Law Commons^™

Algorithmic Speech And Freedom Of Expression, Alan Sears

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Algorithms have become increasingly common, and with this development, so have algorithms that approximate human speech. This has introduced new issues with which courts and legislators will have to grapple. Courts in the United States have found that search engine results are a form of speech that is protected by the Constitution, and cases in Europe concerning liability for autocomplete suggestions have led to varied results. Beyond these instances, insight into how courts handle algorithmic speech are few and far between.

By focusing on three categories of algorithmic speech, defined as curated production, interactive/responsive production, and semi-autonomous production, this Article …

Truth, Accuracy And Neutral Reportage: Beheading The Media Jabberwock's Attempts To Circumvent New York Times V. Sullivan, David A. Elder

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

In over four decades since the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, the United States Supreme Court has accorded the American media a level of freedom of expression that is unparalleled in the democratic world. Yet, the Supreme Court has also repeatedly affirmed its unwillingness to give the media a constitutional blank check, and has authorized redress where public persons can prove that the defendant published a "calculated falsehood." As any lawyer knows, the calculated falsehood standard is so difficult to satisfy that often none but the impulsive, the intrepid or the naive will contemplate suing for libel. However, Sullivan …

Criminal Defamation And The Evolution Of The Doctrine Of Freedom Of Expression In International Law, Jo M. Pasqualucci

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Restrictions on freedom of expression may take direct and indirect forms. A state may censor speech, criminalize defamation, harass the media or individual journalists, fail to investigate crimes against the media , require the compulsory licensing of journalists, or fail to enact freedom of information laws or laws that prohibit monopoly ownership of the media. A victim of a restriction on freedom of expression that violates international law may have no recourse in domestic courts, either because state law offers no remedy or because judges are too intimidated to enforce the laws as written. In such instances, victims need recourse …

Satellite Wars: Culture Vs. Expression, Alex Colangelo

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Article first describes satellite technology and the process by which Canadians access American satellite broadcasts. It then examines the competing issues of preservation of Canadian business and culture, versus the freedom of expression as set forth in section 2(b) of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (hereinafter "Charter"). Next, the Article considers case law preceding Bell ExpressVu, and presents an examination of the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bell ExpressVu. The Article will then argue that the Supreme Court incorrectly found that there existed no ambiguity in the various interpretations of section 9(l)(c), and that …

Public Employees And The Right To Engage In Political Activity, Dalmas H. Nelson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Although the right to freedom of expression has become more narrowly circumscribed for everyone in recent years, the abridgments of this right that the courts have held may constitutionally be imposed on public employees are exceptionally extensive. This has been justified basically in terms of the doctrines that public employment is a privilege which the government may extend or withdraw at will and upon such terms as it chooses, and that denial of public employment does not constitute punishment. The upshot is that in this area the government may act with almost complete arbitrariness, even when basic rights such as …

Dennis V. United States -- Precedent, Principle Or Perversion?, Chester J. Antieau

Vanderbilt Law Review

Every socio-political group must determine when its survival necessitates proscription of subversive activity. Although some scholars feel no limitation upon speech is therefor justified, most students of the problem are agreed that when national security is at stake somewhere there must be imposed some limitations upon freedom of expression. The Blackstonian notion that, although there could be no prior restraints, anything could be punished after utterance is unworthy. Prior restraints of some kind, such as a prohibition upon publishing in time of war the sailing dates of troopships, are permissible under any rational analysis while, on the other hand, if …