scholarly journals Anomalies in the US Cyberbullying Jurisprudence

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Pongó
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right

This article focused on US case law and analyzed the evolution of students’ freedom of speech from 1969 to this date in the US. Therefore, it briefly introduced the tests and doctrines, which were created in the landmark cases of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), noting that these cases were dealing with offline, on-campus situations and their determinations are not necessarily fully applicable to situations we might experience today. Nevertheless, the tests and doctrines, which were created in SCOTUS landmark decisions, are still in force and every cyberbullying judgment is still based on them even in the era of the Internet. Taking into consideration that the world has changed since these tests were established, I examined some more recent cyberbullying cases in the US, where these above tests were applied.Based on the analysis of SCOTUS and some Circuit Court jurisprudence, Certain anomalies were revealed, which serve as a basis to clearly state that the US system suffers from severe deficiencies, like handling the off-campus origin of the speech, or defining the substantial disruption or the sufficient nexus. However, the US courts have worked out tests and doctrines as a basis for their cyberbullying jurisprudence, so they are on the right track, but the jurisprudence will remain ambiguous and unpredictable without a SCOTUS landmark decision regarding cyberbullying.

Constitutional Law in 1942–1943: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1942

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
West Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

On February 15, 1943, Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the resignation in October, 1942, of Mr. Justice Byrnes. There were no other changes in the Court's personnel. Disagreement among the justices abated somewhat. In only a dozen cases of importance did either four or three justices dissent, as against some thirty cases in the last term. The Court overruled two earlier decisions, both recent; and the reversal in each case was made possible by the vote of Mr. Justice Rutledge.A. QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL POWER1. WAR POWER-CIVIL VERSUS MILITARY AUTHORITYWest Coast Curfew Applied to Japanese-American Citizens. In February, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded and with respect to which the right of persons to enter, remain in, or leave should be subject to such regulations as the military authorities might prescribe. On March 2, the entire West Coast to an average depth of forty miles was set up as Military Area No. 1 by the Commanding General in that area, and the intention was announced to evacuate from it persons of suspected loyalty, alien enemies, and all persons, aliens and citizens alike, of Japanese ancestry.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

Freedom of Communication in the US and Europe

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Tenorio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us

AbstractThis paper compares the freedom of communication in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, departing from the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is noted that there are differences, as specified herein. Regulatory texts invite to speak of two distinct models, though this may be a far-fetched statement. This paper makes the following concluding remarks: 1) There are many concepts of freedom of expression that are compatible with democracy; the one derived from the Sullivan Judgment in the US (and in Europe from the Lingens Judgment) is not the only one, although it is currently considered the most consist­ent with democracy. This point is not discussed here. 2) Major changes sometimes occur through seemingly small details. In this sense, the shift of the burden of proof in defama­tion cases (Sullivan) has created an earthquake in the legal regime governing the press. The Sullivan doctrine can be summarized as follows: first, errors are inevitable, as freedom of speech requires ‘breathing room’; second, the malice of those accused of defamation must be proven; third, it is necessary to prove the lack of veracity of the slanderer. This doctrine allows the press to play its role as the watchdog of freedom. 3) In Spain, the press also appears to play this role, thus requiring us to ask whether there is, or ever was, a Sullivan Judgment in Spanish jurisprudence. We tend to attribute the privileged position of the press in Spain to the fact that the Constitutional Court has given preferential consid­eration to freedom of speech when it is in conflict with honor, intimacy and self-image privacy. This preference is justified by its connection to democracy. Since the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (STC hereafter) 6/1981 of 16 March, the Spanish Consti­tutional Court has stressed the importance of freedom of information for democracy, and since the STC 159/1986 of 16 December, the Constitutional Court has suggested the pref­erential position of freedom of expression. However, the incorporation of the Sullivan doc­trine into the Spanish system occurred through STC 6/1988 of 21 January, almost ten years after the passage of the Constitution into law.

scholarly journals The Politics of ‘Dolphin-Safe’ Tuna in the United States: Policy Change and Reversal, Lock-in and Adjustment to International Constraints (1984–2017)

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
RODRIGO FAGUNDES CEZAR
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Process Tracing ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right ◽  
Lock In ◽  
Tracing Method

AbstractRecently, the World Trade Organization (WTO) granted Mexico the right to retaliate against the US as a compensation for losses related to the US ‘dolphin-safe’ label (May 2017). Despite the diversity of works on the issue, few analyze the changes in the US approach to dolphin protection as a result of international and domestic pressures related to the tuna–dolphin controversy. This paper seeks to understand such changes and their consequences using the process tracing method. It shows that (1) the US approach to dolphin protection passed through a process of policy change motivated by trade and diplomatic concerns mediating dolphin protection, and that (2) it was partially reversed in court as an outcome of the concessions offered to get the policy change approved. Finally, the paper argues that (3) this process led to the lock-in of the US ‘dolphin-safe’ label and to its expansion in response to recent WTO decisions.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression in the US Constitution: Formation and Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
O. V. Sendetskaya
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right

