for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1257 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (44 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (83 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (21 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (140 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (21 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (166 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (716 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (7 journals)

LAW (716 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 42)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 57)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annual Survey of South African Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 18)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 3)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access  
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access  
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access  
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers, Droit, Sciences et Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 160)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Časopis zdravotnického práva a bioetiky     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 42)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Danube : The Journal of European Association Comenius - EACO     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito e Liberdade     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecology Law Quarterly     Free   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
EU agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 148)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 37)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 32)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Evaluation Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Faulkner Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Communication Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Florida State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fordham Environmental Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
Fordham Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
FORO. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Geoforum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
George Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 8)
Georgia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Georgia State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Global Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Global Labour Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 9)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Fordham Law Review
  [SJR: 0.963]   [H-I: 22]   [15 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 0015-704X
   Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Deference to the Plaintiff in Forum Non Conveniens Cases

    • Authors: Brett Workman
      Abstract: This Note analyzes several cases in an effort to understand why, based on each case’s unique circumstances, the plaintiff’s choice of forum received a particular level of deference. This Note then produces a synthesized list of factors that alter the level of deference a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives under forum non conveniens analysis. An understanding of these factors provides increased predictability as to when a plaintiff’s choice of forum might receive heightened deference under this common law doctrine.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:45:11 PST
       
  • Wild Westworld: Section 230 of the CDA and Social Networks’ Use of
           Machine-Learning Algorithms

    • Authors: Catherine Tremble
      Abstract: This Note argues that Facebook’s services—specifically the personalization of content through machine-learning algorithms—constitute the “development” of content and as such do not qualify for § 230 immunity. This Note analyzes the evolution of § 230 jurisprudence to help inform the development of a revised framework. This framework is guided by congressional and public policy goals and creates brighter lines for technological immunity. It tailors immunity to account for user data mined by ISPs and the pervasive effect that the use of that data has on users—two issues that courts have yet to confront. This Note concludes that under the revised framework, machine-learning algorithms’ content organization— made effective through the collection of individualized data—make ISPs codevelopers of content and thus bar them from immunity.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:45:07 PST
       
  • Terror on Your Timeline: Criminalizing Terrorist Incitement on Social
           Media Through Doctrinal Shift

    • Authors: Zachary Leibowitz
      Abstract: The United States faces a barrage of threats from terrorist organizations on a daily basis. The government takes some steps to prevent these threats from coming to fruition, but not much is being done proactively. Any person can log into a social media account to preach hate and incite violence against the United States and its citizenry, and sometimes these words result in action. When speakers are not held accountable, they can continue to incite the masses to violent action across the United States. This Note proposes a new incitement doctrine to prevent these speakers from being able to spread their violent message on the internet, which might very well decrease the threats the United States faces and the number of tragedies it often experiences.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:45:04 PST
       
  • Reevaluating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Amending the Statute to
           Explicitly Address the Cloud

    • Authors: Amanda B. Gottlieb
      Abstract: Under the current interpretations of authorization, instances where an individual harmlessly accesses the cloud data of another user could be classified as hacking and a violation of this federal statute. As such, this Note demonstrates that all of the current interpretations of the CFAA are too broad because they could result in this nonsensical outcome. This Note accordingly proposes an amendment to the CFAA specifically addressing user access to data on the cloud. Such an amendment would eliminate the unusual result of innocuous cloud-computing users being deemed hackers under federal law.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:45:01 PST
       
  • “You Must Construct Additional Pylons”: Building a Better Framework
           for Esports Governance

    • Authors: Laura L. Chao
      Abstract: The popularity of “esports,” also known as “electronic sports” or competitive video gaming, has exploded in recent years and captured the attention of cord-cutting millennials—often to the detriment of sports such as basketball, football, baseball, and hockey. In the United States, the commercial dominance of such traditional sports stems from decades of regulatory support. Consequently, while esports regulation is likely to emulate many aspects of traditional sports governance, the esports industry is fraught with challenges that inhibit sophisticated ownership and capital investment. Domestic regulation is complicated by underlying intellectual property ownership and ancillary considerations such as fluctuations in a video game’s popularity. Since analogous reform is nigh impossible, nascent governance organizations have been created to support the professionalization of esports as a new entertainment form. As esports consumption continues to grow, enterprising stakeholders are presented with the unique opportunity to create regulatory bodies that will shape the esports industry. This Note analyzes how the professional sports industry and foreign esports markets have addressed governance challenges that arise from differences between traditional sports and competitive video gaming. It concludes by exploring two potential pathways for domestic esports governance. View PDF
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:58 PST
       
