Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Contracting For Fourth Amendment Privacy Online, Wayne A. Logan, Jake Linford
Contracting For Fourth Amendment Privacy Online, Wayne A. Logan, Jake Linford
Scholarly Publications
No abstract provided.
Congress, The Internet, And The Intractable Pornography Problem: The Child Online Protection Act Of 1998, Timothy Zick
Congress, The Internet, And The Intractable Pornography Problem: The Child Online Protection Act Of 1998, Timothy Zick
Timothy Zick
No abstract provided.
Brief Amici Curiae Of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1851 Center For Constitutional Law, And Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan, And Eugene Volokh In Support Of Respondent-Appellant, Joni Bey And Rebecca Rasawehr V. Jeffrey Rasawehr, Supreme Court Of Ohio (Case No. 2019-0295), David Forte, Stephen R. Lazarus, Kevin F. O'Neill, Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Kaplan, Eugene Volokh
Brief Amici Curiae Of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1851 Center For Constitutional Law, And Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan, And Eugene Volokh In Support Of Respondent-Appellant, Joni Bey And Rebecca Rasawehr V. Jeffrey Rasawehr, Supreme Court Of Ohio (Case No. 2019-0295), David Forte, Stephen R. Lazarus, Kevin F. O'Neill, Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Kaplan, Eugene Volokh
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
The brief argues that the Third District Court of Appeals, in violation of the First Amendment, erred in upholding an injunction that barred defendant from any online postings regarding plaintiff, whether or not those postings were to plaintiff or to third parties.
Prior Restraint In The Digital Age, Ariel L. Bendor, Michal Tamir
Prior Restraint In The Digital Age, Ariel L. Bendor, Michal Tamir
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In this Article we argue that the digital revolution requires a reshaping of the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, which prohibits the implementation of any regulations that prevent the publication of speech prior to its distribution. We describe the prohibition on prior restraint of speech, its rationales and its exceptions; present the characteristics of the media in the digital age; suggest that the traditional design of the Doctrine does not fit these characteristics; and describe the reshaping that we propose in order to adapt the Doctrine to the age of the Internet and social networking.
Everything Old Is New Again: Does The '.Sucks' Gtld Change The Regulatory Paradigm In North America?, Jacqueline D. Lipton
Everything Old Is New Again: Does The '.Sucks' Gtld Change The Regulatory Paradigm In North America?, Jacqueline D. Lipton
Articles
In 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) took the unprecedented step of opening up the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) space for entities who wanted to run registries for any new alphanumeric string “to the right of the dot” in a domain name. After a number of years of vetting applications, the first round of new gTLDs was released in 2013, and those gTLDs began to come online shortly thereafter. One of the more contentious of these gTLDs was “.sucks” which came online in 2015. The original application for the “.sucks” registry was somewhat contentious with …
From Innovation To Abuse: Does The Internet Still Need Section 230 Immunity?, Benjamin Volpe
From Innovation To Abuse: Does The Internet Still Need Section 230 Immunity?, Benjamin Volpe
Catholic University Law Review
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act to allow the screening of offensive material from the internet, while preserving the continued development of the internet economy without burdensome regulation. However, for years, online intermediaries have successfully used the Act as a shield from liability when third parties use their online services to commit tortious or criminal acts. This Comment argues that a wholly-unregulated internet is no longer necessary to preserve the once-fledgling internet economy. After evaluating various approaches to intermediary liability, this Comment also argues that Congress should take a more comprehensive look at consumer protection online and establish …