Law Commons^™

Beyond Social Media Analogues, Gregory M. Dickinson

Faculty Articles

The steady flow of social-media cases toward the Supreme Court shows a nation reworking its fundamental relationship with technology. The cases raise a host of questions ranging from difficult to impossible: how to nurture a vibrant public square when a few tech giants dominate the flow of information, how social media can be at the same time free from conformist groupthink and also protected against harmful disinformation campaigns, and how government and industry can cooperate on such problems without devolving toward censorship.

To such profound questions, this Essay offers a comparatively modest contribution—what not to do. Always the lawyer’s instinct …

The New Governors: The People, Rules And Processes Governing Online Speech, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

Private online platforms have an increasingly essential role in free speech and participation in democratic culture. But while it might appear that any internet user can publish freely and instantly online, many platforms actively curate the content posted by their users. How and why these platforms operate to moderate speech is largely opaque.

This Article provides the first analysis of what these platforms are actually doing to moderate online speech under a regulatory and First Amendment framework. Drawing from original interviews, archived materials, and internal documents, this Article describes how three major online platforms — Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — …

The First Amendment As Killer App, Anupam Chander

Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet

"While it is a commonplace that the Internet revolutionized speech, what is perhaps less well understood is that free speech made today’s Internet." Symposium article.

Hostile Educational Environments, Ari Ezra Waldman

Articles & Chapters

This Article is one in a series about bullying and cyberbullying in schools. I argue that the proper analysis for a First Amendment challenge to school discipline for off-campus misuse of the Internet to harm or harass a member of the school community based on the victim’s identity depends on the nature of the offending behavior. For students who are punished for a single incident – what I will call cyberattacking – a Tinker analysis makes sense. But, given that Tinker’s “substantial disruption” standard originated in the context of student protests and that targeted identity-based harassment can create substantial disruptions …

Government Speech 2.0, Helen Norton, Danielle Keats Citron

Publications

New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine--which recognizes "government speech" as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint--only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these decisions, moreover, has the …

Regulating Cyberharassment: Some Thoughts On Sexual Harassment 2.0, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton

Faculty Scholarship

New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …

Cyberspace Is Outside The Schoolhouse Gate: Offensive, Online Student Speech Receives First Amendment Protection, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Normative and doctrinal analysis shows that schools do not possess jurisdiction over offensive online student speech, at least when it does not cause a substantial disruption of the school environment. This article is a timely analysis on the limits of school jurisdiction over offensive online student speech.

On February 4, 2010, two different Third Circuit panels issued opinions reaching opposite conclusions on whether schools may punish students based on online speech created by students when they are off-campus. The Third Circuit vacated both decisions and is considering these cases in a consolidated en banc appeal. Another case addressing the same …

Introduction: The Yahoo! Case And Conflict Of Laws In The Cyberage, Mathias Reimann

Michigan Journal of International Law

Three years ago, two French public interest groups, La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (LICRA) and LUnion des Etudiants Juifs De France (UEJF), sued Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered near Santa Barbara, California, in the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris. The undisputed facts underlying the complaint were that: Yahoo! Inc. operated, inter alia, an auction website on which various Nazi memorabilia (such as flags, stamps, and military souvenirs) were offered for sale; the respective Yahoo! Inc. website was accessible in France; and the display of the Nazi memorabilia was illegal under French law. The French plaintiffs sought …

Enforcement Of Foreign Judgements, The First Amendment, And Internet Speech: Notes For The Next Yahoo! V. Licra, Molly S. Van Houweling

Michigan Journal of International Law

The Article begins with a review of the relevant rules governing enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States. Part II explains how courts have unpersuasively applied these rules when refusing to enforce foreign libel judgments. Part III then explains how the Yahoo! court adopted much of this faulty reasoning. Finally, Part IV explains the considerations that better justify judicial refusal to enforce speech-restrictive foreign judgments, especially those triggered by Internet speech. The Article concludes that the prospect that U.S. Internet speakers will choose to speak only to a U.S. audience-even when their speech would be legal everywhere-is the most …