  • Why Civil and Criminal Procedure Are So Different: A Forgotten History

    • Authors: Ion Meyn
      Abstract: Much has been written about the origins of civil procedure. Yet little is known about the origins of criminal procedure, even though it governs how millions of cases in federal and state courts are litigated each year. This Article’s examination of criminal procedure’s origin story questions the prevailing notion that civil and criminal procedure require different treatment. The Article’s starting point is the first draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—confidential in 1941 and since forgotten. The draft reveals that reformers of criminal procedure turned to the new rules of civil procedure for guidance. The contents of this draft shed light on an extraordinary moment: reformers initially proposed that all litigation in the United States, civil and criminal, be governed by a unified procedural code. The implementation of this original vision of a unified code would have had dramatic implications for how criminal law is practiced and perceived today. The advisory committee’s final product in 1944, however, set criminal litigation on a very different course. Transcripts of the committee’s initial meetings reveal that the final code of criminal procedure emerged from the clash of ideas presented by two committee members, James Robinson and Alexander Holtzoff. Holtzoff’s traditional views would ultimately persuade other members, cleaving criminal procedure from civil procedure. Since then, differences in civil and criminal litigation have become entrenched and normalized. Yet, at the time the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were drafted, a unified code was not just a plausible alternative but the only proposal. The draft’s challenge to the prevailing notion that civil and criminal wrongs inherently require different procedural treatment is a critical contribution to the growing debate over whether the absence of discovery in criminal procedure is justified in light of discovery tools afforded by civil procedure. The first draft of criminal procedure, which called for uniform rules to govern proceedings in all civil and criminal courtrooms, suggests the possibility that current resistance to unification is, to a significant degree, historically contingent.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:55 PST
       
  • Algorithmic Jim Crow

    • Authors: Margaret Hu
      Abstract: This Article contends that current immigration- and security-related vetting protocols risk promulgating an algorithmically driven form of Jim Crow. Under the “separate but equal” discrimination of a historic Jim Crow regime, state laws required mandatory separation and discrimination on the front end, while purportedly establishing equality on the back end. In contrast, an Algorithmic Jim Crow regime allows for “equal but separate” discrimination. Under Algorithmic Jim Crow, equal vetting and database screening of all citizens and noncitizens will make it appear that fairness and equality principles are preserved on the front end. Algorithmic Jim Crow, however, will enable discrimination on the back end in the form of designing, interpreting, and acting upon vetting and screening systems in ways that result in a disparate impact.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:52 PST
       
  • Social Media Accountability for Terrorist Propaganda

    • Authors: Alexander Tsesis
      Abstract: Terrorist organizations have found social media websites to be invaluable for disseminating ideology, recruiting terrorists, and planning operations. National and international leaders have repeatedly pointed out the dangers terrorists pose to ordinary people and state institutions. In the United States, the federal Communications Decency Act’s § 230 provides social networking websites with immunity against civil law suits. Litigants have therefore been unsuccessful in obtaining redress against internet companies who host or disseminate third-party terrorist content. This Article demonstrates that § 230 does not bar private parties from recovery if they can prove that a social media company had received complaints about specific webpages, videos, posts, articles, IP addresses, or accounts of foreign terrorist organizations; the company’s failure to remove the material; a terrorist’s subsequent viewing of or interacting with the material on the website; and that terrorist’s acting upon the propaganda to harm the plaintiff. This Article argues that irrespective of civil immunity, the First Amendment does not limit Congress’s authority to impose criminal liability on those content intermediaries who have been notified that their websites are hosting third-party foreign terrorist incitement, recruitment, or instruction. Neither the First Amendment nor the Communications Decency Act prevents this form of federal criminal prosecution. A social media company can be prosecuted for material support of terrorism if it is knowingly providing a platform to organizations or individuals who advocate the commission of terrorist acts. Mechanisms will also need to be created that can enable administrators to take emergency measures, while simultaneously preserving the due process rights of internet intermediaries to challenge orders to immediately block, temporarily remove, or permanently destroy data.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:48 PST
       
