Law Commons^™

Penises, Nipples, And Bums, Oh My!: An Examination Of How Freedom Of Expression Applies To Public Nudity, Clara Gutwein

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

How do you solve a problem like the nipple? A woman's nipples are both erotic and utilitarian, obscene and maternal. She must never show them in public. She must show them to feed her child. Nipples are for men. Nipples are for babies. Nipples, it seems, are for everyone except a woman herself. The law, too, has something to say about nipples. It is completely constitutional for the government to prevent women from publicly showing their nipples in order to protect morality and public order. Thus, the law assumes an inversely proportional relationship between the number of publicly exposed nipples …

Putting Paper To Pen: Generation Juul's Case For Harm Reduction, Liz Emanuel

Indiana Law Journal

Part I of this Note soberly explores and delineates the perceived and real threats of vaping for America’s youth, concluding with an analysis of the socioeconomic and developmental health effects of nicotine addiction. Part II delves into the federal government’s response to e-cigarettes as well as the powers and limitations of federal regulation under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Deeming Rule” and the potential effectiveness of an increase in the national tobacco purchase age or a federal ban on flavored vaping products. Part III discusses the realistic benefits of taking a harm reduction approach to youth vaping in the …

Multilateralism, Pushback, And Prospects For Global Engagement?, Michael Donald Kirby The Honourable

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

In this article, the author draws on long engagement with multilateralism, both in domestic jurisdiction and international institutions. He describes the growth of post-War United Nations activities and the increasing impact of international law, including on universal human rights. He records international initiatives on global problems like HI V/AIDS and in individual countries, such as Cambodia and North Korea. He then describes recent examples of '"pushback" against multilateralism, especially on the part of the United States, the United Kingdom, some European countries, and Australia. He concludes with illustrations and reasons why the global community should remain optimistic about multilateralism, despite …

To Secede Or Not Secede? Is It Even Possible?, T. Z. Cook

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Secession seems like a concept of the past. In our increasingly globalizing world, nationalism was growing archaic and halting progress. But secession has seen a surge in the last ten years. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008. The United Kingdom seceded from the European Union in the infamous "Brexit." And in 2017, Catalonia's grab for independence sparked the worst crisis in Spain since the days of Francisco Franco.1 Alongside these high-profile secessions, smaller movements, which until now were simply brewing and bubbling, are becoming inspired. One such movement is "The South is My Country," a coalition of three southern …

Vertical Separation Of Telecommunications Networks: Evidence From Five Countries, Robert W. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Robert E. Litan

Federal Communications Law Journal

The widespread adoption of mandatory unbundling in telecommunications markets has led to growing interest in mandatory "functional separation," i.e., separation of upstream network operations from downstream retail operations. Since 2002, vertical separation has been implemented in five OECD countries: Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In 2008, the International Telecommunications Union noted "a tremendous amount of interest" in functional separation around the world; and, in April 2009, the European Parliament held its second reading on a new regulatory framework that embraces functional separation as an "exceptional measure." While the U.S. does not currently require unbundling of broadband …

Comparative Analysis Of Telecommunications Regulations: Pitfalls And Opportunities, Mary Newcomer Williams

Federal Communications Law Journal

Book Review: Controlling Market Power in Telecommunications: Antitrust vs. Sector-specific Regulation by Damien Geradin and Michel Kerf.

In this 2003 publication, the authors comprehensively review and analyze the telecommunications regulatory structure of five nations that have achieved some success in promoting competition in telecommunications markets. The authors engage in this analysis in order to evaluate the use of telecommunications sector-specific regulation versus more general, economywide antitrust regulation to accomplish specific goals related to promoting competition and efficiency in the provision of telecommunications services. This review describes the authors’ analysis and highlights its strengths and limitations. It also offers a few …

A Modest Proposal For Restructuring The Federal Communications Commission, Harry M. Shooshan Iii

Federal Communications Law Journal

At a time when the FCC is in the process of implementing the massive 1996 Telecommunications Act, a number of commentators have been calling for drastic change in the agency's structure. There most certainly are legitimate questions about how the modern FCC should be organized. A single-administrator model, which has been successful in the United Kingdom, could provide a more stable and predictable regulatory environment than currently exists. The advantages of a single administrator over a multimember commission are substantial and provide a conservative alternative to calls for the elimination of the agency. Such change would enable the FCC to …

An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform Of Defamation Law, Douglas W. Vick, Linda Macpherson

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Defamation Act 1996 is the first major piece of libel legislation in Britain since the Defamation Act 1952. The British Parliament passed the Act in response to the ease with which libel plaintiffs can establish liability and in response to huge damage awards. In passing the Act, Parliament attempted to shift the balance of defamation law away from protecting the reputational interest of plaintiffs and toward protecting free discussion and open criticism. However, the Act merely fine-tunes current law. The Act reduces the limitations period for defamation suits, introduces procedural reforms to simplify and reduce libel suits and permits …