions on “off-label” promotion in particular – caused the drug company to produce and disseminate knowledge about safety and efficacy for new uses. The law successfully resolved the collective action problem of producing knowledge, even while the law protected the liberty of individual doctors and patients to use …
The Tip Of The Iceberg: A First Amendment Right To Promote Drugs Off-Label, Christopher Robertson
The Tip Of The Iceberg: A First Amendment Right To Promote Drugs Off-Label, Christopher Robertson
Faculty Scholarship
Scholars, advocates, and courts have begun to recognize a First Amendment right for the makers of drugs and medical devices to promote their products “off-label,” without proving safety and efficacy of new intended uses. Yet, so far, this debate has occurred in a vacuum of peculiar cases, where convoluted commercial speech doctrine underdetermines the outcome. Juxtaposing these cases against other routine prosecutions of those who peddle unapproved drugs reveals the common legal regime at issue. Review of the seven arguments deployed in the off-label domain finds that, if they were valid, they would undermine the FDA’s entire premarket approval regime. …
Supreme Court Amicus Brief Of 22 Corporate Law Professors, Mark Janus V. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al, No. 16-1466, John C. Coates, Iv, Lucian A. Bebchuk, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, James D. Cox, Marcel Kahan, Reinier Kraakman, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Ronald J. Gilson, Vikramaditya S. Khanna, Michael Klausner, Henry Hansmann, Donald C. Langevoort, Brian J.M. Quinn, Michal Barzuza, Mira Ganor, Edward B. Rock, Mark J. Roe, Helen S. Scott, Holger Spamann, Randall S. Thomas
Supreme Court Amicus Brief Of 22 Corporate Law Professors, Mark Janus V. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al, No. 16-1466, John C. Coates, Iv, Lucian A. Bebchuk, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, James D. Cox, Marcel Kahan, Reinier Kraakman, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Ronald J. Gilson, Vikramaditya S. Khanna, Michael Klausner, Henry Hansmann, Donald C. Langevoort, Brian J.M. Quinn, Michal Barzuza, Mira Ganor, Edward B. Rock, Mark J. Roe, Helen S. Scott, Holger Spamann, Randall S. Thomas
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has looked to the rights of corporate shareholders in determining the rights of union members and non-members to control political spending, and vice versa. The Court sometimes assumes that if shareholders disapprove of corporate political expression, they can easily sell their shares or exercise control over corporate spending. This assumption is mistaken. Because of how capital is saved and invested, most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about corporate political activities, even after the fact, nor can they prevent their savings from being used to speak in ways with which they disagree. Individual shareholders have no “opt …