  • The Internet as Marketplace of Madness— and a Terrorist’s Best
           Friend

    • Authors: Thane Rosenbaum
      Abstract: The panel I was assigned to, for this distinguished gathering of scholars at Fordham Law School, where I had previously been a professor for twentythree years, was given the name, “Caution Against Overreaching.” Overreaching and the caution it occasions, in this case, refer to the First Amendment, a uniquely American absolutist, legalistic obsession. For many who fixate on such matters, the government must never be allowed to trample upon the unfettered free speech rights guaranteed under America’s first, and most favorite, Amendment.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:45 PST
       
  • Terrorizing Advocacy and the First Amendment: Free Expression and the
           Fallacy of Mutual Exclusivity

    • Authors: Martin H. Redish et al.
      Abstract: Traditional free speech doctrine is inadequate to account for modern terrorist speech. Unprotected threats and substantially protected lawful advocacy are not mutually exclusive. This Article proposes recognizing a new hybrid category of speech called “terrorizing advocacy.” This is a type of traditionally protected public advocacy of unlawful conduct that simultaneously exhibits the unprotected pathologies of a true threat. This Article explains why this new category confounds existing First Amendment doctrine and details a proposed model for how the doctrine should be reshaped.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:41 PST
       
  • Government Speech and the War on Terror

    • Authors: Helen Norton
      Abstract: This Article examines how the government’s speech in the War on Terror can threaten free speech, equal protection, and due process values. It focuses primarily on the constitutional harms threatened by the government’s speech itself (what some call a form of “soft law”), rather than on situations in which the government’s speech may be evidence of a constitutionally impermissible motive for its “hard law” actions.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:38 PST
       
  • Entertaining Satan: Why We Tolerate Terrorist Incitement

    • Authors: Andrew Koppelman
      Abstract: Words are dangerous. That is why governments sometimes want to suppress speech. The law of free speech reflects a settled decision that, at the time that law was adopted, the dangers were worth tolerating. But people keep dreaming up nasty new things to do with speech. Recently, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist organizations have employed a small army of Iagos on the internet to recruit new instruments of destruction. Some of what they have posted is protected speech under present First Amendment law. In response, scholars have suggested that there should be some new exception to the law of free speech. Thus far, no workable exception has been suggested.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:35 PST
       
  • Free Speech and National Security Bootstraps

    • Authors: Heidi Kitrosser
      Abstract: It is troubling that courts treat administrative designations—specifically, both FTO determinations and information classification—as bootstraps by which to yank speech restrictions from the clutches of probing judicial scrutiny. This Article builds on existing scholarly critiques to identify and examine the common thread of national security bootstrapping that runs through both sets of cases. The hope is that in so doing, some greater light may be shed both on the cases themselves and, more broadly, on the costs and benefits of judicial deference to executive national security claims where civil rights and civil liberties are at stake.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:32 PST
       
  • Terrorist Advocacy and Exceptional Circumstances

    • Authors: David S. Han
      Abstract: This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the harmful effects of terrorist advocacy and outlines the present doctrinal treatment of such speech. Part II discusses the issue of exceptional circumstances and highlights the two approaches courts might take to account for them: applying strict scrutiny to the case at hand or broadly reformulating the First Amendment’s doctrinal boundaries. Part III sets forth my central thesis: courts should adhere to case-by-case strict scrutiny analysis, rather than broad doctrinal reformulation, as the initial means of accounting for exceptional circumstances with respect to terrorist advocacy. This approach reflects the vital importance of caution and incrementalism whenever a potential reduction in First Amendment protection is contemplated, as these narrower analyses act as an intermediate stopping point for courts to carefully consider whether any broad doctrinal reformulation is ultimately warranted. Part IV sets forth some thoughts as to how strict scrutiny should be calibrated to serve this role effectively, focusing in particular on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:29 PST
       
