Privacy Law Commons^™

Alternative Restrictions Of Sex Offenders' Social Media Use & The Freedom Of Speech, Norah M. Sloss

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

When Privacy Almost Won: Time, Inc. V. Hill (1967), Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

Drawing on previously unexplored and unpublished archival papers of Richard Nixon, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case, and the justices of the Warren Court, this article tells the story of the seminal First Amendment case Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967). In Hill, the Supreme Court for the first time addressed the conflict between the right to privacy and freedom of the press. The Court constitutionalized tort liability for invasion of privacy, acknowledging that it raised First Amendment issues and must be governed by constitutional standards. Hill substantially diminished privacy rights; today it is difficult if not impossible to recover against …

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …

Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: The True Culprit Of Internet Defamation, Heather Saint

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Note highlights the growing concern of Internet defamation and the lack of viable legal remedies available to its victims. Internet defamation is internet speech with the purpose to disparage another’s reputation. At common law, a victim of alleged defamation has the right to file suit against not only the original speaker of the defamatory statements, but the person or entity to give that statement further publication as well. In certain cases even the distributor, such as a newspaper stand, can be held liable for a defamation claim. However, liability due to defamatory speech on the Internet is quite different. …

The Supreme Court And The Press: Freedom Or Privilege?, Sandra Bradley

Akron Law Review

This comment will examine the Supreme Court's spring, 1978 decisions as they affected first amendment rights, and will assess their impact upon the press. Particular emphasis will be placed on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily as it affects first amendment, as well as fourth amendment, protections.

The Need To Criminalize Revenge Porn: How A Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul Of The First Amendment, Adrienne N. Kitchen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Revenge porn occurs when someone posts sexually explicit images of their former paramour on the web, often with contact information for the victim’s work and home. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of victims. Victims lose or quit their jobs; they are harassed by strangers; some change their name or alter their appearance. Some victims resort to suicide; others are stalked, assaulted, or killed. Civil suits fail to remove the images or deter perpetrators. Current criminal laws are insufficient in several common instances. These shortcomings mean there is a need to criminalize revenge porn.

Revenge porn is obscene and …