16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Lawrence W. I\u27Anson Award
No full textIn Recognition of Exceptional Intellectual and Personal Qualities that Honor his Memory.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1121/thumbnail.jp
The Right to a Nuisance-Free Public Education
Full text linkThe aim of this Article is to discuss how Florida’s Individual Freedom Act infringes upon Black students’ constitutional right to learn about non-white supremacist ideas, their freedom to think, and a public school’s ability to offer Black-centered curricula content.
[...]
This Article explains that the Individual Freedom Act’s racially encoded wording establishes an academic environment for a racial nuisance to exist because its criteria authorize public education officials to label curricula content under the auspices of indoctrination, divisiveness, or educational value. While the term “nuisance” is typically reserved for determining reasonableness of an “interference with a right common to the general public,” racial nuisance for the purposes of this Article refers to claims, conduct, and policies that originate under the political auspices of reactionary grievance, resentment, or special injury claims (such as “made to feel guilty” claims), which are then subsequently leveraged by white conservative politicians and their political appointees to target and censor ideas that (1) contest American exceptionalism, (2) challenge sanitized depictions of Black life, (3) challenge the current state of Black subjugation, and (4) are inspirational and aspirational. Part I of this Article provides an overview of the Individual Freedom Act’s required instruction provision. Part II defines the concept of a racial nuisance within the context of education. The Article concludes with a brief discussion on why Governor Ron DeSantis and the Individual Freedom Act are a racial nuisance.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
A Prosecutor\u27s Perspective On Balancing Reform & Public Safety
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlposters/1036/thumbnail.jp
We Can\u27t Allow IoT Vendors to Pass Off All Such Liability to the Consumer : Investigating the U.S. Legal Perspectives on Liability for IoT Product Security
Full text linkAs the regulatory landscape for the Internet of Things (IoT) evolves, vendors are moving towards certifying their products for security. Thus, we need to understand who is liable when certification failures result in harm, i.e., when certified products have vulnerabilities that are exploited to cause harm to users. This paper addresses the fundamental and timely question that has significant implications for vulnerability detection in certified products: who is liable for harm resulting from vulnerabilities in certified products, and who should be so liable? Through a qualitative analysis of contractual documents from 20 IoT vendors, this paper investigates how liability is currently defined in vendor-user contractual terms. This analysis then incorporates an expert survey of 18 legal professionals to examine their perspectives on liability within this context. Our analysis leads to 14 key findings (F1 – F14) that show how vendors exclude liability to the maximum extent with (sometimes unlawful) exclusions, and how the perspectives of legal experts lie in stark contrast to what we observe in contracts (which are drafted by lawyers). We distill our findings into three key themes that call for a robust and clear liability framework, creating an incentive for IoT vendors to ensure that their IoT products meet proper security and privacy standards
Special Education Advocacy Award
No full textIn Recognition of Outstanding Service to Children with Special Needs & Their Families Given by Claire Maddox (\u2705) and Robert Ribble In Honor of Evan and In Memory of Brooks.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1124/thumbnail.jp
Transitioning to Regenerative Agriculture: One Net-Zero Pledge at a Time
No full textAs climate change intensifies, food sector multinational companies (MNCs), like Nestlé; Mars, Inc.; Unilever; PepsiCo; and Danone, face increasing pressure to reach net-zero by 2050, whereby they would reduce and ultimately eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from their supply chains by 2050. Carbon dioxide emissions are a major business liability, decreasing a firm’s value an average of $212,000 for every one thousand metric tons produced. As companies seek to align their pledges with regional, national, and subnational climate goals, they are legally required to comply with a growing number of disclosure rules for foods entering the United States and the European Union.
This Article exposes the vital role of regenerative agriculture in net-zero pledges. Using a case study approach, this Article examines the global rise of regenerative agricultural practices as a tool to help companies reach net-zero commitments by helping them reduce Scope 3 supply chain emissions. The problem is, as companies rush to make net-zero claims, they need to be careful as these claims are under heavy scrutiny from regulators, self-regulatory bodies, competitors, consumers, and investors who are monitoring deceptive environmental marketing claims and greenwashing. This Article examines recent ongoing litigation, including People v. JBS USA Food Co., in which the New York State Attorney General (N.Y. A.G.) alleges that JBS’s advertisements—“Net Zero by 2040”—are unfair and deceptive under State consumer protection laws and that JBS made these claims with no viable plan to meet them. The case could have far-reaching implications for how companies advertise net-zero targets.
New regulations on the regenerative agricultural market would enable greater consistency in the adoption and use of these practices worldwide. Solutions are presented that include harmonizing regenerative agriculture credentials for food companies to allow them to secure global market access and ensure compliance across regimes leading to reduced risk of ligation, regulatory, or investment enforcement actions. This Article also recommends broadening the scope of SEC climate disclosure to include Scope 3 emissions in line with practices in Europe