  • Terrorists Are Always Muslim but Never White: At the Intersection of
           Critical Race Theory and Propaganda

    • Authors: Caroline Mala Corbin
      Abstract: When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture' Chances are, it is not a white person. In the United States, two common though false narratives about terrorists who attack America abound. We see them on television, in the movies, on the news, and, currently, in the Trump administration. The first is that “terrorists are always (brown) Muslims.” The second is that “white people are never terrorists.” Different strands of critical race theory can help us understand these two narratives. One strand examines the role of unconscious cognitive biases in the production of stereotypes, such as the stereotype of the “Muslim terrorist.” Another strand focuses on white privilege, such as the privilege of avoiding the terrorist label. These false narratives play a crucial role in Trump’s propaganda. As the critical race analysis uncovers, these two narratives dovetail with two constituent parts of propaganda: flawed ideologies and aspirational myths. Propaganda relies on preexisting false ideologies, which is another way to describe racist stereotyping. Propaganda also relies on certain ideals and myths, in this case, the myth of white innocence and white superiority. Thus, the Trump administration’s intentional invocation of both narratives amounts to propaganda in more than just the colloquial sense. Part I illustrates each of the two narratives. Part II then analyzes them through a critical race lens, showing how they map onto two strands of critical race theory. Next, Part III examines how these narratives simultaneously enable and constitute propaganda. Finally, Part IV argues that the propagation of these false narratives hurts the nation’s security.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:26 PST
       
  • The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Tackling Terrorism Online

    • Authors: Raphael Cohen-Almagor
      Abstract: Gatekeeping is defined as the work of third parties “who are able to disrupt misconduct by withholding their cooperation from wrongdoers.”1 Internet intermediaries need to be far more proactive as gatekeepers than they are now. Socially responsible measures can prevent the translation of violent thoughts into violent actions. Designated monitoring mechanisms can potentially prevent such unfortunate events. This Article suggests an approach that harnesses the strengths and capabilities of the public and private sectors in offering practical solutions to pressing problems. It proposes that internet intermediaries should fight stringently against terror and further argues that a responsible gatekeeping approach is good for business.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:23 PST
       
  • The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans § 230 Immunity

    • Authors: Danielle Keats Citron et al.
      Abstract: Section 230 is overdue for a rethinking. If courts do not construe the scope of federal immunity to avoid injustice, we argue, Congress should amend the law. This is not to discount the important role that the immunity provision has played over the past twenty years. Far from it. Section 230 immunity has enabled innovation and expression beyond the imagination of the operators of early bulletin boards and computer service providers the provision was designed to protect. But its overbroad interpretation has left victims of online abuse with no leverage against site operators whose business models facilitate abuse. This state of affairs can be changed without undermining free expression and innovation. Broad protections for free speech and clear rules of the road are important for online platforms to operate with confidence. Section 230, at least as it is currently understood, is not necessary for either of these. With modest adjustments to § 230, either through judicial interpretation or legislation, we can have a robust culture of free speech online without shielding from liability platforms designed to host illegality or that deliberately host illegal content
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:20 PST
       
  • Free Speech and the Confluence of National Security and Internet
           Exceptionalism

    • Authors: Alan K. Chen
      Abstract: In this Article, I argue that, notwithstanding these contemporary developments, the Court got it mostly right in Brandenburg. Or, I want to at least suggest that it is premature to reconstruct the Brandenburg test to address perceived changes in our global environment. For the most part, Brandenburg has succeeded in mediating the balance between protecting political or ideological advocacy and enabling the government to regulate actual incitement, even in the contemporary era. Moreover, I argue that society should be especially wary of calls to narrow Brandenburg’s speech-protective standard because such changes might be significantly influenced by the confluence of two forms of exceptionalism—national security exceptionalism and internet exceptionalism—both of which are continuing to evolve in real time. In development of this argument, this Article contains three parts.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:17 PST
       
