Law Commons^™

Rethinking The Context Of Hate Speech Regulation, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

In this essay I review Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses (Cambridge University Press 2012). As I show in the review, the Herz and Molnar volume advances our understanding of comparative hate speech regulation in three ways. First, the essays suggest that local context has a role to play in understanding, assessing, and applying hate speech regulations, even in an age when online hate speech is pressuring states and regions to reach common solutions to these problems. Second, the essays rebut the commonly held premise that the United States …

Rescuing Arbitration In The Developing World: The Extraordinary Case Of Georgia, Steven Austermiller

Steven Austermiller

The country of Georgia has a long and interesting history with arbitration. From “telephone justice” to the criminal underworld to legitimacy, Georgian arbitration has survived many iterations. Now, as Georgia begins the EU accession process, it has a new arbitration law that incorporates international norms. This article analyzes the law, explores how arbitration has been implemented thus far, and discusses some of the challenges that remain. Drawing on his U.S. practice experience in arbitration and his work managing legal reform programs in Georgia and other countries, the author recommends some important changes to Georgia’s new arbitration regime. A particular area …

Proactive Cybersecurity: A Comparative Industry And Regulatory Analysis, Scott J. Shackelford, Amanda Craig, Janine Hiller

Scott Shackelford

This Article analyzes recent business realities and regulatory trends shaping the proactive cybersecurity industry. To provide a framework for our discussion, we begin by describing the historical development of the industry and how it has been shaped by the applicable law in the United States and other G8 nations. We then catalogue the proactive cybersecurity practices of more than twenty companies, focusing on four case studies that we consider in the context of polycentric “global security assemblages.” Finally, we assess the emergence of proactive cybersecurity norms, both within industry and international law, and consider the implications of this movement on …

Originalism In Puerto Rico: Original Explication And Its Relation With Clear Text, Broad Purpose And Progressive Policy, Jorge Farinacci-Fernós

Jorge Farinacci-Fernós

Originalism is neither inherently conservative nor exclusive to the United States. Puerto Rico, a self-governing U.S. jurisdiction, has been using a particular form of originalism as its main methodological tool for constitutional interpretation and adjudication since 1952. Puerto Rican originalism has several key traits. First, it's politically progressive, due to the framers' explicit progressive agenda which is palpable from the historical sources. Second, their intent is empirically verifiable, due to the formality and transparency of constitutional creation that generated a formal and elaborate record. Third, the constitutional record is considered the authoritative source of constitutional meaning. Fourth, the textual characteristics …

Defamation Litigation Patterns Across The United States, England, And Australia, David Unwin

David Unwin

A good reputation is perhaps an individual’s most valuable asset. Yet it is capable of being destroyed in an instant. Defamation law recognizes and protects this interest by imposing tort liability. However, the freedom of speech is another bedrock legal principle. Imposing strict liability on any false, defamatory remark would unduly chill free speech. Thus, each national legal system must balance these two broad principles and reach a legal outcome which effectively protects an individual’s reputation without unduly burdening the exercise of speech.

This paper will first examine three jurisdictions’ defamation law jurisprudence: the United States, England and Wales, and …

Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein And Robert Post, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

European countries restrict hate speech, the United States does not. This much is clear. What explains this difference? Too often the current discussion falls back on a culturally rich but normatively vacant exceptionalism (American or otherwise) or a normatively driven convergence perspective that fails to address historical, cultural and experiential differences that distinguish countries and legal systems. Inspired by the development discourse of historical sociology, this article seeks to record instances where Americans or Europeans have argued their approach to hate speech laws was more “advanced” or “modern.”

To that end this article focuses on two authors whose writing appears …