University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly CommonsNot a member yet
1242 research outputs found
Sort by
MBE Decoded—Multistate Bar Exam
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_book-covers/1001/thumbnail.jp
Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy
Get PDFThis Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning data-driven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies
Politicizing International Human Rights: The United States’ Border Apartheid Policies and the Universality of Human Rights
Get PDFThis Note uses the example of the United States’ immigration policies to analyze the following questions: (1) what type of rights international human rights are; (2) where these rights come from; (3) how their content should be determined; and (4) what conditions need to exist in order for them to be enforced. The Note argues that answering these questions is an essential prerequisite to enforcing human rights in a way that is truly universal. Part I of the Note grounds these questions in human experience through the case of a refugee seeking asylum at the U.S. border in San Ysidro and discusses the various international human rights laws that are at stake. Part II discusses the meaning and content of human rights and highlights the problem of the indeterminacy of rights. Part III expands on the problem of indeterminacy, provides a critique of current discourse of universal human rights, and suggests that politicization of the concept of human rights is necessary in order for the content of international human rights law to serve its purpose of guaranteeing rights for all. Finally, Part IV returns to the problem at the U.S. border in order to provide an example of what politicization of human rights discourse would look like
Emotional Distress and the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: Establishing a Certain and Principled Implied-Waiver Rule for Civil Rights Litigants
Get PDFMaking the promise of confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relative importance of the patient’s interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the privilege. As we explained in Upjohn, if the purpose of the privilege is to be served, the participants in the confidential conversation “must be able to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will be protected. An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.”
[W]e reject respondents’ contentions that anybody who requests damages for pain and suffering has waived the psychiatric privilege because the psychiatric records might conceivably disprove the experiencing of the pain and suffering, that any claim of even . . . “garden variety” injury waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege, and that a plaintiff’s mental health is placed in issue whenever the plaintiff’s claim for unspecified damages may include[] some sort of mental injury
Accidental Feminism: Gender Parity and Selective Mobility among India’s Professional Elite
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2020-2021_book-covers/1017/thumbnail.jp
2020 - 2021 Celebration of Books Program
Get PDFCombined program for 2020 - 2021.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_programs/1010/thumbnail.jp
Assessing Access to Justice: How Much “Legal” Do People Need and How Can We Know?
Get PDFAs access to justice strategies evolve and expand, with user-centric, multifaceted, and more holistic approaches that seek to better match legal need and capability, and as the justice system sits on the cusp of digital transformation, empirical methods and measures that mirror evolving strategies are vital. Evolved empirical methods and measures are needed to not only assess access to justice, but also to learn “what works” to meet diverse legal need and capability across the community. Better, more effective, and cost-efficient access to justice appears to rest, at least in part, on improved ability to monitor diverse legal need and capability across the community: from differential legal need to differential justice system use and outcomes. In particular, how much “legal” do different people need to enjoy access to justice? If the justice system is intended to do justice, there is relatively thin user-centric evidence demonstrating how much “legal” is enough.
Improved measures of legal need and capability, and of justice system outcomes, will not only help assess access to justice, but design of user-centric legal assistance and justice system processes.
This Article draws on several access to justice challenges and considers three sources of empirical evidence of individual access to justice and legal need—access to justice and legal needs surveys, justice system administrative data and evaluative research efforts—to examine how empirical legal studies can throw new light on important access to justice questions. Without improved ability to monitor and measure legal need, capability and outcomes, ability to assess access to justice, user-centric policy reforms, and learn “what works” to effectively and efficiently meet that legal need is likely to remain stunted.
How much legal do people need to meet legal needs and enjoy access to justice? And how can we know?
Learning “what works” to build foundational legal capability and effective pathways to justice are critical to the design of effective and efficient justice systems that mirror community legal needs and problem-solving behavior. The shift to a user-centric, bottom-up, multifaceted, and holistic approach to access to justice, to better cater to diverse legal need and capability, requires a commensurate user-centric shift in assessing access to justice
Shining Another Light on Spousal Rape Exemptions: Spousal Sexual Violence Laws in the #MeToo Era
Get PDFThis Note builds on the growing scholarly discourse involving the #MeToo movement and places an importance on discussing the issue of spousal rape in the #MeToo era. It fills a crucial gap in legal scholarship by articulating how sexual violence during marriage persists despite greater attention to sexual violence in the public discourse. There may be a blind spot in the popular discourse surrounding the #MeToo movement. This Note argues that the current conversation around sexual violence in the workplace fails to address the importance of fixing sexual violence in other areas (such as the home). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 18.3% of women experience some type of sexual violence in their intimate relationships. A majority of states essentially permit these forms of intimate partner violence within state statutes. In response, this Note provides a robust empirical analysis of states’ handling of spousal sexual violence. This Note exposes how loopholes in the law remain and how the #MeToo movement can influence the abolishment of these loopholes.
This Note proceeds in four parts. Part I covers the history of the spousal rape privilege and explains both the historical and modern justifications for spousal sexual violence. Part II explores previous feminist movements’ impact on the eradication of sexual violence. Next, Part III presents the current spousal exemptions in state statutes. Additionally, Part III tracks any #MeToo era repeals of spousal sexual violence statutes. Finally, Part IV recommends eliminating spousal exemptions to provide a legal remedy for spouses who seek one. Part IV also acknowledges that noncarceral approaches are necessary