The Experts below are selected from a list of 51 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Allison Tungate - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Bare necessities: the argument for a ‘revenge porn’ exception in Section 230 immunity
    Information & Communications Technology Law, 2014
    Co-Authors: Allison Tungate
    Abstract:

    ‘Revenge porn’ is the online posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of a former lover without his or her consent. Despite the malicious intent behind revenge porn, victims are provided with little to no relief due to Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act, also known as the ‘Good Samaritan’ provisions. Section 230 unambiguously provides blanket immunity for website operators and Internet service providers that feature user-generated content, including revenge porn.In Section 1, I discuss the purpose of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. In Section 2, I analyze the legal impAct of the blanket immunity established in Section 230. In Section 3, I examine the potential remedies already in existence for revenge porn victims and highlight their inadequacies. In Section 4, I argue Congress should create a narrow exception to Section 230 immunity specifically geared toward revenge porn. The exception would establish a definition of revenge porn, which would prevent ov...

  • bare necessities the argument for a revenge porn exception in section 230 immunity
    Information & Communications Technology Law, 2014
    Co-Authors: Allison Tungate
    Abstract:

    ‘Revenge porn’ is the online posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of a former lover without his or her consent. Despite the malicious intent behind revenge porn, victims are provided with little to no relief due to Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act, also known as the ‘Good Samaritan’ provisions. Section 230 unambiguously provides blanket immunity for website operators and Internet service providers that feature user-generated content, including revenge porn.In Section 1, I discuss the purpose of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. In Section 2, I analyze the legal impAct of the blanket immunity established in Section 230. In Section 3, I examine the potential remedies already in existence for revenge porn victims and highlight their inadequacies. In Section 4, I argue Congress should create a narrow exception to Section 230 immunity specifically geared toward revenge porn. The exception would establish a definition of revenge porn, which would prevent ov...

Norman E. Clark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Sean Edward Watkins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Book Review: The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation, edited by Saul Levmore and Martha C. NussbaumThe Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation. LevmoreSaulNussbaumMartha C., eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 20
    Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2012
    Co-Authors: Sean Edward Watkins
    Abstract:

    The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation. Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. 312 pp. $27.95 hbk. $18.95 pbk.The editors of this significant collection-Saul Levmore is the William B. Graham Professor of Law, and Martha C. Nussbaum is the Ernst Freud Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, both at the University of Chicago-have successfully examined The Offensive Internet from a novel vantage point.While speech on the Internet has long been critiqued, this collection applies older media frameworks to the seemingly unquestioned power of free speech in cyberspace. The editors encourage us to understand that many concerns with speech, particularly offensive speech, have been dealt with in the past with older media technologies. They emphasize that the Internet has created a kind of "small village," where the global and local are now intermixed. The main issue with this, especially when it comes to privacy and speech, is the number of communicators in the system. In the past, for example, if one was bullied, it was kept to a small group and wouldn't necessarily affect one's reputation beyond the localized context. Now, that kind of interAction has both lingering and wide-reaching effects, but there are few laws set in place that punish the hosts of defamatory language.The contributors to these thirteen chapters-examining issues ranging from the expected to "Internet misogyny," free speech and "cyber-cesspools," and social media challenges for academic administrators-attempt to grapple with First Amendment issues while working under the framework that free speech has always been limited in certain circumstances. Therefore, many of the authors rightfully start with examples drawn from older media restrictions and regulations to understand these case studies on the Internet. The book is organized in four sections-"The Internet and Its Problems," "Reputation," "Speech," and "Privacy"-although many of these issues overlap.In particular, several chapters deal with privacy on the Internet. An overarching argument throughout much of the book is the idea that service providers, who are not liable for slanderous or defamatory discourse on their networks, have too much protection under the Communication Decency Act. The issue is that there are not protections put in place for individuals against negative and unwarranted attacks on their charActer.In addition, some of the authors believe that there should be different categories of speech under the law. Legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, for example, examines how case law has loosely defined low-value speech as primarily being Communication that is highly negative and doesn't advance political discourse. Stone argues that this kind of speech shouldn't enjoy the same protections under the First Amendment as other kinds of speech. He also argues that the newsworthiness of information may change depending on the size of an audience. …

Jeffrey Segal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Role of the Internet in Doctor Performance Rating
    Pain Physician, 2009
    Co-Authors: Jeffrey Segal
    Abstract:

    Historically, if a patient was dissatisfied with care, he or she could tell his or her friends and family. The criticism was limited to a small circle of people. If the patient was injured negligently, he or she could hire an attorney to prosecute a lawsuit. The threshold for finding an attorney and prevailing posed a significant barrier for the patient achieving redress. With the Internet, if a patient is unhappy he or she needs do little more than access a growing number of Internet physician rating sites. Such criticism can be rendered anonymously. The posts are disseminated worldwide, and once posted, the criticism rarely comes down. While transparency is a laudable goal, such sites often lack accountability. More formal sites run by authoritative bodies, such as medical licensing boards, also provide data about physicians, but such data is often unfiltered, making it difficult for the public to properly interpret. Given how important reputation is to physicians, the traditional remedy of suing for defamation because of libelous posts is ordinarily ineffective. First, many patients who post libelous comments, do so anonymously. Next, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) hosting such sites are generally immune from liability for defamation. Finally, the law has a very formal definition for libel, and a negative rating does not necessarily equate to “defamation.” A novel method of addressing un-policed physician rating sites in the Internet age is described. The system embraces the use of mutual privacy contrActs to provide physicians a viable remedy to anonymous posts. In exchange, patients receive additional privacy protections above and beyond that mandated by law. Key words: Defamation, libel, Internet, physician, rating sites, Section 230, Communication Decency Act, anonymous

Ryan J.p. Dyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Communication Decency Act Gone Wild: A Case for Renewing the Presumption Against Preemption
    Seattle University Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ryan J.p. Dyer
    Abstract:

    Few things in history have expanded the reach of human enterprise like the Internet. Since its inception, the Internet has disseminated the most vital commodity known to man—information. But not all information is societally desirable. In fAct, much of what the Internet serves to disseminate is demonstrably criminal. Nevertheless, in the effort to unbind the “vibrant and competitive free market” of ideas on the Internet, Congress enActed section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). 2 In essence, section 230 of the CDA grants immunity to “interActive computer service providers” 3 (ICSPs) from liability for information provided by a third party. 4 Courts have broadly applied section 230’s grant of immunity to bar plaintiffs seeking to hold ICSPs liable for third-