scholarly journals Digital Immortality vs. “The Right to be Forgotten”: A Comparison of U.S. and E.U. Laws Concerning Social Media Privacy

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cayce Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
European Union ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Personal Content ◽  
The Right

This paper examines the contrast between United States and European Union laws concerning social media users’ right to remove their online presence permanently. Currently, the United States and European Union represent two distinct approaches to the right of individuals to permanently remove personal content from social media. U.S. law favors social media companies keeping profile content within the digital sphere even when that person no longer wants it there. The European Union’s approach social media privacy gives users more rights to remove themselves entirely from social media permanently (General Data Protection Regulation, Article 17, 2012). Using Myres McDougal’s (1959) legal theory of international laws’ effect on national policy, this legal study examines the social media privacy laws of the United States and European Union concerning user control of personal content. From this analysis, future implications of this international conflict, specifically the legal delineation of public and private spheres in the 21st Century, are suggested.

Free Movement and Discrimination: Evidence from Europe, the United States, and Canada

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Good Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.

scholarly journals The Club Approach: A Gateway to Effective Climate Co-operation?

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 1071-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Hovi ◽  
Detlef F. Sprinz ◽  
Håkon Sælen ◽  
Arild Underdal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Club Good ◽  
The Right ◽  
Global Emissions

Although the Paris Agreement arguably made some progress, interest in supplementary approaches to climate change co-operation persist. This article examines the conditions under which a climate club might emerge and grow. Using agent-based simulations, it shows that even with less than a handful of major actors as initial members, a club can eventually reduce global emissions effectively. To succeed, a club must be initiated by the ‘right’ constellation of enthusiastic actors, offer sufficiently large incentives for reluctant countries and be reasonably unconstrained by conflicts between members over issues beyond climate change. A climate club is particularly likely to persist and grow if initiated by the United States and the European Union. The combination of club-good benefits and conditional commitments can produce broad participation under many conditions.

scholarly journals A RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DAS EMPRESAS GIGANTES DA INTERNET

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-186
Author(s):  
Olivera Boskovic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
General Application ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Focus Theory

Objective ”“ The article offers an original contribution to the debate about the application of substantive law and the eligible jurisdiction that should judge the liabilities disputes between the so-called Internet giants' enterprises and the users. Methodology/approach/design ”“ The article brings a bibliographical and case law review of both France and the European Union about International Private Law applicable to the liability violations made by the so-called Internet giants' enterprises. Findings ”“ The article shows a legal theory central problem, which is the best way to define both the substantive law and the jurisdiction that should judge transfrontier liabilities in legal cases. The best solution would be to apply the so-called focus theory, i.e. the application of the substantive law and the jurisdiction following the local where the damage happens. Notwithstanding, this general application of the focus theory could impose limits on the future substantive reparation that the courts may grant to the victims. Besides, such general application collides with the traditional forum selection clauses that the giant Internet firms usually use to demand that the judgment of liability lawsuits solely by the United States courts. Practical implications ”“ The article is an important introduction to the choice of substantive law and jurisdiction applicable to the liability lawsuits filed against the giant Internet enterprises. This debate has a clear practical application that will become more important as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enters in force and prescribes its transfrontier application. Originality/value ”“ The article enlightens a very important legal debate about the European Union Law that has some regulations (Rome I, Rome II, and Brussels I) to prescribe what substantive law and which jurisdiction may be of use to judge civil liability violations. This legal debate will grow in importance since the GDPR will give motives to a whole lot of new lawsuits about data protection.

scholarly journals A comparative analysis of the information duties in Belgian and American occupational pensions

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-63
Author(s):  
Marjolein Denys ◽  
David Pratt ◽  
Yves Stevens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Occupational Pension ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Right

Both the United States of America and Belgium attach great importance to communication duties in occupational pensions. Several legal sources in both countries provide the right to be informed to participants. The legislation in both countries seeks to ensure accurate, correct, transparent and understandable communication. Despite this resemblance, there are some differences in communication. The countries can learn from one another. Based on a theoretical framework developed in and for the European Union, the communication rights and duties in the USA and Belgium are analysed. This analysis leads to a better understanding of the different legal responsibilities, transparency rules, simplification efforts and technical correctness of the types of occupational pension information analyzed.

