5450 research outputs found
Sort by
Neil Cohen’s Contribution to Uniform Secured Finance Law
Get PDFThis Article discusses Neil Cohen’s contribution to uniform secured finance law and, in particular, to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. It does so by focusing on the misgivings Neil Cohen had expressed before, and his reflections on those misgivings after, the preparation of the Model Law. The discussion presents Neil Cohen as is generally known, as a distinguished scholar, but also as he is known to his friends and colleagues, as a person with rare qualities
Navigating Name, Image, and Likeness Policy in College Athletics – Issues and Solutions
Get PDFCollege athletics, specifically the NCAA, has faced legal challenges throughout its history. In the wake of Alston and other Supreme Court decisions regarding antitrust violations tied to student-athlete benefits, many states proposed and passed laws explicitly allowing student-athletes at NCAA institutions to utilize their names, images, and likenesses for commercial purposes. With the state laws in direct conflict with NCAA rules, college sports entered an era of extreme uncertainty. While the NCAA attempts to maintain its grip on the commercial endeavors of student-athletes and member institutions, states and society are pushing a free market agenda geared towards liberalizing the economic opportunities granted. However, operating as a free market while also subject to NCAA rules results in an environment of confusion, risk, and detrimental consequences. Student-athletes and schools must be cognizant of conflicting laws and rules, the NCAA must learn from past antitrust violations, and college athletics must adjust to a new normal. Although many benefits arise from the new opportunities granted to student-athletes, there is a necessity for a clear understanding and uniformity of laws and rules to fully seize the benefits. Therefore, this Note analyzes the history of college athletics, the common law rules produced by past litigation, and proposes uniform legislative action to combat future harm
Social Media Vigilantism
Get PDFOne of the most well-reported consequences of the #MeToo movement is the ramifications it has had for powerful men accused of engaging in sexual assault or harassment. As part of telling their stories, women (and some men) named their abusers, leading, in some cases, to their alleged abusers suffering legal repercussions. But, much more commonly, legal repercussions never follow, often due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the crimes committed by the abuser. Instead, social or employment consequences were the only negative impact felt by these abusers. Still, the backlash against #MeToo includes the complaint that these men were being punished outside the law and, therefore, without due process. #MeToo has been accused of being a vigilante movement, though one that arose out of a legal system that is unable or unwilling to prosecute these men for their criminal acts. #MeToo has also experienced a backlash like many vigilante movements, as well as retribution from those it exposes. This article examines vigilantism generally, and social media vigilantism specifically, to determine whether #MeToo should be characterized as a vigilante movement and, if so how #MeToo can escape the backlash to propel stable and systemic legal change going forward
Public Participation in the Constitution-Making Process: The Afghan Experiment
Get PDFThis Article explores the public participation process conducted during the drafting of Afghanistan’s 2004 Constitution. It examines scores of questionnaires, public comments, written submissions and minutes of town hall meetings that the framers used to gather public opinion and input. The Article highlights that the makers of the 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan designed and implemented an extensive public participation process, but public opinion did not have a real impact on constitutional outcomes. Instead, the content of the constitution was settled by the political elites whose agreement was needed for constitutional ratification. Drawing on this case study, the paper suggests that in post-conflict, unsteady political environments—where elite “buy-in” and agreement is indispensable for successful constitution- making—framers may decide which aspects of the constitution could be made available for public input and comment, and what elements of the constitution should be reserved for elite bargaining and compromise. This approach to public participation in post-conflict constitution-making, the Article indicates, may be productive for two key reasons: (1) conflict-ridden environments usually lack the prerequisites – such as resources and tools, the required outreach, civic education and public awareness – that can facilitate effective and meaningful public input; and crucially (2) extensive public participation in these contexts may endanger elite “buy-in” and agreement among the politically powerful actors, agreement of the type essential for successful constitution-making
