National Security Law Commons^™

When You Give A Terrorist A Twitter: Holding Social Media Companies Liable For Their Support Of Terrorism, Anna Elisabeth Jayne Goodman

Pepperdine Law Review

In the electronic age, the internet—and—social media specifically, can be a tool for good but, abused and unchecked, can lead to great harm. Terrorist organizations utilize social media as a means of recruiting and training new members, urging them to action, and creating public terror. These platforms serve as the catalyst for equipping the growing number of “lone wolf” attackers taking action across the United States. Under civil liability provisions created under JASTA and the ATA, material supporters of terrorism can be held liable for their actions, and with the key role social media sites now play in supporting terrorism, …

Deepfake Videos: When Seeing Isn't Believing, Holly Kathleen Hall

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

Videos, known as deepfakes, use readily available software to create a work that shows people saying and doing things they may never have uttered or engaged in. The technology making the videos appear very authentic is advancing at such a rate that people may not be able to detect if the videos are fact or fiction. Given the hasty acceptance of other forms of fake news in society, deepfake videos have the ability to affect the nature of information the public receives about candidates and policies. This study examines the potential use of deepfake videos in the democratic process, analyzes …

Wikileaks And The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone

Federal Communications Law Journal

FCBA Distinguished Speaker Series

In November 2010, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks collaborated with major media organizations to release thousands of classified U.S. State Department documents. American soldier Bradley Manning stands accused of leaking those documents to the website. In response, Congress introduced the SHIELD Act to amend the Espionage Act of 1917, making it a crime for any person to disseminate any classified information concerning American intelligence or the identity of a classified informant. Such sweeping language, while possibly constitutional as applied to government employees like Manning, is plainly unconstitutional as applied to those like Assange and WikiLeaks who subsequently publish …