  • Terrorist Incitement on the Internet

    • Authors: Alexander Tsesis
      Abstract: I organized this symposium to advance understanding of how terrorist communications drive and influence social, political, religious, civil, literary, and artistic conduct. Viewing terrorist speech through wide prisms of law, culture, and contemporary media can provide lawmakers, adjudicators, and administrators a better understanding of how to contain and prevent the exploitation of modern communication technologies to influence, recruit, and exploit others to perpetrate ideologically driven acts of violence. Undertaking such a multipronged study requires not only looking at the personal and sociological appeals that extreme ideology exerts but also considering how to create political, administrative, educational, and economic conditions to effect positive change at micro and macro levels. The deep analysis that a symposium provides can paint a more comprehensive picture to explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of various memes, videos, interactive websites, group chat rooms, and blogs that justify, glorify, or incite violence. Moreover, understanding the operation of terrorist groups on the internet can help to explain their organizational hierarchies.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:14 PST
       
  • “I Am Undocumented and a New Yorker”: Affirmative City Citizenship and
           New York City’s IDNYC Program

    • Authors: Amy C. Torres
      Abstract: The power to confer legal citizenship status is possessed solely by the federal government. Yet the courts and legal theorists have demonstrated that citizenship encompasses factors beyond legal status, including rights, inclusion, and political participation. As a result, even legal citizens can face barriers to citizenship, broadly understood, due to factors including their race, class, gender, or disability. Given this multidimensionality, the city, as the place where residents carry out the tasks of their daily lives, is a critical space for promoting elements of citizenship. This Note argues that recent city municipal identification-card programs have created a new form of citizenship for their residents. This citizenship, which this Note terms “Affirmative City Citizenship,” is significant for both marginalized populations generally, as well as undocumented immigrant city residents who, because of their noncitizen legal status, face additional hurdles to city life. Utilizing “IDNYC”—New York City’s municipal identification-card program—as a case study, this Note examines the strengths and limitations of Affirmative City Citizenship as a means for supporting undocumented immigrant city residents. It concludes that while Affirmative City Citizenship is a powerful tool for confronting barriers to citizenship, its success with the immigrant population relies in part on the city’s adoption of other proimmigrant policies that more directly conflict with federal law. Accordingly, it recommends that cities seeking to protect their undocumented immigrant city residents adopt both types of policies.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:44:01 PST
       
  • Confronting the Ghost: Legal Strategies to Oust Medical Ghostwriters

    • Authors: Deanna Minasi
      Abstract: Articles published in medical journals contribute significantly to public health by disseminating medical information to physicians, thereby influencing prescribing practices. However, the information guiding treatment decisions becomes distorted by selective publishing and medical ghostwriting, which negatively affects overall patient care. Although there is general consensus in the medical community that these practices of publication bias represent a moral failing, the issue is rarely framed as a wrong that necessitates legal consequences. This Note takes the stance that medical ghostwriting constitutes an act prohibited under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and argues that physicians fraudulently named as authors should be held civilly liable under RICO. This Note explores civil RICO, its origin, its legislative and judicial history, and the evolution of RICO to areas beyond traditional organized crime. By applying the elements of civil RICO to medical ghostwriting, this Note argues that physicians named as authors who knowingly fail to fulfill journal authorship criteria should be held accountable for their role in disseminating misleading medical information. This Note argues that, at the very least, current regulations governing the medical publication framework should be better enforced and revised to mandate authorship disclosure.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:58 PST
       
  • Affirming Firm Sanctions: The Authority to Sanction Law Firms Under 28
           U.S.C. § 1927

    • Authors: Vincent J. Margiotta
      Abstract: A circuit split exists as to whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows for an award of sanctions against nonattorneys or nonrepresentatives. Five federal courts of appeals—the Second, Third, Eighth, Eleventh, and the District of Columbia Circuits—hold that, to further the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, courts have the authority to sanction a law firm for the conduct of its attorneys, in addition to the authority to sanction individual officers of the court. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits disagree, concluding that the statute allows federal courts to sanction only individuals—“attorney[s] or other person[s] admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States.” In In re MJS Las Croabas Properties, Inc., the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit recently recognized this split of authority. The appellate panel discussed the text of § 1927 as well as policy considerations supporting its applicability to law firms. Although the panel noted that the statute does not expressly provide for vicarious liability, it nonetheless concluded that § 1927 implicitly allows for the imposition of sanctions against a law firm. This Note analyzes federal courts’ interpretations of § 1927 and argues that law firms ought to be within reach of the statute.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:55 PST
       