How (Not) To deal with the Bubble Effect in Cyberspace: The Case of the EU and Digital Services Act
Get PDFDeliberative democracies are based on an ideal process of speech and dialogue that fosters an “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” public discourse sphere. In cyberspace, social networks and search engine platforms largely operate with recommender systems that tailor content according to the users\u27 interests and online behavior (“profiling”), thus segregating them from different points of view (“bubble effect”). While this personalization of content is particularly efficient to promote commercial goods and services, when it comes to information of common interest, especially on political matters, it undermines consensus-building dialogue and threatens democratic ideals. The theory of a free “marketplace of ideas” justifies greater concern for the free flow of information of public interest and exposure to conflicting content when compared to commercial nature. This Article argues that the concept of a free “marketplace of ideas” and information of public interest cannot be treated in the same way as a marketplace of commercial and entertainment content. Unfortunately, the EU\u27s Digital Services Act (DSA) does not make this distinction and treats social networks, search engines and marketplaces in the same way. The DSA, which is expected to be revolutionary in of protecting the users\u27 fundamental rights online, only addresses the dangers of recommender systems specifically as a catalyst for the “systemic risks” posed by illegal content, and not as cause for polarization. In light of the above, this Article will only address the dangers of a lack of diversified content and information sources (“information bubbles”) to the democratic process, leaving aside the issue of illegal content or legal but harmful content being amplified by recommender systems. Particularly, this Article will assess whether this new framework complies with the applicable principles, in particular the principle of proportionality
Class of 1954 - October
No full textAigen, M. Auerbach, P. I. Auerbach, T. J. Badillo, H. Baumrind, A. Beitel, B. Bloomberg, A. L. Brecker, M. Brod, L. D. Camoia, D. N. Clark, R. S. Cusumano, G. M. Davidian, M. W. Davis, S. Denmark, B. Distefano, J. A. Dranoff, S. S. Eisenberg, W. L. Elias, F. V. Engelhardt, S. L. Esposito, J. A. Fieldman, S. G. Gelles, G. Gotteherer, D. Greenfield, G. T. Held, G. S. Herman, H. C. Kaner, M. E. Kantrowitz, W. L. Katz, M. J. Katz, S. M. Kernaghan, A. Kjellen, H. L. Korf, L. R. Ladinsky, S. Levine, W. S. Levy, A. S. Lieberman, S. Mandelbaum, S. Marcus, R. B. Marks, W. J., Jr. Mayer, M. E. Molofsky, E. Moser, S. A. Newcomb, G. C. Nichols, L. J. Panebianco, T. A. Posner, H. A. Priolo, J. S. Regan, E. J. Rennert, A. E. Rivet, P. H. Satriale, J. T. Sawyer, C. A. Scheffel, W. A. Schwartz, R. R. Scourby, N. Shaevitz, O. Sherman, P. Sherry, E. P. Silverman, D. B. Sitkoff, L. Soloway, H. J. Somer, A. Sorkowitz, H. Strassberg, L. Stumpf, M. N. Sullivan, D. J. Toell, P. R. Tomasello, C. Tracy, R. T. Turchin, N. G. Turkewitz, B. Valdes, F. A. Weiss, F. Wolfish, L.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1058/thumbnail.jp
Class of 1956 - June, Evening Section
No full textBerger, L. Berman, H. Brownstein, C. S. Carroll, F. J. Chernick, A. D. Chiaia, N. J. Codelia, E. J. Cooper, B. S. Crystal, A. A. Dessel, H. M. Deutschmeister, S. H. Douglas, J. H. Druskoff, E. Duarte, A. Edelman, M. J. Elder, P. Evans, T. L. Fogel, I. F. Fowler, G. H. Friedman, H. Gerber, S. Gettelson, J. Goldberg, S. Gorman, J. S. Gottfried, S. Handwerker, J. Hennessy, G. J. Jacobson, M. Joseph, B. S. Kahn, A. E. Kamiya, S. Karukin, J. Kass, I. Katz, H. M. Kiely, D. M. Kreindler, A. Kroog, L. E. Kurta, S. B. Lachter, G. W. Lawrence, L. A. Lipschutz, D. Maletz, H. Munro, W. D. Pappas, T. Pennet, D. Pollack, M. H. Reichel, H. I. Rivet, D. W. Roth, W. I. Rubinstein, J. Saken, L. Shank, W. M. Sherman, H. Small, A. L. Weinberger, E. F. Wenig, L. Zidel, M. L.https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bls_classphotos/1064/thumbnail.jp