Is implementing the EU data protection directive in the United States irreconcilable with the first amendment?

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane E. Kirtley
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEBASTIAAN PRINCEN

This article analyses the conditions under which a race to the top or California effect is likely to take place. To that end, it examines two cases in which the EU restricted or threatened to restrict imports from the United States and Canada because of differences in regulatory standards. In one case, the European data protection directive, a California effect occurred. In the other case, the EU ban on hormone-treated beef, no California effect occurred. An analysis of these two cases leads to two additions to existing explanations of the California effect. The analysis also has a number of implications for the debate on the race to the bottom thesis.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205-256
Author(s):  
Oscar H. Gandy Jr.

This chapter is focused on the need for and the likely problems to be encountered as we pursue a regulatory response, especially through the traditional framework for thinking about privacy and data protection. This regulatory framework is characterized through a consideration of an evolving tradition beginning with the contributions that were made by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in 1890. Other perspectives, including those of Edward Bloustein, which suggested the importance of dignity and other intangible injuries are explored. Links between privacy interests and interests in intellectual property emerged within legislative and regulatory concerns being raised about rights to information. Of particular importance are struggles over information rights as they apply to individuals and rights claimed by corporate actors, including those rights being claimed by corporate pursuit of First Amendment, or speech, rights. Distinctions are also drawn in this chapter between rights sought as defenses against actions taken by corporate actors versus those of governmental actors, given the fact that the First Amendment as a constraint applies only to agencies of government. A variety of specific cases and continuing struggles within the legal and regulatory environment are described, and due note is taken of the increasing influence of a neoliberal framing of a “marketplace solution” as the appropriate solution for conflicts over informational rights. The chapter concludes with a discussion of “Fair Information Practices” as a strategy for assigning oversight responsibility for informational regulation to a government agency. While there was expression of hope and desire for a governmental agency focused solely on privacy-related concerns, the creation of such an agency in the United States was not forthcoming.


Author(s):  
Katherine Carté Engel

The very term ‘Dissenter’ became problematic in the United States, following the passing of the First Amendment. The formal separation of Church and state embodied in the First Amendment was followed by the ending of state-level tax support for churches. None of the states established after 1792 had formal religious establishments. Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists accounted for the majority of the American population both at the beginning and end of this period, but this simple fact masks an important compositional shift. While the denominations of Old Dissent declined relatively, Methodism grew quickly, representing a third of the population by 1850. Dissenters thus faced several different challenges. Primary among these were how to understand the idea of ‘denomination’ and also the more general role of institutional religion in a post-establishment society. Concerns about missions, and the positions of women and African Americans are best understood within this context.


Author(s):  
Steven L Schwarcz

Securitisation represents a significant worldwide source of capital market financing. European investors commonly invest in asset-backed securities issued in U.S. securitisation transactions, and vice versa One of the key goals of the European Commission's proposed Capital Markets Union (CMU) is to further facilitate securitisation as a source of capital market financing as a viable alternative to bank-based finance for companies operating in the EU. To that end, this chapter explains securitisation and attempts to put its rise, its decline after the global financial crisis, and its recent CMU-inspired revival into a global perspective. It examines not only securitisation's relationship to the financial crisis but also post-crisis comparative regulatory approaches in the EU and the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document