bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Good Readers, Good Writers, and AI: Tool, Collaborator, Author?
No full textArtificial Intelligence (“AI”) systems have revolutionized the world of creative writing. Beyond providing simple grammar or spelling assistance, the most advanced of these systems can now play a collaborative role in the writing process, increasing productivity while pushing content in new and surprising directions. AI-generated creativity raises compelling questions in the context of copyright law, which has long been predicated on the assumption of human authorship. The capacity of AI to one day generate writing at a level of mastery on par with human beings complicates traditional notions of creativity, the protection of which the entire copyright system has been built on. This Note seeks to explore the ways in which creativity continues to be defined and redefined in the context of AI and how advanced deep learning models like GPT have innovated the field of creative writing. In this Note, I consider where AI-generated narratives fit within traditional copyright theory and existing legal requirements for copyright protection, whether a machine can meet the standards for creativity and originality, alternative models available for AI-generated creativity, and how a model incorporating legal subjectivity for AI and joint-ownership theory can address some of the most pressing legal issues facing copyright law as AI systems grow more autonomous
Does This Law Apply to Me? An Examination of States’ Good Samaritan Overdose Laws and a Policy Proposal for a Uniform Approach to Combatting the Opioid Epidemic
No full textUncharged Conduct and Disproportionate Impact: Amending the Guidelines to Protect Due Process Interests at Sentencing
No full text
Dobbs and Exit in Antidiscrimination Law
No full textIn the last couple of decades, pursuit of what Robin West has called “exit rights” has played an increasingly important role in the development of antidiscrimination law. From religiously affiliated schools seeking to insulate employment decisions for employees through a judicially crafted ministerial exception, to corporate challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, employers have sought to escape the burdens of complying with legal protections for workers. The current wave of litigation seeks broad exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for two types of employers: for-profit businesses who wish to discriminate against employees based on the employers’ religious beliefs, and state and local government employers in states with socially conservative majority or super-majority governments. The Court’s Dobbs decision will almost certainly accelerate this trend, providing new grounds of argument for employers to seek exit from a variety of antidiscrimination requirements. This paper explores these issues, primarily in the context of two cases, Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC (now Braidwood v. EEOC) and Kelley v. Azar (now Braidwood v. Becerra), both of which seek to avoid application of federal law to for-profit entities that wish to discriminate. In the course of that discussion, this paper also considers related litigation brought by the same attorney, who also crafted one of the most sweeping and problematic abortion statutes in the country, SB 8, along with a network of socially conservative legal organizations
Abortion, Citizenship, and the Right to Travel
No full textThis article considers the changed landscape for abortion rights since the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Before Dobbs, the right to choose an abortion was a fundamental right under federal law, enforceable against all state governments. After Dobbs, the scope of one’s right to choose an abortion depends on the state in which one lives, and if abortion is illegal in their home state, their right to travel to another state where abortion is legal. The right to travel is particularly important for workers who must live in an anti-abortion state because their jobs are located there. Yet some states and localities have enacted laws effectively banning the right to travel out of state to obtain abortions—and other states are considering such laws. This article considers the origins and scope of that right to travel, based in the efforts of fugitives from slavery and the activism of free Black people in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements. The article argues that the right to travel to obtain an abortion is essential to equal citizenship, protected by Article IV and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States banning travel to obtain abortions also arguably impose involuntary servitudes on those travelers, violating the Thirteenth Amendment
Panel 4: Force Majeure or the New Normal: Disaster Planning & Management
No full textModerator: Randy Beck, Justice Thomas O. Marshall Chair of Constitutional Law, UGA School of Law
Panelists: John Travis Marshall, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Tom Lininger, Orlando John & Marian H. Hollis Professor, University of Oregon School of Law David B. Fountain, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority
This panel will discuss the inevitability and unforeseeability of natural disasters and how to protect and mitigate against them. Professor Marshall will discuss his scholarship and research into the effects of natural disasters on rural communities and the impact of gaps in disaster planning on those communities. Professor Marshall’s research has focused on disaster planning and the effects of recent disasters caused by Hurricane Michael in South Georgia and North Florida. Professor Lininger will further discuss natural disaster planning in the near and long term and advocate for less “drastic” measures in the short term. Professor Lininger will also discuss the socio-economic considerations concerning disaster planning and how decisions may disparately impact low-income individuals and households. Mr. Fountain will provide expert insight into disaster planning from the perspective of one in a government agency. Professor Beck will moderate and pose questions to the panel to guide the discussion of disaster planning in the context of climate change
Prioritizing Student Well-Being: Name and Pronoun Policies in K-12 Schools
No full textWhile federal protections against discrimination for LGBTQ students have increased in the past few years, at the same time state legislatures have proposed hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills targeting transgender youth. With more students identifying as transgender or nonbinary, there is a need for clear policies on the usage of chosen names and pronouns in K-12 public schools. Schools need to be prepared to handle transgender and nonbinary students before a need arises. This article discusses the potential conflicts between the individual interests involved when name and pronoun policies are applied in K-12 public schools.
When drafting and enforcing name and pronoun policies, school administrators must navigate the disconnect between prioritizing student well-being, teachers’ rights, parental demands, and complying with sometimes conflicting state and federal laws. Public schools should create policies that support transgender and nonbinary students through the usage of gender-affirming names and pronouns not only to follow federal law, but also to support the students’ health, well-being, and academic success. Ultimately, student well-being should be the priority