Communications Law Commons^™

The Indecency Of The Communications Decency Act § 230: Unjust Immunity For Monstrous Social Media Platforms, Natalie Annette Pagano

Pace Law Review

The line between First Amendment protection and the innovation of social media platforms is hazy at best. Not only do these platforms increasingly encompass the lives of many individuals, but they provide incredible new opportunities to interact from near and far, through sharing photographs, videos, and memories. The Internet provides countless outlets that are available at the tip of users’ fingers: thriving forums to communicate nearly whenever and wherever desired. Users effortlessly interact on these platforms and are consistently exposed to numerous forms of speech, including messages through posts, chat room discussions, videos, polls, and shared statements. From 2010 to …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Facebook's Alternative Facts, Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

In this short essay, I argue that Facebook’s adoption of the alternative-facts frame potentially contributes to the divisiveness that has made social media misinformation a powerful digital tool. Facebook’s choice to present information as “facts” and “alternative facts” endorses a binary system in which all information can be divided between moral or tribal categories—“bad” versus “good” speech, as Sandberg put it in her testimony to Congress. As we will see, Facebook’s related-articles strategy adopts this binary construction, offering a both-sides News Feed that encourages users to view information as cleaving along natural moral or political divisions.

Rethinking Social Media: An Expert Panel Discussion, Howard M. Squadron Program In Law, Media And Society, Bonavero Institute Of Human Rights, Cardozo Law Moot Court Honor Society

2018–2019 Flyers

This expert panel discussion, moderated by Professor Monroe Price, explored the evolving challenges and regulatory efforts related to social media. Held on Thursday, January 31st, from 6–8pm in the Moot Court Room at Cardozo School of Law, the event addressed pressing issues such as child pornography, cyberstalking, hate speech, terrorist content, and the impact of social media on U.S. elections. Panelists included Robyn Caplan (Data and Society), Jessa Lingel (University of Pennsylvania), and Cardozo Professor Felix Wu, whose work focuses on freedom of expression and cybersecurity. Presented by the Howard M. Squadron Program in Law, Media and Society in partnership …

When You Give A Terrorist A Twitter: Holding Social Media Companies Liable For Their Support Of Terrorism, Anna Elisabeth Jayne Goodman

Pepperdine Law Review

In the electronic age, the internet—and—social media specifically, can be a tool for good but, abused and unchecked, can lead to great harm. Terrorist organizations utilize social media as a means of recruiting and training new members, urging them to action, and creating public terror. These platforms serve as the catalyst for equipping the growing number of “lone wolf” attackers taking action across the United States. Under civil liability provisions created under JASTA and the ATA, material supporters of terrorism can be held liable for their actions, and with the key role social media sites now play in supporting terrorism, …

Social Media And Censorship: Rethinking State Action Once Again, Michael Patty

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Legalizing Intelligence Sharing: A Consensus Approach, Brian Mund

American University National Security Law Brief

No abstract provided.

Taking Data, Michael C. Pollack

Articles

Technological development has created new forms of information, altered expectations of privacy, and given law enforcement more tools to examine that information and intrude on that privacy. One crucial facet of these changes involves internet service providers (ISPs): as people expose more of their lives to their ISPs—all the websites they visit, people they communicate with, emails they send, files they store, and more—law enforcement efforts to access that data become more and more common. But scholars and policymakers alike recognize that the existing statutory frameworks governing those efforts are based on obsolete technology and strike balances that are difficult …

The Department Of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy And National Security, Julia P. Eckart

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

This article is an attempt to objectively examine and assess legal arguments made by Apple Inc. (Apple) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the DOJ’s use of the All Writs Act[1] (AWA) to require Apple to provide technical assistance to the DOJ so that it could access the encrypted data from the locked iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, commonly referred to as the San Bernardino shooter. The DOJ’s initial ex parte application focused on meeting the requirements of United States v. New York Telephone Co.[2] concluding the court order was authorized and appropriate. Apple not only argued …

Auer Deference Should Be Dead; Long Live Seminole Rock Deference, John B. Meisel

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

Deference doctrines should be understood in light of the Administrative Procedures Act’s distinction between legislative rules and interpretive rules and should be based on a solid theoretical foundation. Modern Auer deference calls for categorical deference for an agency’s regulatory interpretation of an ambiguous regulation. This is inconsistent with the APA’s characterization of the purpose of an interpretive rule. Properly construed, interpretive rules clarify the meaning of a legal text which should be justified by use of expository reasoning. These rules deserve a lesser form of deference (Skidmore deference), based on an agency’s unique understanding of its own regulations which …

Facebook Nudes And Constitutional Feuds: How One State's Law Threatens The First Amendment, Bryan M. Kelly

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Is President Trump Violating The First Amendment When Blocking Citizens On Twitter?: Exploring Multi-Party Negotiation As A Way To Protect Citizens' Rights In The Wake Of The New Digital Age, Ashley B. Mongiello

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note seeks to answer the following question: How Twitter, its users, and the President can participate in a multi-party negotiation to decide on terms to enact into a user agreement for Twitter for the purposes of ensuring citizens' First Amendment rights are not violated if the President blocks them on Twitter. Part II of this Note discusses the role of the government when they suppress speech on public forums. It additionally addresses how Trump's actions of blocking citizens were declared a violation of their First Amendment rights. Part III raises the issues citizens face when naming the President as …

Bad Actors And The Communications Decency Act Of 1996: Lessons Learned From Our Nation's Battle With Online Human Trafficking, Peter Polack

