Law Commons^™

The Shaky Ground Of The Right To Be Delisted, Miquel Peguera

Miquel Peguera

It has long been discussed whether individuals should have a “right to be forgotten” online to suppress old information that could seriously interfere with their privacy and data protection rights. In the landmark case of Google Spain v AEPD, the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed the particular question of whether, under EU Data Protection Law, individuals have a right to have links delisted from the list of search results, in searches made on the basis of their name. It found that they do have this right – which can be best described as a “right to be …

The Doctrinal Toll Of "Information As Speech", Kyle Langvardt

Kyle Langvardt

The courts over the past two decades have reached a near-consensus that computer code, along with virtually every flow of data on the Internet, is “speech” for First Amendment purposes. Today, newer information technologies such as 3D printing, synthetic biology, and digital currencies promise to remake whole other spheres of non-expressive economic activity in the Internet's image. The rush to claim First Amendment protections for these non-expressive but code-dependent technologies has already begun with a lawsuit claiming First Amendment privileges for the Internet distribution of 3D-printable guns. Many similar suits will surely follow, all pursuing the common dream of a …

The Doctrine Of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights In The New Era Of Communication, Mary M. Roark

Mary M Roark

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Such protection has withstood the test of time and is heralded as one of our most precious rights as Americans. “The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow ‘free trade in ideas’—even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting." However, “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." One such proscribable form of speech is the “true …

Balancing The Scales: Adhuc Sub Judice Li Est Or Trial By Media, Casey J. Cooper

Casey J Cooper

The right to freedom of expression and free press is recognized under almost all major human rights instruments and domestic legal systems—common and civil—in the world. However, what do you do when a fundamental right conflicts with another equally fundamental right, like the right to a fair trial? In the United States, the freedom of speech, encompassing the freedom of the press, goes nearly unfettered: the case is not the same for other common law countries. In light of cultural and historic facts, institutional factors, modern realities, and case-law, this Article contends that current American jurisprudence does not take into …

Bare Necessities: The Argument For A “Revenge Porn” Exception In Section 230 Immunity, Allison L. Tungate

Allison L Tungate

No abstract provided.

The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson

Hillary A Henderson

Copyright law rewards an artificial monopoly to individual authors for their creations. This reward is based on the belief that, by granting authors the exclusive right to reproduce their works, they receive an incentive and means to create, which in turn advances the welfare of the general public by “promoting the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or …

When Open Government And Academic Freedom Collide, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

Uneasy is the balance between open government and academic freedom. Scholars have argued that using public records laws to obtain their emails is a form of harassment and intimidation. Nonprofits and political parties have argued that the public has a right to know that scholars are following university rules and properly using public resources. Against that backdrop, we have explored whether public records laws apply to faculty members and whether an exemption in those laws for academic freedom would be conceptually sound and consistent with other exemptions for communications and work product.

Visual Gut Punch: Persuasion, Emotion, And The Constitutional Meaning Of Graphic Disclosure, Ellen P. Goodman

ellen p. goodman

The ability of government to “nudge” with information mandates, or merely to inform consumers of risks, is circumscribed by First Amendment interests that have been poorly articulated in the relevant law and commentary. New graphic cigarette warning labels supplied courts with the first opportunity to assess the informational interests attending novel forms of product disclosures. The D.C. Circuit enjoined them as unconstitutional, compelled by a narrative that the graphic labels converted government from objective informer to ideological persuader, shouting its warning to manipulate consumer decisions. This interpretation will leave little room for graphic disclosure and is already being used to …

Internet Control Or Internet Censorship? Comparing The Control Models Of China, Singapore, And The United States To Guide Taiwan’S Choice, Jeffrey Li

Jeffrey Li

Internet censorship generally refers to unjustified online speech scrutiny and control by the government or government-approved measures for Internet control. The danger of Internet censorship is the chilling effect and the substantial harm on free speech, a cornerstone of democracy, in cyberspace. This paper compares China’s blocking and filtering system, the class license system of Singapore, and the government-private partnership model of the United States to identify the features, and pros and cons of each model on the international human rights. By finding lessons from each of the model, this paper suggests Taiwan should remain its current meager internet control …

Sex Is Less Offensive Than Violence: A Call To Update Obscenity Jurisprudence, Rachel Simon

Rachel Simon

This article addresses the gender bias presented by the disparate treatment of sex and violence under current obscenity jurisprudence. Under the controlling standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, sexual works may readily be regulated as obscenity, while violent works unequivocally may not. This article posits that this disparate treatment is the product of entrenched stereotypes about the way men and women “should” react to sex and violence, and notes the hypocrisy of failing to apply the same reasoning to assessments of violent versus sexual material.

First, reliance on “community standards” to define what material …

Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga Of Fcc Indecency Regulation, Christopher M. Fairman

Christopher M Fairman

Indecency regulation by the Federal Communication Commission and Supreme Court is the product of word taboo—the subconscious, emotional, involuntary avoidance of certain words out of fear that some harm will occur if they are spoken. Acting in tandem, the Court and the Commissioners create institutionalized word taboo based upon the assumption that broadcast media’s pervasive and intrusive presence into the home endangers unsupervised children. Technological innovation renders this premise invalid today, but institutionalized word taboo remains. This article (1) traces the rise of indecency regulation, (2) explains the invalidity of the assumptions used to justify it, (3) introduces word taboo …

“People Who Aren’T Really Reporters At All, Who Have No Professional Qualifications”: Defining A Journalist And Deciding Who May Claim The Privileges, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

In July, a federal appeals court ruled that a New York Times reporter must testify in the criminal trial of a former CIA officer accused of improperly disclosing classified information. In May, the DOJ confirmed it had obtained months of phone records of AP reporters and a “portfolio of information” about a Fox News correspondent. Criticism from the press and public was swift, and in response, the administration attempted to reas- sure the press that it would not be conscripted into the service of law enforcement. President Obama urged Congress to rein- troduce a federal shield bill that would allow …

Wikileaks Would Not Qualify To Claim Federal Reporter’S Privilege In Any Form, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

This article addresses whether WikiLeaks could claim a federal reporter’s privilege if the U.S. government or a U.S. entity tried to compel one of the site’s staff members to disclose the source(s) of any documents it has released. After exploring the origins of the First Amendment-based privilege, I argue that WikiLeaks would not be able to claim it. First, the website does not engage in investigative reporting. Second, it has not taken steps consistently to minimize harm. I also discuss congressional attempts to pass a federal shield law, paying special attention to H.R. 985 and S. 448, the two most …

Wikileaks, The First Amendment, And The Press, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

This article focuses on one question: When can the government, consonant with the First Amendment, punish the publication of classified information related to national security? To that end, Part I outlines the constitutional standards that could apply to such a prosecution of WikiLeaks. Part II discusses whether WikiLeaks is part of the press and whether that matters for constitutional purposes. Part III concludes by urging the Justice Department to consider carefully whether it should prosecute WikiLeaks.

Noncitizens And Citizens United, James Ianelli

James Ianelli

No abstract provided.

Invoking And Avoiding The First Amendment: How Internet Service Providers Leverage Their Status As Both Content Creators And Neutral Conduits, Rob M. Frieden

Rob Frieden

Much of the policy debate and scholarly literature on network neutrality has addressed whether the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has statutory authority to require Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Such analysis largely focuses on questions about jurisdiction, the scope of lawful regulation, and the balance of power between stakeholders, generally adverse to government oversight, and government agencies, apparently willing to overcome the same inclination. The public policy debate primarily considers micro-level issues, without much consideration of broader concerns such as First Amendment values. While professing to support marketplace resource allocation and a regulation-free Internet, the …