Law Commons^™

Social Media And Democracy, Seth C. Oranburg

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Lately, people have been finding giant pet goldfish in lakes across America. You may see these tiny fish swimming in bowls at the county fair, but left alone in a lake or large pond, where they are dropped perhaps by a well-meaning child, they can grow to 20 pounds or more— and destroy ecosystems. The goldfish is a cautionary tale that has been told time and again in different forms, like Pandora’s box."

Tinkering With Tinker: Why The Supreme Court Must Protect Student Speech Through Social Media, Alexis Roach

Honors Theses and Capstones

The goal of this paper is to address the failing of the Supreme Court in their decision of the case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.[1]. While the Court defended students’ rights to free speech under the First Amendment in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)[2], they have since restricted that right through a number of cases. While the Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. protected student speech, the Court failed to provide a standard for application in cases regarding social media in schools. This paper argues that while the Court was correct in …

Securities Regulation And Social Media, Seth C. Oranburg

Law Faculty Scholarship

Federal securities regulation originally divided corporate finance into two neat categories, public and private. In 1933, private financing was limited to “sophisticated” investors but otherwise lightly regulated. Public financing became heavily regulated. In 1982, the SEC introduced Reg D, which introduced the concept of “general solicitation” to clarify the distinction between public and private offerings. Reg D is well understood to prohibit newspaper advertisements and permit direct solicitations to venture capital investors. This enabled great wealth consolidation in regions like Silicon Valley while effectively banning general solicitations in private offerings.

Now, social media communication challenges the definition of “general solicitation.” …

Incitement, Threats, And Constitutional Guarantees: First Amendment Protections Pre- And Post-Elonis, Mark Strasser

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression, individuals issuing threats or advocating illegal conduct may be subject to punishment. What constitutes proscribable speech has long been evolving, and the recent jurisprudence suggests that First Amendment protections are more robust for advocacy of illegal conduct than for threats. Elonis v. United States provided the Court with a golden opportunity to clarify First Amendment threat jurisprudence; however, those hoping for an illuminating analysis cannot help but be disappointed. Part I of this Article discusses the developing First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the regulation of incitement, …

Juror Internet Misconduct: A Survey Of New Hampshire Superior Court Judges, Brooke Lovett Shilo

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a fair trial before an impartial jury and the right to confront the evidence against them. When a juror improperly accesses the Internet during a criminal trial, the defendant is denied these constitutional rights. The problem of outside information entering the courtroom is as old as our judicial system. As early as 1907, Justice Holmes observed that, “The theory of our [criminal justice] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, …