University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly CommonsNot a member yet
1242 research outputs found
Sort by
The Limits of International Law in Content Moderation
Get PDFIn remarkably short order, there has been growing convergence, especially in academia and civil society, around the idea that major social media platforms should use international human rights law (IHRL) as the basis for their content moderation rules. Even platforms themselves have begun to agree. But why have these legendarily growth-obsessed companies been so quick to voluntarily say they are jumping on this bandwagon? Afterall, advocates for incorporating IHRL into content moderation governance generally envision it operating as a constraint on social media platforms’ operations. There are both encouraging and less encouraging explanations. For the glass half-full types, there is the straightforward explanation that perhaps these companies genuinely care about human rights. But there is also a less optimistic possibility: companies are embracing the terminology so readily because they know that, in reality, it will not act as much of a constraint at all. This is the prospect explored in this Article. This Article is a sympathetic critique of the contributions IHRL can make to content moderation, highlighting the very real limits of IHRL as a practical guide to what platforms should do in many, if not most, difficult cases. It surveys the many arguments in favor of IHRL as a basis for content moderation rules. Ultimately, however, it argues that failing to acknowledge the considerable limitations of IHRL in this context will only serve the interests of platforms rather than their users by giving platforms undeserved legitimacy dividends, allowing them to wrap themselves in the language of IHRL even as what is required by that body of norms remains indeterminate and contested
Solving the Pandemic Vaccine Product Liability Problem
Get PDFThe global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines is underway, and with it the inevitable occurrence of severe side effects that accompany, rarely, even the safest and most effective vaccines. Governments have invested billions of dollars in supporting research, development, logistics, and supply chains, as well as supporting the creation of networks of healthcare providers to deliver vaccines to recipients all over the world. The European Commission and several international organizations have established the COVAX Facility to pool resources in promising vaccine candidates and to subsidize their procurement by low- and middle-income countries. Yet up-front investment in vaccine development and delivery solves only half the problem with respect to vaccine access. Risks of legal liabilities, particularly product liability for severe side effects, will serve as an important, if not decisive, factor in how vaccine manufacturers participate in the response with Emergency Use Authorized and recently-licensed COVID-19 vaccines. If manufacturers do not receive sufficient assurance against legal liability, especially product liability, they will not ship vaccines. There is limited experience with developing coronavirus vaccines, and severe side effects following immunization are inevitable, as evidenced from Phase III trials and strongly suggested by early administration of Emergency Use Authorized vaccines. Therefore, there is a critical need to balance the risk calculations of manufacturers with justice for immunization recipients who become seriously ill or die in order to contribute to herd immunity in the community. This Article outlines the components of a global no-fault liability, indemnification, and compensation system that includes leveraging current no-fault systems in thirty-nine countries, a World Health Organization insurance mechanism, and a combination of insurance and compensation fund construction based on claims-processing precedents from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Boeing 737 Max crashes—both of which had tens of thousands of claims originating from dozens of countries and processed in at least six languages. The proposed system will be essential for vaccine manufacturer response and to address vaccine hesitancy and injury in populations across the globe
State Regulation of Policing: POST Commissions and Police Accountability
Get PDFThis Article examines the untapped potential of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) commissions to protect communities that experience police misconduct and discrimination. POST commissions, which are created by state laws and exist in all fifty states, have broad authority to regulate police officers and police departments. POST commissions determine eligibility and qualifications for police employment and regulate the content of training officers receive. Most POST commissions can also revoke certification of officers who commit serious misconduct or fail to meet continuing eligibility requirements set by the commissions. In some states, they can also impose statewide, compulsory reforms to policing policy. POST commissions have yet to fulfill their potential to protect the public from harmful police behaviors because (1) they lack clear legislative or organizational mandates to protect the public against unethical or unjust policing and (2) their membership tends to be dominated by law enforcement officials with little or no input from the communities that are most burdened by aggressive and discriminatory policing. If legislatures address these structural problems, POST commissions could regulate policing to protect communities from police abuse and misconduct
The Right to Delete: Protecting Consumer Autonomy in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
Get PDFWe often think of DNA as a unique personal identifier. Yet, as of 2019, direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies have amassed the genetic data of more than twenty-six million consumers. This raises the concern that companies do not uniformly protect consumers’ genetic privacy. Substantiating such concerns are complaints that companies permit law enforcement access to their databases, sell consumer genetic information to third parties, pursue drug development, and suffer data breaches.
Regulators have been slow to respond to this emerging privacy issue. The current legal framework is largely inadequate: there is no federal data-privacy law; courts and agencies are ill-equipped or lack directive to tackle a privacy issue of this magnitude; and current genetic-related laws focus on notice, informed consent, and antidiscrimination. However, recently enacted state data-privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) may serve as a legal framework to address privacy in the DTC genetic testing context.
Under the CCPA and CPRA, the right to delete promises to give control back to consumers over their genetic information. However, further genetic-specific regulations under the CCPA and CPRA, or a separate genetic-privacy statute, are needed to protect privacy in the DTC genetic testing context while balancing against legitimate business and governmental interests. This Note attempts to delineate how such a balance can be achieved
Hard-Nosed Advice from a Cranky Law Professor: How to Succeed in Law School
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_book-covers/1014/thumbnail.jp
Law as Reproduction and Revolution: An Interconnected History
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_book-covers/1008/thumbnail.jp
Olmstead as a Tool for Decarceration
Get PDFOlmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring established that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990’s integrated-care mandate requires the government to make reasonable accommodations to protect the right of people with disabilities to live in the most integrated setting possible. In response, counties began releasing people from restrictive mental-health institutions but did not provide the necessary resources, such as supportive housing and outpatient care, to allow people to live successfully in their communities. As many people contending with disabilities were left homeless and the United States increased its reliance on incarceration, shuttered mental-health institutions gave way to jails and prisons. Olmstead litigation focused on decarceration could establish counties’ legal obligation to release eligible people from jails and prisons and to provide them with mental-health care in their communities
Negotiation: Processes for Problem Solving
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2020-2021_book-covers/1011/thumbnail.jp