Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

LAW (843 journals)            First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Showing 801 - 354 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi     Open Access  
Valparaiso University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Vanderbilt Law Review     Free   (Followers: 5)
Varia Justicia     Open Access  
Veredas do Direito : Direito Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável     Open Access  
Veritas et Justitia     Open Access  
Verstek     Open Access  
Vertentes do Direito     Open Access  
Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi     Open Access  
Vianna Sapiens     Open Access  
Victoria University of Wellington Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Villanova Environmental Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Villanova Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Violence Against Women     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58)
VirtuaJus - Revista de Direito     Open Access  
Vniversitas     Open Access  
Vox Juris     Open Access  
Waikato Law Review: Taumauri     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Washington and Lee Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Washington University Global Studies Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy     Open Access  
Washington University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Wayne Law Review     Free  
Western Journal of Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Western New England Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William and Mary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice / Recueil annuel de Windsor d'accès à la justice     Open Access  
Wirtschaftsrechtliche Blätter     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics     Open Access  
Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Yale Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Yale Journal on Regulation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Yale Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 65)
Yearbook of European Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Yearbook of International Disaster Law Online     Full-text available via subscription  
Yuridika     Open Access  
Zuzenbidea ikasten : Irakaskuntzarako aldizkaria     Open Access  
交大法學評論     Open Access  

  First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Western New England Law Review
Number of Followers: 2  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 0190-6593
Published by Western New England College Homepage  [1 journal]

    • Authors: Luke Ryan et al.
      Abstract: Day after day, government officials across the United States make public statements celebrating various “victories” in our never-ending War on Drugs. These shallow statements overlook the true cost of this “war” and perpetuate the binary idea that there will eventually be a winner and a loser. If we continue down the path of war, nobody wins. The following article assesses the impact of this war by imagining a public official having a moment of contrition and acknowledging the errors of our ways.
      PubDate: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:52:53 PDT

    • Authors: Aisatou Diallo
      Abstract: The United States is a nation with protected borders and in order to protect the immigration laws control who may or may not come into the country. One way this is done is been by excluding individuals who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. There is no single definition of what a crime involving moral turpitude is, but over time the types of crimes held to involve moral turpitude have expanded. This article describes how this expansion of the types of crimes that are categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude have had a drastic impact on black immigrants living in neighborhoods that are disproportionality policed. Specifically, this article explores the offense of fare evasion and how the disproportional policing of fare evasion in black neighborhoods can result in significant immigration consequences for black immigrants under the crime involving moral turpitude standard.
      PubDate: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:52:50 PDT
           LAW, 2018 TO THE PRESENT

    • Authors: Robert M. Twiss
      Abstract: The Massachusetts Appeals Court has actively interpreted zoning and urban planning law during the past three years. These decisions have produced significant developments in zoning and planning law through the applications of the law to a variety of factual scenarios. The appellate courts have reversed board and lower court decisions on relatively minor distinctions from prior cases.During the past three years, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) handed down published decisions involving what constitutes a “public use” of property taken by eminent domain, lack of standing claimed by an abutter, the definition of educational institutions under the Dover Amendment, the Sub-Division Control Act, applicability of variances rather than a special permit, dredging of sand adjacent to breakwaters, affordable housing, and preemption of local zoning authority by the Commonwealth.
      PubDate: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:52:46 PDT

    • Authors: Carli Ross
      Abstract: Thousands of people across the country suffer from homelessness. Instead of funding more shelters or dealing with the lack of subsidized housing, cities have chosen to rely on the criminal justice system to regulate homeless behavior. Homeless individuals are being punished with fines and potential jail time for sleeping, sitting, gathering, and camping in public. Not only does this practice contribute to the homelessness crisis in the United States, but it also creates an additional obstacle for homeless individuals. Additionally, relying on the criminal justice system is more costly than helping homeless individuals find a permanent shelter. The Ninth Circuit recently decided that ordinances prohibiting sleeping or camping in public when there is no other shelter option is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. On its face, this decision looks beneficial to those who were once punished for sleeping in public. However, in reality, the effects are not as beneficial as one may think. The Ninth Circuit did not repeal the ordinances altogether. By specifying that these ordinances were only unconstitutional when there are no other shelter options, the Ninth Circuit still condoned their enforcement. Extremely narrow rulings, like the one above, do not stop cities from relying on the criminal justice system when it comes to regulating homeless behavior. Continued enforcement of such ordinances, no matter what the restrictions, punishes people for conducting life-sustaining behaviors. This practice is unconstitutional, as it violates the rights granted under the Eighth Amendment.
      PubDate: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:52:42 PDT