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Cyberbullying: Are You Protected? An Analysis And Guide To Effective And Constitutional Cyberbullying Protections, Mendel Forta

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Changes In The Children's Television Marketplace, The Children's Television Act, And The First Amendment, Joel Timmer

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

Since the passage of the Children's Television Act of 1990, broadcast television stations have been required to provide educational programming for children as a condition for license renewal. Since 1996, broadcasters can fulfill this obligation by providing three hours of such programming according to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) guidelines. These requirements were later extended to broadcasters' multicast channels. With more children's programming available today than ever before from a wide variety of sources, and with changes in the ways children consume programming, the FCC has proposed to revise its rules to reflect these changes. This Article considers the constitutionality …

Speech Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

As both governments and tech companies seek to regulate speech online, these efforts raise critical, and contested, questions about how far those regulations can and should extend. Is it enough to take down or delink material in a geographically segmented way? Or can and should tech companies be ordered to takedown or delink unsavory content across their entire platforms—no matter who is posting the material or where the unwanted content is viewed? How do we deal with conflicting speech norms across borders? And how do we protect against the most censor-prone nation effectively setting global speech rules? These questions were …

Catch And Kill: Does The First Amendment Protect Buying Speech To Bury It?, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

The news media usually chase stories in order to publish them—but sometimes not so much. In some instances, media entities vigorously pursue a story—and purchase the source’s right to tell it—for the specific purpose of ensuring that it does not see the light of day. This practice, commonly called “catch and kill,” has recently come under close scrutiny and raises a host of questions.

These include pragmatic questions: Does the practice work? Can the media entity (or a third-party beneficiary) really enforce the underlying contract? Doesn’t the source’s willingness to abide by the contract come down to a simple economic …

Tweeting With A Purpose: Interpreting "Corrupt Persuasion" In 18 U.S.C. § 1512(B), Jessica Ochoa

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

A Skeptical View Of Information Fiduciaries, Lina M. Khan, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

The concept of “information fiduciaries” has surged to the forefront of debates on online-platform regulation. Developed by Professor Jack Balkin, the concept is meant to rebalance the relationship between ordinary individuals and the digital companies that accumulate, analyze, and sell their personal data for profit. Just as the law imposes special duties of care, confidentiality, and loyalty on doctors, lawyers, and accountants vis-à-vis their patients and clients, Balkin argues, so too should it impose special duties on corporations such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter vis-à-vis their end users. Over the past several years, this argument has garnered remarkably broad support …

The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Duke Law & Technology Review

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire

Duke Law & Technology Review

The ubiquity of cell phones in today’s society has forced courts to change or dismiss established, but inapplicable analytical frameworks. Two such frameworks in the school setting are regulations of student speech and of student searches. This Article traces the constitutional jurisprudence of both First Amendment off-campus speech protection and Fourth Amendment search standards as applied to the school setting. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California complicates both areas. Finally, it proposes a pragmatic solution: by recognizing a categorical First Amendment exception for “substantial threats” against the school community, courts could accommodate students’ constitutional …

Closed Meetings Under Foia Turn Fifty: The Old, The New, And What To Do, Tyler C. Southall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Can’T Say That!: Public Forum Doctrine And Viewpoint Discrimination In The Social Media Era, Micah Telegen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The growing prevalence of privately-owned social media platforms is changing the way Americans and their governments communicate. This shift offers new opportunities, but also requires a reinterpretation of the First Amendment’s proscription of government limitations of speech. The public forum doctrine and its proscription of viewpoint discrimination seem particularly stretched by the digital revolution and the development of social media. In ongoing cases, litigants and courts have invoked the doctrine to limit the government’s ability to ‘block’ those who comment critically on government pages—much to the chagrin of those who note the private status of the companies hosting the pages …

The Modern Public Square: Digital Viewpoint Discrimination In The Age Of @Realdonaldtrump, Jonathan Groffinan

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that official social media accounts used by political figures for public engagement should be classified as designated public forums, ensuring First Amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination. It contends that blocking users based on their viewpoints violates constitutional rights, as such accounts serve as modern public squares essential for free speech and open discourse.

A Clear And Present Danger: The Need For Regulated Accountability For Online Service Providers To Preserve And Promote Free Speech, Notice, And Due Process, Benjamin H. Winters

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Fish Out Of Water: Why The Gao's Approach To Finding Agency Propaganda Is Inadequate In The Social Media Age, Jennifer Pierce

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Curtailing Online Service Provider Immunity From Liability: An Advocacy For The Entension Of Roommates.Com, Corey Patton

Seattle University Law Review

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was enacted following the controversial decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., where an interactive computer service provider was held liable for a libelous message posted by a user on one of its financial message boards. The court determined that the service provider was a “publisher” of the libelous message for the purposes of state law because it had engaged in screening and moderating of other objectionable posts on its message boards but failed to remove the libelous message in question. Because the service provider voluntarily self-policed some of the …

Law School News: 'Marketplace Of Ideas' Imperiled (04-05-2018), David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Corporate Social Responsibility And Social Media Corporations: Incorporating Human Rights Through Rankings, Self-Regulation And Shareholder Resolutions, Erika George

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the emergence and evolution of selected ranking and reporting frameworks in the expanding realm of business and human rights advocacy. It explores how indicators in the form of rankings and reports evaluating the conduct of transnational corporate actors can serve as regulatory tools with potential to bridge a global governance gap that often places human rights at risk. This article examines the relationship of transnational corporations in the Internet communications technology sector (ICT sector) to human rights and the risks presented to the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy when ICT sector companies …