Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- CDA (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Citizens United v. FEC (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
-
- Communications decency act (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Election law (1)
- Federal Election Commission (1)
- Federal election law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Grand juries (1)
- Grand jury (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Secrecy (1)
- Section 230 (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: Why California Courts Interpreted It Correctly And What That Says About How We Should Change It, E. Alex Murcia
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: Why California Courts Interpreted It Correctly And What That Says About How We Should Change It, E. Alex Murcia
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In 1997, the United States Supreme Court struck down most of the CDA. However, section 230, which protects providers and users of interactive computer services from liability for defamatory content posted to their platforms by third parties, remains in effect. In the California and federal judicial systems, courts interpret section 230’s immunity provisions broadly—so that the statute conveys broad immunity. This Note argues that the broad application of section 230’s protections is consistent with the intent of the statute’s drafters. However, it also contends that (1) this interpretation of section 230 …
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.
Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a descriptive …
The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn
The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.