    • Authors: Igor V. Bykov
      Abstract: Vagueness, as the word suggests, is inherently uncertain. This Note addresses the issues of vagueness presented by unclear supervised release conditions, as well as discusses the split of authority pertaining thereto. Specifically, the condition discussed throughout the Note prohibits defendants from frequenting places where controlled substances are illegally present. Because federal appellate courts differ as to the condition’s meaning and its application, the existing circuit split will be thoroughly discussed. The main issues with the condition demonstrate a lack of attentiveness and forethought of the sentencing judges that ultimately impose undue hardships onto the defendants wishing to enter back into society. Furthermore, due to the lack of clarity of the proscribed terms, defendants may be uncertain as to what behavior is permitted and what act may result in re-incarceration. Since the proscribed terms are subject to varying interpretations, the defendants subject to this condition may find it difficult to obey. This Note will argue that the imposition of vague supervised release conditions is contradictory to the rehabilitative purpose of supervised release, and will urge the sentencing courts to exercise greater caution when imposing terms of federal supervision. This will ensure that defendants are not subject to unclear terms that may be unintentionally violated.
      PubDate: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:52:39 PDT

    • Authors: Bruce K. Miller
      Abstract: In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he [sic] receives an injury.” This pronouncement has shaped a widespread assumption that the rule of law under our Constitution entails a right to seek a judicial remedy when constitutional rights are violated. But, perhaps surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never squarely held that such a right exists. And some recent decisions, most particularly Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, decided in December of 2021, cast serious doubt on the truth of Marshall’s bold proposition.This Article claims, in contrast to the Supreme Court’s recent direction, that much of our law of constitutional remedies depends on the premise that a person who is injured by a constitutional violation has a right to sue for judicial relief for that injury. Specifically, the injunctive relief exception to sovereign immunity established by Ex parte Young, the Bivens damage remedy for (some) constitutional violations by federal officers, the duty of state courts to remedy constitutional violations by their own governments, and the assumption that some court of competent jurisdiction must be available to hear suits raising constitutional claims all rely, at least tacitly, on the proposition that the Constitution is a sword.Were the Supreme Court openly to acknowledge and endorse this proposition, the remedial regime available for constitutional violations and, with it, the rule of the Constitution as our supreme law, would inevitably become far more secure than they are today. On the other hand, the current Court’s apparent indifference to Chief Justice Marshall’s Marbury description of “the very essence of civil liberty” undermines the coherence of this regime and thus threatens its stability and vitality.
      PubDate: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:19:10 PDT

    • Authors: Andrew Lavender
      Abstract: In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court, for the second time in three years, considered a case involving the conflict between First Amendment religious, speech, and associational freedoms and the civil rights of the LGBTQ community. And, for the second time, the Court arrived at an apparent compromise, issuing a narrow, factual ruling in favor of the party seeking an exception from antidiscrimination law while avoiding any firm precedent that might create a broader exception.In addition to this substantive dodge, the Court also “sidestep[ped] the question on which certiorari had been granted: whether to overrule Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. In Smith, the Court ruled, in upholding the denial of unemployment benefits to the respondents on the basis of their religiously motivated peyote usage, that a “generally applicable and otherwise valid” law does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when the law incidentally burdens religious activity.Despite granting certiorari, months of briefing, and oral argument on the question of whether to overturn Smith, the Court ultimately avoided the question altogether. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Fulton was Justice Barrett’s concurrence, joined by Justice Kavanaugh in full and Justice Breyer except for a single paragraph. In the opinion, the newest Justice agreed that Smith’s neutrality rule was problematic, but mused that proposed alternatives did not satisfactorily capture the nuance of free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws. Justice Barrett also noted questions that might arise if Smith were overturned before concluding that the case did not require resolving those questions because the discretionary exception provision rendered the city’s actions non-neutral. This Article will argue from a legalistic standpoint that overturning Smith does not require addressing any of the questions that Justice Barrett posed. Some of the issues raised would not be affected one way or the other, while others may even be brought into greater clarity if Smith—which is incongruous with much other First Amendment law—were cast aside. In fact, almost all the questions would be answered by other case law that would no longer need to be read for consistency with Smith.
      PubDate: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:19:07 PDT

