Law Commons^™

Incendiary Speech And Social Media, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Incidents illustrating the incendiary capacity of social media have rekindled concerns about the "mismatch" between existing doctrinal categories and new types of dangerous speech. This Essay examines two such incidents, one in which an offensive tweet and YouTube video led a hostile audience to riot and murder, and the other in which a blogger urged his nameless, faceless audience to murder federal judges. One incident resulted in liability for the speaker, even though no violence occurred; the other did not lead to liability for the speaker even though at least thirty people died as a result of his words. An …

The Internet Is The New Public Forum: Why Riley V. California Supports Net Neutrality, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Technology has ushered civil liberties into the virtual world, and the law must adapt by providing legal protections to individuals who speak, assemble, and associate in that world. The original purposes of the First Amendment, which from time immemorial have protected civil liberties and preserved the free, open, and robust exchange of information, support net neutrality. After all, laws or practices that violate cherished freedoms in the physical world also violate those freedoms in the virtual world. The battle over net neutrality is “is absolutely the First Amendment issue of our time,” just as warrantless searches of cell phones were …

The Replicator And The First Amendment, Kyle Langvardt

Kyle Langvardt

As 3D printing technology improves, the theoretical endpoint comes into view: a machine that, like the “replicators” of Star Trek, can produce anything the user asks for out of thin air from a digital blueprint. Real-life technology may never reach that endpoint, but our progress toward it has accelerated sharply over the past few years—sharply enough, indeed, for legal scholars to weigh in on the phenomenon’s disruptive potential in areas ranging from intellectual property to gun rights. This paper is concerned with the First Amendment status of the digital blueprints. As of August 2014, it is the first law review …

"Step Into The Game": Assessing The Interactive Nature Of Virtual Reality Video Games Through The Context Of "Terroristic Speech", Robert Hupf Jr

Robert Hupf Jr

This article will begin the discussion on video gaming’s next interactive jump – total VR immersion – and examine whether the interactivity of VR changes the ordinary First Amendment analysis . . . . Yet, even with the “terroristic speech” component, involving everything from instructions on bomb-making to anti-American “terrorist” recruitment messaging, the Court should affirm the speech-protective logic of Justice Learned Hand and Justice Brandeis and hold that the First Amendment protects the freedom of video game developers in making VR video games with problematic content. The video game medium and its depictions have already been recognized as “speech” …

“Can I Profit From My Own Name And Likeness As A College Athlete?” The Predictive Legal Analytics Of A College Player’S Publicity Rights Vs. First Amendment Rights Of Others, Roger M. Groves

Roger M. Groves

Two federal court decisions during 2013 have changed the game for college students versus the schools, the NCAA and video game makers. This article explores whether for the first time in history these athletes can profit from their own name and likeness and prevent others from doing so. But those cases still leave many untested applications to new facts – facts that the courts have not faced. Particularly intriguing is how 21st Century technology will apply to this area in future litigation. No publicity rights case or article to date has explored the application of predictive analytics, computer programs, algorithms, …

Balancing The Scales: Adhuc Sub Judice Li Est Or Trial By Media, Casey J. Cooper

Casey J Cooper

The right to freedom of expression and free press is recognized under almost all major human rights instruments and domestic legal systems—common and civil—in the world. However, what do you do when a fundamental right conflicts with another equally fundamental right, like the right to a fair trial? In the United States, the freedom of speech, encompassing the freedom of the press, goes nearly unfettered: the case is not the same for other common law countries. In light of cultural and historic facts, institutional factors, modern realities, and case-law, this Article contends that current American jurisprudence does not take into …

Regulating Mass Surveillance As Privacy Pollution: Learning From Environmental Impact Statements, A. Michael Froomkin

A. Michael Froomkin

US law has remarkably little to say about mass surveillance in public, a failure which has allowed the surveillance to grow at an alarming rate – a rate that is only set to increase. This article proposes ‘Privacy Impact Notices’ (PINs) — modeled on Environmental Impact Statements — as an initial solution to this problem. Data collection in public (and in the home via public spaces) resembles an externality imposed on the person whose privacy is reduced involuntarily; it can also be seen as a market failure caused by an information asymmetry. Current doctrinal legal tools available to respond to …

Omnipresent Student Speech And The Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker In The Digital Age, Watt L. Black Jr.

Watt Lesley Black Jr.

This paper focuses primarily on federal circuit level decisions regarding public school district's ability to discipline students who engage in electronic speech while off-campus and not involved in school activities. Particular attention is paid to the question of whether and how appeals courts have been willing to apply the "material and substantial disruption" standard from the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision to speech occurring off-campus. The paper, which is targeted toward both legal scholars and school administrators, draws together the common threads from the various circuits and weaves them into a set of guidelines for school administrators …

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …

Anonymous Speech On The Internet: Why Current Efforts By States To Regulate Anonymous Speech Fail Constitutional Scrutiny, And How Courts Should Protect First Amendment Rights, Conor Francis Linehan

Conor Francis Linehan

The legislatures in New York and Illinois have attempted to regulate the speech of individuals on the Internet and threaten to void their anonymity. The legislatures are trying to reach the actionable or harmful speech that often shows up on websites like Reddit.com. However, the bills have reached too far, and encompass much speech that is absolutely protected. This note argues that the right of anonymous speech on the Internet should be protected from government encroachment, and the proper way to protect the interests of individuals who are the subject of libelous or damaging speech should be through a re-working …