Legality of the Parody Exception in Light of International Treaties and Domestic Copyright Laws

2019 ◽  
pp. 38-69
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Step Test ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Reproduction

This chapter examines the legality of the parody exception in light of international treaties and domestic copyright laws. More specifically, it considers whether the parody exception may only be introduced into national copyright law if it satisfies the three-step test enshrined in international treaties. The chapter first traces the history and evolution of copyright law before explaining whether copyright law requires a specific parody exception and why a specific parody exception rectifies the balance between right-holders, users, and subsequent authors. It then discusses the three-step test, first incorporated into the Berne Convention to protect the ‘right of reproduction’, and its adoption in European Union texts and national legislations. It also outlines the differing interpretations of the three-step test and concludes with an analysis of whether the current parody exceptions in each of the five jurisdictions (France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom) comply with this test.

When Public Opinion Does Not Shape Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
pp. 105-127
Author(s):  
Scott Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right

President Eisenhower easily swept to victory in 1956, defeating Adlai Stevenson, whom he had also beaten in 1952, despite crises and wars that had suddenly flared in Hungary and Egypt. When the events of 1956 are examined through public and private records, the president’s response to these crises appears to confirm his claim that he would not allow policy making to be hostage to the wishes of the public. Instead, he made clear time and again that he would proceed with what he thought was the “right” course for US interests, irrespective of the American public’s reaction to the policy or to his reelection campaign. At the same time, he was ready to invoke public opinion in the United States and throughout the world to try and bend other statesmen to his will.

Immigration Policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 370-390
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Tichenor ◽  
Kathryn Miller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
States Immigration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Immigration Reforms ◽  
The Right

Although the United States is a nation shaped by vast waves of immigration over time, Americans have been fighting over policies governing immigrant admissions and rights since the earliest days of the republic. Rival nativist and pro-immigration movements and traditions have yielded marked shifts across U.S. history among national policies designed to stimulate or discourage immigration. The federal government only gradually took control of regulating immigrant flows over the course of the nineteenth century. Since then, national policy has assumed both restrictive and expansive forms. Whereas the creation of an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and national origins quotas in the 1920s imposed draconian barriers to immigration, immigration reforms after 1965 helped fuel the nation’s fourth major wave of immigration dominated by unprecedented numbers of Latin American and Asian newcomers. As underscored by recent battles over family separation and efforts to build a southern border wall, the politics of immigration reform today, as in the past, remain deeply polarizing, as border hawks on the Right and immigrant rights advocates on the Left clash over unauthorized immigration and the future of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country. The United States’ immigration policy will continue to reflect these competing interests and ideals.

scholarly journals Differences Between Europe and the United States on AI/Digital Policy: Comment Response to Roundtable Discussion on AI

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 247028972090710
Author(s):  
Pierre-Antoine Gourraud ◽  
Francoise Simon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Individual Health ◽  
General Data

For AI policy, there are significant differences between Europe and the United States. The General Data Protection Regulation, which applies not only to European Union companies but also to all American companies with European customers, is more protective than health insurance portability and accountability act for individual health data. Its Article 22 stipulates that citizens cannot be submitted to medical decisions generated by an automated source.

Public Beliefs about Falsehoods in News

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Koc-Michalska ◽  
Bruce Bimber ◽  
Daniel Gomez ◽  
Matthew Jenkins ◽  
Shelley Boulianne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Beliefs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
The Right ◽  
News Use

The circulation of misinformation, lies, propaganda, and other kinds of falsehood has, to varying degrees, become a challenge to democratic publics. We are interested in the question of what publics believe about their own exposure to falsehoods in news, and about what contributes to similarities and differences in these beliefs across countries. We are also interested in the question of whether publics report attempting to verify news that is suspect to them. Here we report on a comparative election survey in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. We find three key predictors of publics’ beliefs that they have been exposed to falsehoods: discussion of news, use of social media for political purposes, and exposure to counter-attitudinal information. The nexus between these three predictors and beliefs about falsehoods exists in all three countries, as we anticipate that it likely exists elsewhere. We do not find voters on the right to be different from those on the left in the United Kingdom and France, but do find a substantial difference in the United States, which is likely due to the 2016 Trump campaign. We conclude with concerns about the imbalance in beliefs about exposure to falsehoods in the United States and the apparent capacity of a single leader, in the right context, to shape public beliefs about what is to be believed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document