    • Authors: John J. Diffley et al.
      Abstract: Entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators can be faced with an overwhelming amount of information and guidance when they plan their business startup. One area that is often neglected is the business’s intellectual property. In fact, it is critical to attend to the protection of IP early in the startup process. Entrepreneurs and others need to know what to protect, as well as when and how to protect it.In the United States, IP accounts for thirty-eight percent of Gross Domestic Product, while IP and other intangible assets make up ninety percent of the market value of all S&P 500 companies. Increasingly, IP is arguably “the chief engine of wealth creation and economic growth in the world.” However, few people have exposure to a formal IP education. It is therefore vital that IP education be infused into educational curricula as widely as possible. If not, “any young person today who does not understand at least the basics of intellectual property—and its value and role in science, business, arts, and the professions—will find him or herself at a distinct disadvantage in the world of tomorrow.”In an effort to close this “IP education gap,” national organizations, such as the Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property and the National Association for Community College Entrepreneurship are working to support educators to infuse IP education into a broad range of educational curricula. Two authors of this Article, Professors Diane Sabato and John Diffley of Springfield Technical Community College, are currently serving as Michelson IP Educators in Residence and working to bring IP education to community college students through business, honors, and history courses. Additionally, and as part of the IP EIR Program, Professors Sabato and Diffley partnered with a leading IP law practitioner, and this Article’s third author, Attorney Richard H. Kosakowski, to bring his significant expertise to community college audiences.In this Article, the authors will discuss the importance of IP to economic growth in general and in the context of U.S. history. The authors then discuss why IP education and knowledge are more important than ever for entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators. The history and current state of IP education are examined, as are current efforts to infuse IP education into the community college education. Finally, Attorney Kosakowski discusses his experiences with IP law and offers best practices for protecting one’s IP.
      PubDate: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:19:03 PDT

    • Authors: Kenneth Stratton
      Abstract: Horror, Inc. v. Miller highlights the tension in copyright law between authors and their grantees. In its decision, the District Court for the District of Connecticut found that screenwriter Victor Miller recaptured his Friday the 13th screenplay by exercising his termination rights. However, the end of the court’s opinion suggested film production company Horror, Inc. may have a claim to the hockey-masked “adult Jason” present in later films. This sets up a conflict between an author seeking to recapture the works they created and grantees who developed sequels based on that work. So, who controls Jason Voorhees'This Note argues, per the Copyright Act and Supreme Court precedent, that Miller is entitled to a thin layer of copyright protection for the works that originate from his Friday the 13th screenplay, including the name “Jason Voorhees.” This Note further argues that, consistent with the Copyright Act and case law from federal circuits, Horror, Inc. may retain the rights to the various images associated with the hockey-masked serial killer it developed in the sequels. This finding would clearly delineate the interests of both parties, fulfilling the Copyright Act’s promise that authors may remedy unremunerative transfers, while grantees may continue to exploit their independent contributions in derivative works.Finally, this Note will conclude by suggesting that while both parties have legitimate copyright interests, it would be in the best interest of both parties to strike a deal, bringing Jason Voorhees and his mask back together, and back to the big screen. The solution the law comes to does not guarantee a new hockey-masked Jason Voorhees blockbuster, especially if Miller and Horror, Inc. part ways. Until the parties come together, the future of the Friday the 13th franchise remains in doubt.
      PubDate: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:18:59 PDT

