First Amendment Commons^™

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Articles

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression-particularly the entangled concepts …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Augmenting Our Reality: The (Un)Official Strategy Guide To Providing First Amendment Protection For Players And Designers Of Location-Based Augmented Reality Video Games, Colleen Signorelli

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Specifically, this Note will argue that the First Amendment applies to location-based augmented reality games in public forums, and, furthermore, the First Amendment protects designers and players of location-based augmented reality games in public forums. This Note will not discuss these location-based games within the context of privacy rights or trespassing, issues that have been written about elsewhere. Part I of this Note will explore the law regarding freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in public forums, and permissible regulations of speech and assembly, including time, place, and manner restrictions and prior restraints, such as permits. Part II …

Don't Bring A Cad File To A Gun Fight: A Technological Solution To The Legal And Practical Challenges Of Enforcing Itar On The Internet, Catherine Tremble

Fordham Law Review Online

This Essay begins by outlining Cody Wilson’s motivation to found his organization, Defense Distributed, and the organization’s progress toward its goals. Then, Part II provides a brief overview of the protracted legal battle between Wilson and the State Department over the right to publish Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files on the internet that enable the 3D printing of guns and lower receivers. Part III.A takes a brief look at whether these CAD files are rightly considered speech at all and, if so, what level of protection they might receive. Part III.B then addresses the problem of even asking whether the files …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

The Itunes Of Downloadable Guns: Firearms As A First Amendment Right, Sandra Sawan Lara

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

As society becomes more technology driven, legal issues continue to arise around the world. From privacy to national security, technology develops at a rate the law simply cannot keep up with. In the United States, one of the biggest legal issues is how the new risks technology brings will interfere with our individual liberties.

Technologies like three-dimensional (“3D”) printing have transformed everything from lifesaving surgeries to gun manufacturing. This technology has led to a whole new way of communicating via computer coding, with the online open source movement leading innovation by allowing for the sharing and editing of files freely. …

Warrantless Searches Of Electronic Devices At U.S. Borders: Securing The Nation Or Violating Digital Liberty?, Ahad Khilji

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The steady increase of U.S. citizens traveling with smart phones and other electronic devices has been met with the rise of searches and seizures by CBP officers at U.S borders. Although only less than 0.1% of all travelers may actually be subjected to a search while entering the United States, when comparing the statistics between a six month period in 2016 with the same period in 2017, electronic device searches have almost doubled from 8,383 to 14,993. Approximately one million travelers to the U.S. are inspected by the CBP every day. Out of this population, nearly 2,500 electronic devices are …

Recording As Heckling, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

A growing body of authority recognizes that citizen recording of police officers and public space is protected by the First Amendment. But the judicial and scholarly momentum behind the emerging “right to record” fails to fully incorporate recording’s cost to another important right that also furthers First Amendment principles: the right to privacy.

This Article helps fill that gap by comprehensively analyzing the First Amendment interests of both the right to record and the right to privacy in public while highlighting the role of technology in altering the First Amendment landscape. Recording information can be critical to future speech and, …

Safe Social Spaces, Ari Ezra Waldman

Articles & Chapters

Technologies that mediate social interaction can put our privacy and our safety at risk. Harassment, intimate partner violence and surveillance, data insecurity, and revenge porn are just a few of harms that bedevil technosocial spaces and their users, particularly users from marginalized communities. This Article seeks to identify the building blocks of safe social spaces, or environments in which individuals can be free of privacy and safety dangers. Relying on analogies to offline social spaces—Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, teams of coworkers, and attorney-client relationships—this Article argues that if a social space is defined as an environment characterized by disclosure, then a …

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.

Shared Value Over Fair Use: Technology, Added Value, And The Reinvention Of Copyright, Amy Whitaker

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The protection of fair use in the arts has become an inflexible binary. Either artist Shepard Fairey has permission to use the Associated Press photograph of Barack Obama to create the Hope Poster, or he has stolen the image in violation of copyright. This legal framework is rigid, inaccurate, and creatively unsafe. Yet it is the interpretation, not the doctrine itself, that needs shifting. The copyright statute already includes an overlooked "value" test that can more accurately reflect collaboration and sampling in the digital age. And yet instead, some scholars have responded to digital copying by suggesting we throw out …

Regulating Bot Speech, Madeline Lamo, Ryan Calo

Articles

We live in a world of artificial speakers with real impact. So-called “bots” foment political strife, skew online discourse, and manipulate the marketplace. Concerns over bot speech have led prominent figures in the world of technology to call for regulations in response to the unique threats bots pose. Recently, legislators have begun to heed these calls, drafting laws that would require online bots to clearly indicate that they are not human.