  • The FLSA Permission Slip: Determining Whether FLSA Settlements and
           Voluntary Dismissals Require Approval

    • Authors: Alex Lau
      Abstract: The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) seeks to protect the poorest, most vulnerable workers by requiring that they be paid a minimum wage and compensated for their overtime labor. When employers do not pay their workers minimum wage or overtime compensation and thereby violate the FLSA, workers have the power to sue their employers for remuneration. Like many other types of cases, most FLSA cases settle before going to trial. Unlike those other types of cases, however, most courts have held that settlements of FLSA cases must be approved to be enforceable. Even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 generally allows parties to settle lawsuits by voluntarily dismissing their lawsuits without approval, these courts have held that the FLSA should be an exception to Rule 41. Some courts, however, have held that settlements of FLSA cases should not require approval to be enforceable. This Note addresses and analyzes the differences between these approaches. It seeks to balance the protection the FLSA intends to provide workers and the ability of parties to freely settle disputes embodied in Rule 41. To strike this balance, this Note suggests that settlements of lawsuits brought under the FLSA should not require approval, because the Act should be subject to and not exempt from Rule 41. However, settlements of causes of action arising under the FLSA should require approval to ensure the necessary protection the Act was meant to provide to the workers it serves.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:52 PST
       
  • Restoring Bankruptcy’s Fresh Start

    • Authors: Jonathan S. Hermann
      Abstract: The discharge injunction, which allows former debtors to be free from any efforts to collect former debt, is a primary feature of bankruptcy law in the United States. When creditors have systemically violated debtors’ discharge injunctions, some debtors have attempted to challenge those creditors through a class action lawsuit in bankruptcy court. However, the pervasiveness of class-waiving arbitration clauses likely prevents those debtors from disputing discharge injunction violations outside of binding, individual arbitration. This Note first discusses areas of disagreement regarding how former debtors may enforce their discharge injunctions. Then, it examines the types of disputes that allow debtors to collectivize in bankruptcy court. Without seeking to resolve either disagreement, this Note assumes debtors may collectivize in this context and employs an “inherent conflict” test that looks to whether disputes over discharge injunction violations are arbitrable. Because the “inherent conflict” test likely leads to the conclusion that courts must enforce class-waiving arbitration clauses, this Note argues that Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code not only to provide debtors an express right of action under § 524 and the ability to collectivize, but also to prohibit the arbitration of these claims. Doing so will give full effect to the discharge injunction and fulfill the promise to debtors that they can truly begin anew after bankruptcy.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:48 PST
       
  • Adjudication in the Age of Disagreement

    • Authors: John Fabian Witt
      Abstract: In the time I have here with you today I would like to offer the beginnings of an answer. It does not lie in the distance between the court’s traditions and Manton’s conduct. That would be too easy. At base, I think the answer lies in something far more subtle and interesting: the relationship between acentral tradition of the Second Circuit and one of the great questions we face as a society today. That question is how to deal with disagreement.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:45 PST
       
  • Reviving Reliance

    • Authors: Ann M. Lipton
      Abstract: This Article explores the misalignment between the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and the private causes of action available to investors to enforce those requirements. Historically, federally mandated disclosures were designed to allow investors to set an appropriate price for publicly traded securities. Today’s disclosures, however, also enable stockholders to participate in corporate governance and act as a check on managerial misbehavior. To enforce these requirements, investors’ chief option is a claim under the general antifraud statute, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. But courts are deeply suspicious of investors’ attempts to use the Act to hold corporations liable for false statements related to governance. As this Article demonstrates, judicial skepticism can be traced to the functional elimination of the element of reliance from private investors’ claims. Without the element of reliance, courts cannot discriminate between deception, which section 10(b) prohibits, and poor managerial decisionmaking, to which section 10(b) does not speak. Doctrines that courts developed to distinguish between the two now have the perverse effect of devaluing disclosures intended to facilitate shareholder participation in corporate governance. More troublingly, they enforce a normative viewpoint that shareholders do not, or should not, have interests beyond the short-term maximization of a firm’s stock price. This interpretation of shareholder preferences undermines modern regulatory initiatives that employ shareholders as a restraining force on antisocial corporate conduct. This Article proposes that courts adopt new interpretations of section 10(b) that reestablish the centrality of reliance. By doing so, courts can facilitate shareholders’ participation in the corporate governance structure and reward investors who inhabit the role of corporate monitor.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:42 PST
       