    • Authors: Meaghan E. Collins
      Abstract: For well over thirty years, courts across the nation maintained an interpretational unanimity in applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in thousands of cases. This law specifies that a defendant commits a crime if they were previously convicted of a felony and then later possess a firearm in or affecting commerce. Under the original statutory interpretation, the government was only required to prove that a person knew of their possession of a firearm. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned that traditional understanding. Under the more recent interpretation, the government is required to prove not only that a person knew of their possession of a firearm but also that they knew they were a convicted felon at the time of said possession. There is significant importance in requiring a culpable mental state where statutory elements criminalize otherwise innocent conduct. However, proving such a high mens rea is inherently difficult and stunts successful prosecutions. Thus, this Note acknowledges the many arguments that challenge the Supreme Court’s decision based on its harmful effect on prosecutions and inconsistency with public opinion.More importantly, however, this Note establishes how state legislatures and courts must respond in light of this new, binding precedent. Both should adopt approaches that would avoid the need to prosecute altogether under the strenuous impositions of Rehaif v. United States. But further, in the event of unavoidable prosecution, both should take measures that enhance the chance to obtain convictions favorable to public safety. Overall, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) does more to combat gun violence than any other law, and we must act to mitigate the effect of the increased mens rea requirement imposed by Rehaif.
      PubDate: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:18:56 PDT

    • Authors: Ronald J. Colombo
      Abstract: Numerous colleges and universities have imposed COVID-19 vaccination mandates upon their students. Most of these mandates also include language purporting to recognize medical and religious exemptions. With regard to religious exemptions, some are unjustly discriminatory. Most notably, some give preference to students who are members of organized religions over students who are not. And even facially neutral exemptions can be administered in an unjustly discriminatory way by, for example, giving preference to one set of religious denominations over another, or by engaging in “religious profiling” (whereby students of a particular denomination are held completely beholden to the beliefs of that denomination, as ascertained by the school’s administration, despite their own sincere and genuine religious beliefs to the contrary).Students attending public colleges and universities have federal, constitutional, and statutory protections against such discrimination; students attending private institutions do not. Rather, students attending private colleges and universities are at the mercy of state and local law and are afforded only those protections against discrimination recognized by the jurisdiction in which their institution is located.State antidiscrimination law is unlikely to entitle students attending a private college or university the right to a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. But to the extent that state law generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, a religious exemption to a private college or university vaccination mandate must be religiously neutral and must not discriminate against students whose opposition to the vaccine stems from divergent religious beliefs.Although the research and insights presented herein should be applicable, in whole or in part, to any state with antidiscrimination laws protecting college students, this Article’s focus will be on New York’s Human Rights Law. It will demonstrate the ways in which religious exemptions can and do violate the law by illegally discriminating against students on the basis of religion. It will examine one particularly ill-advised and problematic policy (Hofstra University’s) and also showcase a policy that comports with better practices (Syracuse University’s).
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:25 PDT

    • Authors: Zachary J. Broughton
      Abstract: The President of the United States, pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, has the sole power to issue pardons that free individuals of the confines and limitations of federal prosecution and conviction. In his only term as President so far, Donald Trump issued approximately 143 pardons. Several of those pardons were directed to those who attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election by way of lying to investigators and members of Congress and by tampering with evidence and witnesses. Many other pardons issued by President Trump were given only to those who had close ties to the Republican Party or the President himself. The purpose of this Article is to showcase several of the individuals pardoned by President Trump in order to argue that he used the pardon power for personal gain and not as originally intended by the Founding Fathers. This Article also argues that constitutional amendments to the presidential pardon power are required in order to protect the American judicial system and our democratic principles from further executive abuse—be it from a potential second term of President Trump or any other future President of the United States.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:21 PDT

    • Authors: James R. Brakebill
      Abstract: The Guarantee Clause provides that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Based on its original public meaning, the guarantee of a republican government protects core political rights and contains readily ascertainable standards founded on majority rule and a prohibition of minority-party entrenchment. The Supreme Court failed to develop a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims because the Equal Protection Clause and the “one person, one vote” framework are fundamentally incompatible with the harms associated with partisan gerrymandering. Such claims involve harms to majority rights that strike at the core of the republican guarantee. The use of advanced technology and household-level data means partisan gerrymanders will only become increasingly precise and durable, leading to more situations where parties earning a minority share of votes nonetheless hold a permanent majority of seats. Given these new challenges, the Supreme Court should revisit partisan gerrymandering under the majoritarian standards derived from the Guarantee Clause.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:17 PDT

