A Review of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)
by Heather Branch | April 23, 2012 | Other | No Comments
A Review of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/review-of-cyber-intelligence-sharing.html
ISP Speaker Series – Laura Handman
by Heather Branch | April 19, 2012 | Other | No Comments
You are cordially invited to the Thomson Reuters ISP Speaker Series scheduled for ***Monday, April 23, at 12:00 p.m. in Room 122. This week , the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression will be bringing us, Laura Handman, partner and co-chair of the appellate practice at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, concentrates on media and intellectual property law will discuss “DESTINATION DEFAMATION:THE RISE AND FALL (?) OF LIBEL TOURISM”.
DESTINATION DEFAMATION:THE RISE AND FALL (?) OF LIBEL TOURISM
Abstract:
What do Cameron Diaz, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Brittney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and Roman Polanski all have in common? No, not the same agent. They all sued U.S. publications in Ireland or the U.K. Thanks to U.S. celebrities, along with Russian oligarchs and Saudi businessmen accused of financing terrorism, London has become known as “The Town Named Sue.” Why did they all choose to sue far away from where they lived and worked, far away from where their reputations were centered and would be most harmed, far away from their regular counsel, in a place where the circulation was minimal at best?
Find out why from the lawyer who led the latter day American Revolution against British libel law, helping to get the first – and only – two decisions by U.S. courts to refuse to enforce British libel judgments. These decisions, 9/11 and the arrival of the Internet laid the groundwork for the passage – by unanimous vote of Congress – of the 2010 SPEECH Act, which prohibits a court in the U.S., state or federal, from enforcing foreign libel judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment, due process, or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The SPEECH Act has also prompted a movement of reform of British libel law with the introduction of the Defamation Bill and a recent Supreme Court decision, bringing British libel law much closer to its American off-spring.
Bio:
Laura Handman, partner and co-chair of the appellate practice at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, concentrates on media and intellectual property law. She provides pre-publication counseling and litigation services from complaint through trial and appeal to U.S. and foreign broadcasters, film studios, and book, magazine, newspaper and Internet publishers. Laura has extensive experience in libel, news gathering, privacy, reporter’s privilege and First Amendment matters and has served as an expert on American libel law in actions in England, Northern Ireland and Australia. She brings recognized expertise to clients copyright and trademark litigation and was appointed a special master in S.D.N.Y. to review advertising and promotion in a civil fraud action.
Laura’s clients include: Amazon.com, Associated Newspapers, Atlantic Media Company, Center for American Progress, China Central Television (CCTV), CNN, Discovery Communications, Dow Jones, The Economist, HarperCollins, Hearst Corporation, The New York Daily News, New York Post, National Public Radio (NPR), Random House, U.S. News & World Report, and Yale Alumni Magazine.
ISP Thomson Reuters Speaker – Dov Fox
by Heather Branch | April 18, 2012 | Other | 2 Comments
Dear ISP friends:
You are cordially invited to the Thomson Reuters ISP Speaker Series scheduled for Friday, April 20, at 12:00 p.m. in Room 120. This week, we will be joined by Dov Fox, Academic Law Research Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center. The title of his talk is Compelling Interest Specification: The State’s Interest in Potential Life.
Compelling Interest Specification: The State’s Interest in Potential Life
ABSTRACT
Courts rarely explain what they mean by abstract government interests, such as national security, political corruption, and educational diversity. Yet their designation as compelling interests authorizes the state to vindicate them in otherwise unconstitutional ways that override fundamental rights or classify on suspect grounds. By collapsing within these ill-defined compelling interests the constellation of more particular government concerns that comprise them, courts obscure their richness of constitutional meaning, erode interpretive consistency in their application across contexts, and distort determinations of whether regulations defended in their name are related in the required way to sufficiently worthy objectives. The pervasive failure to define these compelling interests generates a predictably disjointed fundamental rights jurisprudence. The primacy of rights discourse among judges and scholars has until now crowded out alertness to this compelling interest underspecification problem.
In this talk, I try to present a new way of thinking about compelling interests. I argue that judicial reliance on underspecified, compelling interests should be abolished from constitutional analysis and redefined in a manner precise enough to capture the concerns that a challenged state action seeks to address. My argument for compelling interest specification proceeds with special reference to the state’s interest in “potential life.” I develop a novel conceptual framework that finds implicit in the way that courts talk about that interest, not one but five distinct types of interests, bundled indiscriminately as a monolithic justification to regulate a diverse range of reproductive conduct including when, why, and how people have children. I show that just one among these five interest-types is, in fact, an interest in potential life at all and that the other four vary in their regulatory logic and constitutional strength.
My analysis of the state’s interest in potential life makes four principal contributions. It explains doctrinal puzzles such as why a woman can be held liable for harming a fetus that she is entitled to destroy; helps to resolve practical disputes about laws that regulate research, selection, and disposal of fetuses and embryos; supplies a vocabulary with which judges, lawmakers, and advocates can reason in more precise and convincing ways about the state’s interest in potential life; and lays the conceptual groundwork for a comprehensive theory of compelling interest specification.
BIOGRAPHY
Dov Fox is currently an Academic Law Research Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center, before which he clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He received his A.B. from Harvard, D.Phil. in Political Theory from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and J.D. from Yale as a Soros Fellow for New Americans. Fox served as Lecturer in Politics and Philosophy while at Oxford, and twice received teaching prizes at Yale for a course that he designed on Bioethics and the Law. His primary teaching interests lie in evidence, criminal law, intellectual property, and administrative law. During law school, Fox served as Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law and gave invited talks at law conferences in the U.S. and abroad. His research uses analytic methods to consider the ways in which society’s embrace of emerging technologies recasts our best understandings of legal principles and practices. Fox was three times named by the Yale Law School faculty as winner of the Margaret Gruter Prize for the best student paper in law and the biosciences, and his scholarship has been awarded the National Family Law Grand Prize and Burton H. Brody Prize on Constitutional Privacy. His articles on antidiscrimination law, criminal procedure, and food and drug administration have appeared in publications including the Yale Law Journal, Utah Law Review, Michigan State Law Review, Akron Law Review, American Journal of Criminal Law, Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, and American Journal of Law & Medicine.
Connect with the Yale ISP
yaleisp.org search
Recent Posts
- is #ACTA unconstitutional? Find out what members of the ISP, including @MargotKaminski, think here: http://t.co/HlAfBsxq
- .@jackbalkin : most people teaching constitutional law thought the challenge to the mandate was (technical term) batshit crazy
- RT @ipjustice: EU Commissioner for Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes: “We are now likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA.” http ...
- .@jackbalkin says we passed the penalty version of health care because Teddy Kennedy died, instead of a tax
- Dean post tells us to eat our broccoli because we're about to talk healthcare...
- surreptitioud Tweeting from the Yale law alumni lunch on health care. Yum tilapia
- RT @DanielBrenton: RT @OnwardJustia Justia guest columnist & @YaleISP fellow @anjalidalal looks at why #CISPA is not the solution ht ...
- Year-end party! I like burgers and beer.
- .@anjalidalal at generalassemb.ly triggers debate over why some file-storage sites—eg, iCloud—state in TOS they may pre-screen user uploads.
- "Not once, but twice, vessel hulls appear on the screen today." - @wseltzer & @margotkaminski build audience excitement by discussing §1301.
Flickr Photos
|
