Internet Law Commons^™

Media Literacy Beyond The National Security Frame, Lili Levi

Articles

No abstract provided.

Platforms And The Fall Of The Fourth Estate: Looking Beyond The First Amendment To Protect Watchdog Journalism, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Journalists see the First Amendment as an amulet, and with good reason. It has long protected the Fourth Estate—an independent institutional press—in its exercise of editorial discretion to check government power. This protection helped the Fourth Estate flourish in the second half of the twentieth century and ably perform its constitutional watchdog role.

But in the last two decades, the media ecology has changed. The Fourth Estate has been subsumed by a Networked Press in which journalists are joined by engineers, algorithms, audience, and other human and non-human actors in creating and distributing news. The Networked Press’s most powerful members …

Separation Of Functions For Ai: Restraining Speech Regulation By Online Platforms, Niva Elkin-Koren, Maayan Perel

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts government regulation of private speech. However, it generally does not apply to private management of speech. New forms of speech regulation by online platforms disrupt this constitutional framework. Platforms, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, are responsible for mediating much of the public discourse and governing access to speech and speakers around the world. These private businesses match users and content in whatever way best benefits their commercial interests. At the same time, however, they exercise regulatory power when they filter, block, and remove content at the …

Missing In “State Action”: Toward A Pluralist Conception Of The First Amendment, Moran Yemini

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Online speech intermediaries, particularly social platforms, have an enormous impact on internet users’ freedom of expression. They determine the speech rules for most of the content generated and information exchanged today and routinely interfere with users’ speech while enjoying practically unchecked power to block, filter, censor, manipulate, and surveil. Accordingly, our current system of free expression lacks one of the main requirements of a just system—the notion that no form of power is immune from the question of legitimacy. Scholarly responses to this situation tend to assign decreased weight to constitutional norms as means to impose duties on online intermediaries …

Why The Vppa And Coppa Are Outdated: How Netflix, Youtube, And Disney+ Can Monitor Your Family At No Real Cost, Anna O’Donnell

Georgia Law Review

Video-streaming services like Netflix, YouTube, and Disney+
dominate the current media landscape. This Note explains why
current laws likely cannot effectively prevent these streaming
services from collecting and sharing users’ private information.
The Video Privacy Protection Act (the VPPA) contains language
that has baffled courts when applying its text to streaming
services, resulting in multiple circuit splits. The Children’s
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has a clearer
application to streaming services, yet its enforcement has
resulted in small settlements with companies that have been
charged with collecting children’s private information. Both the
VPPA and COPPA need to be updated to …

The Promise And Limits Of Cyber Power In International Law: Remarks, Monica Hakimi, Ann Väljataga, Zhixiong Huang, Charles Allen, Sue Robertson, Doug Wilson

Faculty Scholarship

Hi, everyone. I am Monica Hakimi from the University of Michigan Law School, and I would like to welcome you to our panel on cyber power and its limits. The topic almost does not need an introduction. We all know just from reading the news that our collective dependence on cyberspace is also a huge vulnerability, and state and non-state actors exploit this vulnerability to do one another harm. They use cyber technologies not just to spy on one another, but also, for example, to interfere in national elections, to steal trade secrets or other valuable information, to disrupt the …

Cyberattacks And The Constitution, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

Contrary to popular view, cyberattacks alone are rarely exercises of constitutional war powers – and they might never be. They are often instead best understood as exercises of other powers pertaining to nonwar military, foreign affairs, intelligence, and foreign commerce, for example. Although this more fine-grained, fact-specific conception of cyberattacks leaves room for broad executive leeway in some contexts, it also contains a strong constitutional basis for legislative regulation of cyber operations.