43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Innocence and Habeas Corpus: A Call for Equitable Reforms
Full text linkCongress intended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to codify the Burger and Rehnquist Courts’ habeas corpus jurisprudence, which aimed to establish finality and innocence as gatekeepers to the “Great Writ.” But in practice, AEDPA hinders innocence claims, particularly claims of legal innocence.
This Note agrees that innocence should be one of the most important considerations in granting writs but argues that it is not as valued as Congress intended. This Note proposes two congressional reforms to reinstate innocence to its paramount role without compromising finality: first, amending the federal habeas petition rule to allow petitioners to file successive motions based on changes in statutory interpretation; and second, repealing the statute of limitations. These reforms would make it easier for innocent petitioners to challenge their detentions
Did Anderson v. TikTok Get It Right? Holding Social Media Providers Accountable for Harm to Adolescents
No full textWhen dangerous social media challenges go viral and cause harm to adolescents and young children, should the platform be held liable for pushing that content? As it currently stands, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1934 prevents this from happening. However, Anderson v. TikTok—a recent suit brought on behalf of a ten-year-old girl who died after asphyxiating herself while participating in the viral “Blackout Challenge”—seeks to change that.
The Third Circuit court in Anderson held that social media algorithms should be considered first-party speech, or the platform’s own expressive activity, rather than third-party speech, displaying its users’ expressive activity. Though holding algorithms as speech giving rise to liability is a step in the right direction, Anderson may strip away crucial protections Section 230 provides for small businesses and free speech.
This Note proposes that to prevent Anderson’s overcorrection of Section 230 immunity while still allowing accountability for large social media companies, the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act of 2021—a bill specifically involving social media providers causing physical or mental harm to individuals—should be amended and reintroduced. Specifically, these changes should (1) narrow its scope to harm affecting adolescents; (2) refine its definition of the term “personalized algorithm”; and (3) raise its threshold for small business exemptions. By making these changes and then reintroducing the Act in a future legislative session, tech giants can be held accountable for the harmful content their algorithms push to adolescents, and children can be better protected online
The BYU Advocate
Full text linkAs BYU Law celebrates 50 years of excellence, we reflect on the foundational commitments that set the Law School apart.
Among law schools, BYU’s aims are unique. Our mission statement reads, \u27In striving to emulate [the] example [of Jesus Christ], we seek to be and develop people of integrity who combine faith and intellect in lifelong service to God and neighbor.\u27
– Dean David H. Moorehttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/annual_reports/1014/thumbnail.jp
Is an Autonomous Vehicle a Roller Coaster or a Hollywood Film? Trust, Safety, and Industry Self-Regulation
Full text linkRegulation of autonomous vehicles continues to be a daunting task in the United States, and the federal government has not yet succeeded in creating a regulatory scheme that intelligently addresses the risks and benefits of these vehicles. There are multiple reasons for this regulatory lag. Autonomous vehicles are developing at such a rapid pace that lawmakers, who often struggle with technological literacy, struggle to keep up. Additionally, government agencies lack the level of expertise, experience, and data that the industry possesses.
Industry self-regulation offers a meaningful alternative for increasing the safety of autonomous vehicles and building consumer trust. The success of self-regulation in two industries, in particular—the U.S. amusement park industry and the Hollywood film industry—suggests that a similar approach could work in the autonomous vehicle industry. First, the U.S. amusement park industry has achieved a remarkably impressive safety record despite the near total absence of regulation in some states and a hands-off approach from the federal government. It has done so by forming industry interest groups and organizations that have promulgated safety standards, best practices, and reporting systems for the industry as a whole. Second, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has managed to stave off government regulation of Hollywood films by creating an industry-administered film rating system that indicates to consumers which films are appropriate for children and which are not. This high-transparency approach has worked, with a strong majority of Americans reporting that they both understand and trust the MPAA ratings system.
The central reasons for self-regulation success in these industries also exist in the autonomous vehicle industry. Much like amusement park owners, members of the autonomous vehicle industry have a vested interest in the safety not only of their own vehicles, but also of their competitors’, as an accident involving any company can drive down consumer trust in the industry as a whole. Similarly, much like the film industry, the autonomous vehicle industry can build consumer confidence by offering significantly greater transparency to consumers about the safety of its products, particularly given polling data showing that Americans remain highly skeptical about the safety of autonomous vehicles. By assigning such vehicles clear safety ratings, the industry can counter this suspicion and increase consumer trust. While there are limitations to each of these models and key differences between industries that need to be contemplated carefully, giving the autonomous vehicle industry a meaningful opportunity to self–regulate is a more promising way forward than waiting on government regulation that may never come given the pace of industry innovation and the inherent limits of the law and rulemaking under such challenging circumstances
Stand-Ins: Causes and Consequences of Temporary Leadership
Full text linkHafen Lecture, BYU Law School, September 13, 2023