Law Commons^™

Check Yes For Checkpoints: Suspicionless Stops And Ramifications For Missouri Motorists, Conner Harris

Missouri Law Review

One of the great advantages of living in a free society is the enjoyment of general privacy and freedom from unwarranted interference in one’s personal affairs. This advantage benefits citizens in both their private and public interactions. For example, it is expected one could drive to the store across town, the mall in a neighboring city, or somewhere on the other side of the country uninterrupted and unhindered. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies this privacy expectation as a right to be enjoyed by all within its reach. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and …

Anonymity In Cyberspace: What Can We Learn From John Doe?, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the evolution of the law governing libel suits against anonymous “John Doe” defendants based on Internet speech. Between 1999 and 2009, courts crafted new First Amendment doctrines to protect Internet speakers from having their anonymity automatically stripped away upon the filing of a libel action. Courts also adapted existing First Amendment protections for hyperbole, satire and other non-factual speech to protect the distinctive discourse of Internet message boards. Despite these positive developments, the current state of the law is unsatisfactory. Because the scope of protection for anonymous Internet speech varies greatly by jurisdiction, resourceful plaintiffs can make …

An Overview Of Canadian Privacy Law For Pharmaceutical And Device Manufacturers Operating In Canada, Erika Lietzan, John K. Fuson

Faculty Publications

On April 13, 2000, the Canadian Parliament enacted by Royal Assent the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Act requires private organizations to comply with a code of “fair information practice,” which mandates individual consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. PIPEDA complements the Federal Privacy Act, which places similar obligations on government institutions. On January 1, 2002, the Act began to apply to personal information (including personal health information) collected, used, or disclosed by a federal work, undertaking, or business, and personal information (including personal health information) disclosed by any organization for consideration …

Cybergossip Or Securities Fraud? Some First Amendment Guidance In Drawing The Line., Lyrissa Lidsky, Michael Pike

Faculty Publications

Fifteen-year-old Jonathan Lebed, the youngest person ever pursued by the SEC in an enforcement action, made over $800,000 in six months by promoting stocks on Internet message boards. Using several fictitious screen names, Jonathan posted hundreds of messages on Yahoo! Finance, hyping selected over-the-counter stocks and then promptly selling his pre-purchased shares as soon as the stock prices rose.

Publicly, the SEC painted a picture-perfect case of securities fraud. Yet, the SEC forced disgorgement of only $285,000 of Jonathan's profits, leaving many observers to wonder why the resolution of this supposedly clear-cut case left its teenaged perpetrator with over $500,000. …

Silencing John Doe: Defamation And Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

John Doe has become a popular defamation defendant as corporations and their officers bring defamation suits for statements made about them in Internet discussion fora. These new suits are not even arguably about recovering money damages but instead are brought for symbolic reasons — some worthy, some not so worthy. If the only consequence of these suits were that Internet users were held accountable for their speech, the suits would be an unalloyed good. However, these suits threaten to suppress legitimate criticism along with intentional and reckless falsehoods, and existing First Amendment law doctrines are not responsive to the threat …

Prying, Spying And Lying: Intrusive Newsgather And What The Law Should Do About Them, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

The media's use of intrusive newsgathering techniques poses an increasing threat to individual privacy. Courts currently resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts in favor of the media. This is not because the First Amendment bars the imposition of tort liability on the media for its newsgathering practices. It does not. Rather, tort law has failed to seize the opportunity to create meaninful privacy protection. After surveying the economic, philosophical, and practical obstacles to reform, this Article proposes to rejuvenate the tort of intrusion to tip the balance between privacy and the press back in privacy's direction. Working within the framework …