scholarly journals Cyberspace and Libel: A Dangerous Balance for Physicians

10.2196/22271 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e22271
Author(s):  
Varsha Chiruvella ◽  
Achuta Kumar Guddati
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Media Access ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Early American ◽  
Online Presence

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the core tenets of modern societies. It was deemed to be so fundamentally essential to early American life that it was inscribed as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the past century, the rise of modern life also marked the rise of the digital era and age of social media. Freedom of speech thus transitioned from print to electronic media. Access to such content is almost instantaneous and available to a vast audience. From social media to online rating websites, online defamation may cause irreparable damage to a physician’s reputation and practice. It is especially relevant in these times of political turbulence where the battle to separate facts from misinformation has started a debate about the responsibility of social media. The historical context of libel and its applicability in the age of increasing online presence is important for physicians since they are also bound by duty to protect the privacy of their patients. The use of public rating sites and social media will continue to be important for physicians, as online presence and incidents of defamation impact the practice of medicine.

scholarly journals Cyberspace and Libel: A Dangerous Balance for Physicians (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varsha Chiruvella ◽  
Achuta Kumar Guddati
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Media Access ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Early American ◽  
Online Presence

UNSTRUCTURED Freedom of speech and expression is one of the core tenets of modern societies. It was deemed to be so fundamentally essential to early American life that it was inscribed as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the past century, the rise of modern life also marked the rise of the digital era and age of social media. Freedom of speech thus transitioned from print to electronic media. Access to such content is almost instantaneous and available to a vast audience. From social media to online rating websites, online defamation may cause irreparable damage to a physician’s reputation and practice. It is especially relevant in these times of political turbulence where the battle to separate facts from misinformation has started a debate about the responsibility of social media. The historical context of libel and its applicability in the age of increasing online presence is important for physicians since they are also bound by duty to protect the privacy of their patients. The use of public rating sites and social media will continue to be important for physicians, as online presence and incidents of defamation impact the practice of medicine.

“[T]his most unnecessary, unjust, and disgraceful war”

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 82-103
Author(s):  
Juhani Rudanko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
War Of 1812 ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
The Face ◽  
Federalist Party

This article focuses on face-threatening attacks on the Madison Administration during the War of 1812. The discussion is framed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the language of the Amendment protecting freedom of speech, and also by the Sedition Act of 1798, which, if it had been made permanent, would have seriously curtailed freedom of speech. The War of 1812 was intensely unpopular among members of the Federalist Party, and their newspapers did not shy away from criticising it. This article investigates writings published in the Boston Gazette and the Connecticut Mirror during the war. It is shown that the criticism took different forms, ranging from accusing President Madison of “untruths” to painting a picture of what was claimed to be the unmitigated hopelessness of his position, both nationally and internationally, and that the criticism also included harsh personal attacks on his character and motives. It is suggested that some of the attacks may be characterised as exhibiting aggravated impoliteness. The article also considers President Madison’s attitude in the face of the attacks.

scholarly journals Freedom of speech and access to technology: a case study of the 2011 BART CELL PHONE SERVICE shutdown

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwon Bang
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Cell Phone ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Bay Area ◽  
Phone Service ◽  
Subway Stations

This study explores the online public sphere’s response to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)’s decision to shut down cell phone service in select subway stations for three hours in August 2011 to prevent a rumoured protest from taking place. Through an in-depth discourse analysis of popular user comments in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Huffington Post, this research examines the informal social construction process of the meaning of freedom of speech and identifies salient themes and discourses surrounding freedom of speech in technologically mediated communication. The findings reveal that the online public sphere is starkly divided in many aspects in its understanding of freedom of speech outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and what constitutes its violation. Moreover, a careful examination of the discussion threads suggests that the presence of cell phones does not alter the public’s existing understanding of freedom of speech.

Habeas Corpus in Wartime

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
Early American ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Historical Resources

Habeas Corpus in Wartime unearths and presents a comprehensive account of the legal and political history of habeas corpus in wartime in the Anglo-American legal tradition. The book begins by tracing the origins of the habeas privilege in English law, giving special attention to the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which limited the scope of executive detention and used the machinery of the English courts to enforce its terms. It also explores the circumstances that led Parliament to invent the concept of suspension as a tool for setting aside the protections of the Habeas Corpus Act in wartime. Turning to the United States, the book highlights how the English suspension framework greatly influenced the development of early American habeas law before and after the American Revolution and during the Founding period, when the United States Constitution enshrined a habeas privilege in its Suspension Clause. The book then chronicles the story of the habeas privilege and suspension over the course of American history, giving special attention to the Civil War period. The final chapters explore how the challenges posed by modern warfare during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have placed great strain on the previously well-settled understanding of the role of the habeas privilege and suspension in American constitutional law. Throughout, the book draws upon a wealth of original and heretofore untapped historical resources to shed light on the purpose and role of the Suspension Clause in the United States Constitution, revealing all along that many of the questions that arise today regarding the scope of executive power to arrest and detain in wartime are not new ones.

