Law Commons^™

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Marketing Pharmaceuticals: A Constitutional Right To Sell Prescriber-Identified Data?, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Pharmaceutical companies have strong economic interests in influencing physician-prescribing behaviors. They advertise direct-to-the-consumer and to the physician. Beyond general marketing, manufacturers promote their drugs to physicians through “detailing”—sales representatives (“detailers”) visiting medical offices to persuade physicians to prescribe their products.

By law, pharmacies receive specific information with every prescription, including the physician’s name, the drug, and the dose. Pharmacies sell these records to Prescription Drug Intermediaries (data miners), who use advanced computing to analyze prescriber-identified information (which physicians prescribe what drugs, in what dose, and with what prescribing patterns). Data miners, in turn, lease sophisticated reports to pharmaceutical companies to …

Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, And Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes Of Age, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Federal interest in using facial recognition technology (“FRT”) to collect, analyze, and use biometric information is rapidly growing. Despite the swift movement of agencies and contractors into this realm, however, Congress has been virtually silent on the current and potential uses of FRT. No laws directly address facial recognition—much less the pairing of facial recognition with video surveillance—in criminal law. Limits placed on the collection of personally identifiable information, moreover, do not apply. The absence of a statutory framework is a cause for concern. FRT represents the first of a series of next generation biometrics, such as hand geometry, iris, …

The Limits Of Government Regulation Of Science, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The recent controversy over the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity’s (NSABB) request that Science and Nature redact key parts of two papers on transmissible avian (H5N1) influenza reveal a troubled relationship between science and security. While NSABB’s request does not violate the First Amendment, efforts to censor the scientific press by force of law would usually be an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press absent a compelling state interest. The constitutional validity of conditions on grant funding to require pre-publication review of unclassified research is unclear but also arguably unconstitutional.

The clearest case where government may restrict publication is …