The essence of such rights as the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of speech has been analyzed. Based on the United States regulations, the author has compared approaches to understanding and interpreting freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has been studied as one of the dominant values of constitutionalism, a precondition for democracy and the rule of law. Historical aspects of the formulation of the right to freedom of speech in the United States of America, as well as its consistent regulatory enshrinement and interpretation have been analyzed. Different approaches to the constitutional proclamation of the freedom of speech have been researched and the optimal formulation of the said law has been clarified. Particular attention has been paid to the differences between American and European concepts of freedom of expression, and fundamentally different points in its understanding. The importance of banning the oppression of freedom of expression for the development of a democratic society and the market for ideas has been substantiated. Particular attention has been paid to the study of the formation and development of these rights under US law and their enactment. Based on a comparison of American and Ukrainian options for guaranteeing this right, their advantages and disadvantages have been highlighted, which may assist in gaining positive experience for Ukraine. The author has made conclusions regarding the higher level of guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the practice of the United States, although these rights are more detail enshrined in Ukrainian law. The author has argued in favor of the fact that Ukraine should take into account the American approach to the protection of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, as well as to establish a mechanism for their observance as fundamental personal human and civil rights.

scholarly journals A First Amendment Right to Corrupt Your Politician

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Temchenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Association ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Right To Buy

103 Cornell L. Rev. 465 (2018) Are you dealing with state or federal agencies, to no avail? Do you need someone on top to advocate for you? You may have a right to buy your Governor’s help. It is well-established that the Constitution protects the right of political association, which includes contributions to candidates in return for ingratiation and access. Nonetheless, courts and scholars have generally limited this right to contributions to campaigns for public office. After McDonnell v. United States, that may change. Reading the McDonnell opinion in light of McCutcheon, this Note and other commentators conclude that the Supreme Court may have inadvertently created a First Amendment right to buy a politician’s influence, favor, and advocacy even outside the campaign finance setting. Undoubtedly, to the general public this must appear as nothing other than a First Amendment right to bribery. Yet this right has already been articulated in courts and has the support of at least one U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. These findings suggest that Congress may no longer be able to criminalize certain types of corruption. Some courts have begun to reverse convictions and invalidate parts of existing anti-corruption statutes. While the impact of the First Amendment right remains unclear, the dismantling of the United States’ anti-corruption framework may already have begun.

Sex Differences in Mass Media Preferences Across Four Asian Countries

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 186-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malini Ratnasingam ◽  
Lee Ellis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
The United States ◽  
Female Students ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
The World ◽  
Media Preferences

Background. Nearly all of the research on sex differences in mass media utilization has been based on samples from the United States and a few other Western countries. Aim. The present study examines sex differences in mass media utilization in four Asian countries (Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Singapore). Methods. College students self-reported the frequency with which they accessed the following five mass media outlets: television dramas, televised news and documentaries, music, newspapers and magazines, and the Internet. Results. Two significant sex differences were found when participants from the four countries were considered as a whole: Women watched television dramas more than did men; and in Japan, female students listened to music more than did their male counterparts. Limitations. A wider array of mass media outlets could have been explored. Conclusions. Findings were largely consistent with results from studies conducted elsewhere in the world, particularly regarding sex differences in television drama viewing. A neurohormonal evolutionary explanation is offered for the basic findings.

Systematic Government Access to Private-Sector Data in the United States II

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred H. Cate ◽  
Beth E. Cate
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Sector Data

This chapter covers the US Supreme Court’s position on access to private-sector data in the United States. Indeed, the Supreme Court has written a great deal about “privacy” in a wide variety of contexts. These include what constitutes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution; privacy rights implicit in, and also in tension with, the First Amendment and freedom of expression; privacy rights the Court has found implied in the Constitution that protect the rights of adults to make decisions about activities such as reproduction, contraception, and the education of their children; and the application of the two privacy exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

The connection between the «color revolutions» and the strategic doctrines of the United States (late 20th century — 2014)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Igorevna Filimonova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
The Us ◽  
Color Revolutions ◽  
The Right

After the collapse of the USSR, fundamentally new phenomena appeared on the world arena, which became a watershed separating the bipolar order from the monopolar order associated with the establishment of the US global hegemony. Such phenomena were the events that are most often called «revolutions» in connection with the scale of the changes being made — «velvet revolutions» in the former Eastern Bloc, as well as revolutions of a different type, which ended in a change in the current regimes with such serious consequences that we are also talking about revolutionary transformations. These are technologies of «color revolutions» that allow organizing artificial and seemingly spontaneous mass protests leading to the removal of the legitimate government operating in the country and, in fact, to the seizure of power by a pro-American forces that ensure the Westernization of the country and the implementation of "neoliberal modernization", which essentially means the opening of national markets and the provision of natural resources for the undivided use of the Western factor (TNC and TNB). «Color revolutions» are inseparable from the strategic documents of the United States, in which, from the end of the 20th century, even before the collapse of the USSR, two main tendencies were clearly traced: the expansion of the right to unilateral use of force up to a preemptive strike, which is inextricably linked with the ideological justification of «missionary» American foreign policy, and the right to «assess» the internal state of affairs in countries and change it to a «democratic format», that is, «democratization». «Color revolutions», although they are not directly mentioned in strategic documents, but, being a «technical package of actions», straightforwardly follow from the right, assigned to itself by Washington, to unilateral use of force, which is gradually expanding from exclusively military actions to a comprehensive impact on an opponent country, i.e. essentially a hybrid war. Thus, the «color revolutions» clearly fit into the strategic concept of Washington on the use of force across the entire spectrum (conventional and unconventional war) under the pretext of «democratization». The article examines the period of registration and expansion of the US right to use force (which, according to the current international law, is a crime without a statute of limitations) in the time interval from the end of the twentieth century until 2014, filling semantic content about the need for «democratic transformations» of other states, with which the United States approached the key point of the events of the «Arab spring» and «color revolutions» in the post-Soviet space, the last and most ambitious of which was the «Euromaidan» in Ukraine in 2014. The article presents the material for the preparation of lectures and seminars in the framework of the training fields «International Relations» and «Political Science».

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document