Law Commons^™

Public Accommodations Originalism’S Inability To Solve The Problems Of Online Content Moderation, Vincent A. Marrazzo

St. Mary's Law Journal

In response to online platforms’ increasing ability to moderate content in what often seems to be an arbitrary way, Justice Clarence Thomas recently suggested that platforms should be regulated as public accommodations such that the government could prevent platforms from banning users or removing posts from their sites. Shortly thereafter, Florida passed the Transparency in Technology Act, which purported to regulate online platforms as public accommodations and restricted their ability to ban users, tailor content through algorithmic decision-making, and engage in their own speech. Texas followed suit by passing a similar law, and Arizona debated a bill purporting to regulate …

Wayfair Or No Fair: Revisiting Internet Sales Tax Nexus And Consequences In Texas, Jennifer Mendez Lopez

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since 1967, the Supreme Court has revisited the issue of nexus requirements in interstate commerce to keep up with social and technological advancements. However, these restrictive requirements have deprived states of a substantial tax basis. As technology continues to develop exponentially, this presents the need for a new standard that overturns precedent case law. Specifically, the Internet has grown and now necessitates the consideration for and e-commerce taxation collection.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. correctly decided that states have the power to collect taxes from qualifying out-of-state businesses without the need for a physical presence. Wayfair is moving in the …

Nude Dancing Conveying A Message Or Eroticism And Sexuality Is Protected By The First Amendment But Can Be Limited Under State Police Powers Provided The Government Establishes A Substantial, Content-Neutral Purpose., Fred S. Wilson

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., the Supreme Court held the First Amendment protects nude dancing as conveying an expressive message, but state police powers may limit protection if the government establishes a substantial, content-neutral purpose. It is a principal of constitutional law where an actor intends to convey a message by expressive conduct, the First Amendment protection extends to that expression. Traditionally, time, place, and manner regulations restricting expressive conduct based on either the subject-matter of the message or the viewpoint of the actor receive content-based classification. However, content-based regulation of expressive conduct is constitutional only when narrowly drawn …

A Trial Court's Refusal To Question Prospective Jurors About The Specific Contents Of Pretrial Publicity Which They Had Read Or Heard Did Not Violate A Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury, Or Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process., Karen A. Cusenbary

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Mu'Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask jurors about the potential influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity. A defendant may ask only if the jurors can remain impartial. The Court mandates that overturning a trial court’s jury selection is allowable only if manifest error renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The Court did not find that the case involved sufficient public passion to necessitate a more extensive jury examination by the trial court to include inquiries involving the effect of pretrial publicity. The ruling in Mu'Min leaves too much discretion to the …