    • Authors: Nicole Belbin
      Abstract: Scholars criticized the manslaughter conviction of Michelle Carter almost as soon as the case was decided. Much of the criticism surrounding the case called for legislative action as the appropriate course of action. Fast forward a few years and Massachusetts is prosecuting another girlfriend for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. In response, Massachusetts has proposed legislation during the 2021 session aimed at criminalizing encouraging or assisting suicide, seeking to join several states that already have taken this approach. This Article considers the cause of suicide, recognizing it as a mental illness, and examines the societal harm associated with suicide. Then, this Article reviews the facts in four modern cases where the defendants were charged with encouraging another’s suicide and finds punishment was justified based on common theories of punishment. Lastly, this Article turns to the construction and validity of statutes criminalizing, encouraging, or assisting suicide. This Article will draw parallels with existing anti-hazing laws and highlight the problem with using the term “assisting” in these statutes before finally examining the likely effectiveness of Massachusetts’s proposed legislation.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:13 PDT

    • Authors: Matthew Dziok
      Abstract: In 2018, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling schemes. The Court in Murphy v. NCAA struck down PASPA on constitutional grounds, holding that the Act violated the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. Before the Murphy decision, because of a grandfather provision in PASPA, Nevada was essentially the only state where it was legal to place a bet on a sporting event. Not surprisingly, after PASPA was struck down, numerous states have legalized sports gambling.Perhaps one of the most important decisions state lawmakers face when crafting state-sponsored sports gambling legislation is whether to permit gambling on college sports. Specifically, states must choose between limiting college sports gambling, and losing significant revenue, or authorizing college sports gambling while potentially exposing athletes, teams, and universities to an increased risk of corruption and problem gambling on college campuses. This Note will argue that state laws that continue to completely prohibit gambling on college sports will force consumers to seek alternatives in the illegal gambling market, thus neutralizing attempts to protect the integrity of college sports. It will also argue that state laws allowing college sports gambling without restrictions enhance risks to the integrity of college sports. Ultimately, this Note will argue that the “middle-ground” approach already taken by multiple states, which permits gambling on college sports with some important limitations, is correct. It will urge other states that have not legalized sports gambling to adopt this approach while also providing a legislative roadmap for doing so.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:09 PDT

    • Authors: Sean Buxton
      Abstract: Are members of Congress or the President immune from defamation suits' Officially, the law provides for no such immunity. However, a line of cases interpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Westfall Act threaten to create such an immunity for all elected officials. In such a world, powerless people can be defamed by the most powerful officials in the country without any recourse in the court system to preserve their reputations.Journalist E. Jean Carroll discovered the potential for such an immunity when she brought a defamation suit against President Donald Trump after he denied her allegations of rape and accused her of lying to sell her new book. The Department of Justice intervened on the President’s behalf, certifying that he was acting within the scope of employment when he denied Carroll’s allegations.In October 2020, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the Attorney General’s certification, allowing the case to proceed. As the Biden administration pursues an appeal, Judge Kaplan’s decision looks less like a victory for defamed parties and more like an open question. Thus, although it highlights the potential injustices of the Westfall Act, Judge Kaplan’s decision does little to fix the issue.This Note proposes a solution in the form of a legislative amendment, which would create a list of exceptions where elected officials cannot use the Westfall Act, so that they would no longer be allowed to defame at will. The amendment would retain protections for lower-level employees while opening elected officials up to suit only in the most specific of cases.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:38:05 PDT

