Law Commons^™

Ideology Of Disaster Education Trauma Handling Post-Earthquake In Picture Stories Book: Critical Discourse Analysis, Silvia Damayanti, I Nyoman Suarka, Maria Matildis Banda, Ketut Widya Purnawati

International Review of Humanities Studies

This research analyzes the ideology that the author intends to instill in picture storybooks for children in Japan. The study aims to explore how the author conveys the ideology of handling trauma in children after earthquake disasters. The objects of the study are two picture storybooks titled "Yuzuchan" and "Yappari Ouchi Ga Ii Na." The research was conducted qualitatively using the documentary data search method. The analysis was carried out with van Dijk's CDA theory and Peirce's Semiotics Theory. The results of the analysis reveal that "Yuzuchan" and "Yappari Ouchi Ga Ii Na" are picture storybooks produced to help children …

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 …

Reaching Through The “Ghost Doxer:” An Argument For Imposing Secondary Liability On Online Intermediaries, Natalia Homchick

Washington and Lee Law Review

Imagine you have decided to run for office, to speak out publicly against an injustice, to enter the job market, or even to join a new online forum. Now, imagine after starting your chosen endeavor, you go online to discover that someone who disagrees with your position posted your personal information on the internet and called for others to harass you. To make matters worse, you realize that you cannot determine who posted your personal data. You have been doxed. Because you cannot identify the person who posted your information, where can you turn for recourse? The next logical party …

Secondary Liability, Isp Immunity, And Incumbent Entrenchment, Marketa Trimble, Salil K. Mehra

Scholarly Works

More than fifteen years have passed since the two major U.S. statutes concerning the secondary liability of Internet service providers were adopted--the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The statutes have been criticized; however, very little of the criticism has come from Internet service providers, who have enjoyed the benefits of generous safe harbors and immunity from suit guaranteed by these statutes. This Article raises the question of whether these statutes contribute to incumbent entrenchment--solidifying the position of the existing Internet service providers to the detriment of potential new entrants. The current laws and industry self-regulation may …

Twitter Or Tweeter: Who Should Be Liable For A Right Of Publicity Violation Under The Cda?, Kristina M. Sesek

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The Communications Decency Act (CDA), passed in 1996, immunized Internet service providers (ISPs) from being treated as the publisher or speaker of any information posted on their website by another person and from possible subsequent liability. The CDA also carved out an exemption for violations of intellectual property‹meaning an ISP could still be liable for information posted on their website by another person that violates an intellectual property right. However, the CDA did not spell out whether it intended to include only federal intellectual property rights or both federal and state intellectual property rights.

This Comment proposes two possible reasons …

An Interpretive Framework For Narrower Immunity Under Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act, Gregory M. Dickinson

Gregory M Dickinson

Almost all courts to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have construed its ambiguously worded immunity provision broadly, shielding Internet intermediaries from tort liability so long as they are not the literal authors of offensive content. Although this broad interpretation effects the basic goals of the statute, it ignores several serious textual difficulties and mistakenly extends protection too far by immunizing even direct participants in tortious conduct.

This analysis, which examines the text and history of Section 230 in light of two strains of pre-Internet vicarious liability defamation doctrine, concludes that the immunity provision of Section 230, though …