This work is the first to consider how efforts to regulate bots might run afoul of the First Amendment. At first blush, requiring a bot to self-disclose raises little …

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.

Keynote Address, Ryan Calo

Seattle University Law Review

Transcript of the keynote address at the 2018 Seattle University School of Law symposium “Singularity: AI and the Law.” The keynote address is presented by Ryan Calo and discusses the current status of artificial intelligence learning, and how this current status is moving toward robotic singularity.

Robotic Speakers And Human Listeners, Helen Norton

Seattle University Law Review

This article discusses protected First Amendment speech and how this protection should be applied to robotic speech. Robotic speech is that created by automated means, currently “bots” but the producers of automated speech are evolving. The article further differentiates between rights of the producers of this speech and listeners or consumers of the speech, and the impact of First Amendment protections on each group.

Panel 2: Accountability For The Actions Of Robots, Ryan Calo, Howard Jay Chizeck, Elizabeth Joh, Blake Hannaford

Seattle University Law Review

Transcript of the panel discussion at the 2018 Seattle University School of Law symposium “Singularity: AI and the Law” discussing human control and Artificial Intellegence learning. The panel participants are Ryan Calo, Howard Jay Chizeck, Elizabeth Joh, and Blake Hannaford.

Panel 1: Robotic Speech And The First Amendment, Bruce E. H. Johnson, Helen Norton, David Skover

Seattle University Law Review

Transcript of the panel discussion at the 2018 Seattle University School of Law symposium “Singularity: AI and the Law.” The panel is moderated by Seattle University School of Law Professor Gregory Silverman, and discusses the forthcoming book Robotica, by David M. Skover and Ronald K. L. Collins. The panelists are Bruce E. H. Johnson, Helen Norton, and David M. Skover.

Virtual Ethics And The Creeper Act, Justin Tiehen

Seattle University Law Review

A legal and moral discussion of the development of child sex bots (CSB), childlike sex dolls, comparing society-at-large’s general squeamishness of the area, and attempts to regulate (for example, the CREEPER Act) with the prophylactic therapeutic benefits of these robots.

Artificial Intellegence And Policing: First Questions, Elizabeth E. Joh

Seattle University Law Review

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly larger role in all sectors of society, including policing. Many police departments are already using artificial intelligence (AI) to help predict and identify suspicious persons and places.1 Increased computational power and oceans of data have given rise to inferences about violence and threats.2 AI will change policing just as it will healthcare, insurance, commerce, and transportation. But what questions should we ask about AI and policing?

Introduction, Annette Clark

Seattle University Law Review

Introductory remarks given by Dean Annette Clark at the 2018 Seattle University School of Law symposium “Singularity: AI and the Law.”

Ethical Machines?, Ariela Tubert

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the possibility of having ethical artificial intelligence. It argues that we face a dilemma in trying to develop artificial intelligence that is ethical: either we have to be able to codify ethics as a set of rules or we have to value a machine’s ability to make ethical mistakes so that it can learn ethics like children do. Neither path seems very promising, though perhaps by thinking about the difficulties with each we may come to a better understanding of artificial intelligence and ourselves.

Chilling: The Constitutional Implications Of Body-Worn Cameras And Facial Recognition Technology At Public Protests, Julian R. Murphy

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In recent years body-worn cameras have been championed by community groups, scholars, and the courts as a potential check on police misconduct. Such has been the enthusiasm for body-worn cameras that, in a relatively short time, they have been rolled out to police departments across the country. Perhaps because of the optimism surrounding these devices there has been little consideration of the Fourth Amendment issues they pose, especially when they are coupled with facial recognition technology (FRT). There is one particular context in which police use of FRT equipped body-worn cameras is especially concerning: public protests. This Comment constitutes the …

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 …