    • Authors: Scott T. Lashway et al.
      Abstract: This Article addresses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States on what constitutes“ authorization” to access a computer under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—a law that imposes both criminal and private civil liability for violations—and concludes that, so far, the Van Buren decision has not rendered the CFAA toothless. The Introduction briefly explains the history of the CFAA, a summary of why it was enacted, how organizations have relied upon it as an important tool to protect themselves from computer hackers and increased cybersecurity risks, and a Circuit of Appeals split about what it means to “exceed authorization.” The Article then, in a section titled “Exceeding Authorized Access: All That Is Not Permitted Is Forbidden,” tells the sordid tale of what happened to Van Buren and how the U.S. Supreme Court resolved his case, ultimately by reversing the Court of Appeals’s ruling affirming his CFAA conviction in an attempt to resolve the circuit split. It concludes in “Protecting Systems with a Sign on the Doorposts” by examining the two cases that, through December 2021, considered the authorization issue and what they indicate about the future of the post-Van Buren CFAA.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:30:47 PDT
           AND MORE

    • Authors: Dennis M. Kelleher et al.
      Abstract: The stock trading frenzy of January 2021 brought a relatively new player in the securities markets into public consciousness—the platforms offering no- or low-commission trading that seek to appeal to young and less-experienced investors with a “fun” if not “delightful” user experience. Most prominent among these new brokers is Robinhood, with a slick mobile phone app, which claims that its platform will “democratize finance” by making investing cheaper and easier for the masses who have been looked down upon and locked out by the wealthy elites of Wall Street.However, Robinhood’s claims of “democratization” have all the hallmarks of manipulation and exploitation, making Robinhood’s founders multibillionaires while many of its retail customers suffer financial ruin. That is because platforms like Robinhood take arguably legal kickbacks for routing their customer orders—known as payment for order flow—to high frequency trading firms which execute those orders, almost always in dark, off-exchange venues. To maximize those kickbacks, Robinhood’s mobile trading app is gamified via predatory digital engagement practices to disarm its customers’ financial self-defense mechanisms and prompt as much frequent and risky trading as possible. Such trading behavior has been shown to be highly detrimental to retail investors, and indeed many of Robinhood’s customers have been harmed by engaging in such practices, some grievously. The result is that, unlike the legend of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, the Robinhoods of the world are taking from the less experienced and enriching themselves and their fellow Wall Street billionaires.But it does not have to be this way. Finance can be genuinely democratized (easier access, lower costs, user-friendly financial tools, etc.) and trading can be demystified in ways that facilitate wealth creation rather than wealth extraction. However, for that to happen, regulators must enforce existing laws and rules against illegal conduct and impose meaningful penalties on individual corporate officers that punish and deter. Regulators must also enact new rules to prohibit, for example, predatory digital engagement practices. Once the highly profitable lawbreakers and predators are shut down, the financial industry can focus on serving Main Street investors rather than exploiting them to enrich Wall Street.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:30:43 PDT

    • Authors: Shoshana Weissmann
      Abstract: There are endless proposals in Congress aimed at fixing the problems with “Big Tech.” Introduced over the last four years, each one hopes to solve problems such as the spread of misinformation online, the spread of unlawful content online, or even the removal of constitutionally protected speech from internet platforms.Unfortunately, these various pieces of legislation that hope to regulate social media regularly fail to grapple with all kinds of problems, such as First Amendment barriers to action. Further, they fail to recognize that social media is not the cause of many of the problems that legislators seek to solve. This Essay will outline a handful of the biggest issues that elude lawmakers proposing changes to § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and content moderation policy.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:30:40 PDT

    • Authors: Ben Clements
      Abstract: A handful of global corporations have taken control of the internet, the dominant medium of modern communication and commerce, and have used that control to create and sell databases of personal information of Americans and to systematically amplify dangerous disinformation and violence on an unprecedented scale. This has created a growing threat to our democracy and our people.While our elected officials and many in the media claim to recognize the danger, a corporate-friendly First Amendment absolutism and misguided fears about chilling voices on the internet have preempted any serious effort at reform or regulation. Neither the First Amendment nor the desire to protect the robust exchange of ideas on the internet justifies this inaction. Instead, legislation that would protect personal privacy and autonomy on the internet and hold Big Tech companies accountable for promoting fraudulent disinformation and violence would be consistent with the First Amendment and would, in fact, strengthen the free exchange of ideas on the internet.
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:30:36 PDT
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-