  • The Total Takings Myth

    • Authors: Lynn E. Blais
      Abstract: For almost thirty-five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to carve out a total takings doctrine within its regulatory takings jurisprudence. Most regulatory takings claims are evaluated under the “ad hoc” threefactor test first articulated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. Exceedingly few of these claims are successful. But the Court has identified certain categories of government actions that are compensable takings per se, otherwise known as total takings. This began in 1982 with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., where the Court held that a land use ordinance requiring a landowner to endure a permanent physical occupation of a portion of her property is always a compensable taking. Ten years later, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Court held that a land use restriction depriving an owner of all economically viable use of her property is also compensable per se. Finally, in 2015, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court extended its total takings jurisprudence to personal property, announcing that the government appropriation of personal property is a per se compensable taking. Although the Court has had more than three decades to articulate theoretical justifications for its total takings jurisprudence and to provide guidance for lower courts in determining when a regulation constitutes a total taking, it has failed to do so. This failure reflects the underlying reality that the total takings doctrine is a myth. More particularly, the categories that the Court has identified as constituting total takings are analytically incoherent, and the terms the Court has used to demarcate total takings from regulations that are not per se compensable cannot be applied in the real world. As a result, lower courts struggle to apply the total takings doctrine and the case law remains in utter disarray. In fact, lower courts have resorted to creating “shadow” total takings doctrines that rely on obvious distortions of the plain meaning of outcome-determinative terms and deflect attention from the fundamental question of whether compensation is warranted. This Article argues that the Court’s attempt to create a total takings doctrine has failed, and that the Court should repudiate it. It demonstrates that the Court’s initial total takings opinions were conceptually incoherent and woefully undertheorized. And it shows that attempts by lower courts to rehabilitate the doctrine by crystallizing the bright-line rules through careful and consistent application were doomed to, and did, fail. This Article also explains why the entire enterprise was misguided from the start. Although bright-line rules have their place, it is not in the heart of regulatory takings doctrine, which is premised on concerns for fairness and justice in distributing the burdens of land use regulation. Last term, the Court had a perfect opportunity to begin the process of repudiating the total takings myth. Murr v. Wisconsin was a run-of-the-mill regulatory takings case masquerading as a Lucas-type total takings claim, and it presented the Court with a vehicle to either remedy the central doctrinal incoherence of Lucas’s bright-line rule or to overrule Lucas and turn its attention to the much needed task of clarifying and refining the Penn Central test. Instead, by offering a new multifactored test in a sort of regulatory takings “step zero,” the Court in Murr merely exacerbated the core flaws of the Lucas bright-line rule. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that the Court recognize and begin to dismantle the total takings myth.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:39 PST
       
  • Bathroom Laws as Status Crimes

    • Authors: Stephen Rushin et al.
      Abstract: A growing number of American jurisdictions have considered laws that prohibit trans individuals from using bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identities. Several scholars have criticized these so-called “bathroom laws” as a form of discrimination in violation of federal law. Few scholars, though, have considered the criminal justice implications of these proposals. By analyzing dozens of proposed bathroom laws, this Article explores how many laws do more than stigmatize the trans community—they effectively criminalize it. Some of these proposed laws would establish new categories of criminal offenses for trans individuals who use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Others would transform bathroom use by trans individuals into an unlawful trespass. The existing literature suggests that the criminal justice system is unprepared to handle this newfound responsibility. This Article concludes that, by effectively criminalizing noncriminal conduct so inextricably linked to the status of being trans, some proposed bathroom laws may violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:43:36 PST
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.90.92.204
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016