Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Punishing Sexual Fantasy, Andrew Gilden
Punishing Sexual Fantasy, Andrew Gilden
William & Mary Law Review
The Internet has created unprecedented opportunities for adults and teenagers to explore their sexual identities, but it has also created new ways for the law to monitor and punish a diverse range of taboo sexual communication. A young mother loses custody of her two children due to sexually explicit Facebook conversations. A teenager is prosecuted for child pornography crimes after sending a naked selfie to her teenage boyfriend. An NYPD officer is convicted for conspiracy to kidnap several women based on conversations he had on a “dark fetish” fantasy website. In each of these cases, online sexual exploration and fantasy …
Internet Exceptionalism: An Overview From General Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Internet Exceptionalism: An Overview From General Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
William & Mary Law Review
This Article considers First Amendment Internet exceptionalism. I use that term in what I think is a reasonably standard way to refer to the question of whether the technological characteristics of the Internet (and, more generally, twenty-first-century information technologies) justify treating regulation of information dissemination through the Internet differently from regulation of such dissemination through nineteenth- and twentieth-century media, such as print, radio, and television. My aim here is not to provide an answer to that question, but to identify several subquestions whose answers must be part of the larger answer.
Assessing The Legitimacy Of Governmental Regulation Of Modern Speech Aimed At Social Reform: The Importance Of Hindsight And Causation, Kenneth J. Brown
Assessing The Legitimacy Of Governmental Regulation Of Modern Speech Aimed At Social Reform: The Importance Of Hindsight And Causation, Kenneth J. Brown
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
When governmental regulation or punishment of speech occurs subsequent to the speech itself, such regulation is conducted with the benefit of hindsight. This is important because hindsight enables us to discern whether the expression in question has caused any legally cognizable harm. When speech is responsible for such a harm, its punishment is justfied by this causal connection. Yet conversely, when we know that speech is consequence-free, its ex post punishment is conceptually indefensible. In the first part of this article, Mr. Brown criticizes the imminent lawless action standard articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio for failing to embrace fully this …