Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in First Amendment
"Tinkering" With The First Amendment's Protection Of Student Speech On The Internet, 29 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 167 (2012), Steven M. Puiszis
"Tinkering" With The First Amendment's Protection Of Student Speech On The Internet, 29 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 167 (2012), Steven M. Puiszis
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
No abstract provided.
My Teacher Sux! [Censored]: Protecting Students' Right To Free Speech On The Internet, 28 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 385 (2011), Katherine Hokenson
My Teacher Sux! [Censored]: Protecting Students' Right To Free Speech On The Internet, 28 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 385 (2011), Katherine Hokenson
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
This comment will discusses the problem posed by student speech made on the Internet, how free speech issues are generally addressed by courts, the Supreme Court cases that have specifically addressed the First Amendment rights of students, and factors that courts dealing with student speech made on the Internet have attempted to use in their decisions. The comment will further look at how courts have analyzed online student speech cases in light of available Supreme Court precedent, and will propose that the Court adopt a hybrid of the Tinker test when addressing student speech made on the Internet, which will …
Congress And The Courts Battle Over The First Amendment: Can The Law Really Protect Children From Pornography On The Internet?, 21 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 141 (2003), Mitchell P. Goldstein
Congress And The Courts Battle Over The First Amendment: Can The Law Really Protect Children From Pornography On The Internet?, 21 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 141 (2003), Mitchell P. Goldstein
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
Litigation and court action have provided little in the way of providing solutions to anyone dealing with inappropriate content on the Internet. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). The court refused to establish a national standard and instead relied on community standards. Because the Internet has no geographic limitations, one cannot determine community standards because the Internet is so far reaching. Goldstein discusses in detail these Congressional enactments: Communications Decency Act of 1996, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, finding that none of them give children protection from pornography. The challenge …
The Best Of Both Worlds: Financing Software Filters For The Classroom And Avoiding First Amendment Liability, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 659 (1998), Peter G. Drever Iii
The Best Of Both Worlds: Financing Software Filters For The Classroom And Avoiding First Amendment Liability, 16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 659 (1998), Peter G. Drever Iii
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
As the Internet expands, educational institutions have become interested in the medium for the purpose of expanding learning opportunities. Information that may be objectionable to some members of the community, however, would then be available to children in schools with Internet access. Attempts to regulate the content of the Internet have yet to pass a First Amendment challenge. Concern over what children will be exposed to when the Internet is introduced in the classroom is currently being addressed by educators and legislators alike. The Communications Decency Act was the first to attempt to address the issue of Internet access in …
The Constitutionality Of Congressional Efforts To Ban Computer-Generated Child Pornography: A First Amendment Assessment Of S. 1237, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 483 (1996), Ronald W. Adelman
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
This article addressed the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 (Hatch Bill) in regard to computer-generated child pornography. The Bill outlaws a visual depiction that is or appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The author claims the comments of David B. Johnson and John C. Scheller regarding the constitutionality of the Bill are analytically flawed because they focus on dicta from New York v. Ferber and Osborne v. Ohio. The author then engages in his own assessment of the Bill using a First Amendment approach and suggests what findings Congress should make …