The Process of Constitutional Amendment: Law, History, and Politics

1986 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 16-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Dellinger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Constitutional System

The first part of the seminar examined a mystery that reverberates through two centuries: how does a constitutional system of government, itself born of revolution, properly provide for its own revision — provide literally for its own reconstitution? We first considered the political and intellectual assumptions against which Article V of the United States Constitution — the amendment article — was drafted, and then looked briskly at the historical context in which the Constitution's twenty-six amendments have been adopted. With this as background, we addressed a range of issues concerning the law and policy of constitutional change that are currently the subject of lively dispute in America.

scholarly journals Freedom of speech and access to technology: a case study of the 2011 BART CELL PHONE SERVICE shutdown

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwon Bang
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Cell Phone ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Bay Area ◽  
Phone Service ◽  
Subway Stations

This study explores the online public sphere’s response to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)’s decision to shut down cell phone service in select subway stations for three hours in August 2011 to prevent a rumoured protest from taking place. Through an in-depth discourse analysis of popular user comments in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Huffington Post, this research examines the informal social construction process of the meaning of freedom of speech and identifies salient themes and discourses surrounding freedom of speech in technologically mediated communication. The findings reveal that the online public sphere is starkly divided in many aspects in its understanding of freedom of speech outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and what constitutes its violation. Moreover, a careful examination of the discussion threads suggests that the presence of cell phones does not alter the public’s existing understanding of freedom of speech.

Words, Wounds, and Relationships: Why Social Ties Matter to Free Speech in High-Conflict Protests

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-258
Author(s):  
P. Brooks Fuller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Social Ties ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
High Conflict ◽  
Abortion Clinic ◽  
Analytical Frameworks

Under settled First Amendment doctrine, true threats and incitement to violence fall clearly outside the protection of the United States Constitution. However, the line between violent speech and protected political hyperbole is exceedingly blurry, especially in high-conflict protest environments. This study complements doctrinal analysis with an ethnographic field study of abortion clinic protests in the Southern United States to test assumptions about speech, harm, and political discourse. It recommends that courts modify the analytical frameworks for true threats and incitement to better capture the layers of social and historical context that create social and rhetorical meaning amid political conflict.

Church and State in the Early Republic: The Covenanters' Radical Critique

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-501
Author(s):  
Robert Emery
Keyword(s):  
Early Republic ◽  
Church And State ◽  
World View ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Early National Period ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
American Citizen ◽  
Constitutional Regime

Constitutional scholars pay particular attention to the historical context of the First Amendment, to the relationship between the state and religion in the early republic. Missing from this academic examination of church-state history, however, is any serious consideration of the views of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, popularly known as the Covenanters, views that challenged the fundamental presuppositions of the United States Constitution, both as established in the early national period and as applied today. A typical modern American, citizen or scholar, cannot help but be startled by a coherent, closely reasoned body of doctrine that trenchantly criticizes such fundamental American assumptions as government by consent of the governed or the free exercise of religion. Covenanter criticism of the church-state relations not only presents a model of church and state radically different from today's conventional American theories, but also throws light on the American paradigm as it existed during its developmental period. Reformed Presbyterians of the early republic criticized the federal Constitution from a world view so radically different from that of the founders that their criticisms highlight aspects of the generally accepted constitutional regime in ways that conventional constitutional scholars have scarcely considered.

scholarly journals Ethical Principles on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Developed and Developing Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Alim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, obstructing the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering peoples assembling rights in a peaceful manner or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental remedy of grievances. The guarantees of this Bill of Rights were subject to the limitation imposed by the free speech and press provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court and other courts. The United States and India are the largest democratic country and almost have similar free speech provisions in their Constitutions. This Article is intended to present the free speech provisions of the American and Indian Constitution as a basic fundamental right of human being. It is also to be examined that what is the role of Supreme Court in interpreting the freedom of speech and expression provisions. The study also tries to incorporate the comparison between the looms of both countries as far as freedom of speech is disturbed.

scholarly journals Erecting a Virtual Schoolhouse Gate

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-89
Author(s):  
Maryam Ahranjani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Interest In Technology

The very first amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech. While the Supreme Court held in 1969 that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” since then the Court has limited students' freedom of speech, stopping short of considering the boundaries of off-campus, online speech. Lower court holdings vary, meaning that a student engaging in certain online speech may not be punished at all in one state but would face harsh criminal punishments in another. The lack of a uniform standard leads to dangerously inconsistent punishments and poses the ultimate threat to constitutional knowledge and citizenship exercise: chilling of speech. Recent interest in technology-related cases and the presence of a new justice may reverse the Court's prior unwillingness to address this issue. In the meantime, this chapter argues that school districts should erect a virtual schoolhouse gate by implementing a uniform standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document