Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
“Sexting” And The First Amendment, John A. Humbach
“Sexting” And The First Amendment, John A. Humbach
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
“Sexting” and other teen autopornography are becoming a widespread phenomenon, with perhaps 20% of teenagers admitting to producing nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves and an ever greater proportion, perhaps as many as 50%, having received such pictures from friends and classmates. It is, moreover, beginning to result in criminal prosecutions. Given the reality of changing social practices, mores and technology utilization, today’s pornography laws are a trap for unwary teens and operate, in effect, to criminalize a large fraction of America’s young people. As such, these laws and prosecutions represent a stark example of the contradictions that can occur …
Megan's Law And Sarah's Law: A Comparative Study Of Sex Offender Community Notification Schemes In The United States And The United Kingdom, Lissa Griffin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The United Kingdom developed a sex offender register and Sarah's Law' in an effort to keep communities safe from sex offenders. However, Sarah's Law is quite different from Megan's Law, particularly because there is no direct public access to the United Kingdom's Sex Offender Register. Part II of this article analyzes the history of sex offender registration and community notification under Megan's Law in the United States. Part III examines the United Kingdom's approach to sex offender registration and community notification via Sarah's Law. Part IV explores the distinctly different approaches to community notification in the United States and the …
Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman
Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article examines the Supreme Court’s student speech framework and argues that, in focusing exclusively on the types of student speech that can be restricted, the framework fails to build in any differentiation as to how such speech can be restricted. This is true even though there are two very distinct types of speech restrictions in schools: suppression of the speech itself; and after-the-fact punishment of the student speaker. As the student speech landscape itself gets more complex – given schools’ experimentation with new disciplinary regimes along with the tremendous rise in student cyber-speech – the blurring of that distinction …