3246 research outputs found
Sort by
Death by Withdrawal
No full textDr.Taleed El-Sabawi of the FIU College of Law presents her work Death by Withdrawal. The article argues that the failure to medically manage drug withdrawals in jail and prison custody constitutes a violation of Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment protections.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty-workshops/1068/thumbnail.jp
The Greek Minority\u27s Fate in the Former Ottoman Empire as a Human Rights Crisis
No full textThe genocide in Pontos and in other parts of Anatolia, as well as Thrace, is not merely a part of history but a window into a contemporary human rights crisis. The destruction continues in a somewhat less violent form in our time as the culture, language, and religious rites of the Ottoman Greeks are lost due to massacres, forcible exile, and expropriations of sacred sites. This chapter introduces relevant human rights norms and argues that measures implemented by the international community after other genocides could be a model for restitution and guarantees of non-recurrence in Pontos and other parts of Turkey.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/1305/thumbnail.jp
A First Amendment Defense for Protest
No full textProfessor Jenny E. Carroll of the University of Alabama School of Law presented her work A First Amendment Defense for Protest. The article argues that defendants facing criminal charges that may impact their speech should be allowed to present a First Amendment defense, giving the citizen jury decision-making power and challenging the current First Amendment landscape that subjugates marginalized speakers\u27 rights.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty-workshops/1062/thumbnail.jp
The Negative Effect of Inconsistency: The Dual Function of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Latin America and the Venezuelan Case
No full textSolving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and Its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities of Offensive Litigation
No full textThe Texas Heartbeat Act, enacted in 2021 as Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the method of enforcement in the Texas law is unique—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.
In a series of articles, we explore how S.B. 8’s reliance on exclusive private enforcement at the expense of public enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional hurdles to challenging the law’s constitutional validity and obtaining judicial review. This Article focuses on “offensive” litigation, in which a rights holder sues government officials, usually in federal court, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the law against that rights holder. The Article considers how the law stymies the typical approach of suing the responsible executive officer because no executive officer is responsible for enforcing the law; reproductive- health providers attempted that path and met with limited success before a divided Supreme Court. The Article identifies alternative paths into federal court, including suits against private “any person” S.B. 8 plaintiffs who act under color of state law. A suit by the United States against the State of Texas to vindicate federal interests and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens offers a limited alternative, but not one likely to succeed
Section 230 is Not Broken: Why Most Proposed Section 230 Reforms Will Do More Harm Than Good, and How the Ninth Circuit Got it Right
Get PDFIn 1996, Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) as part of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), essentially protecting online services from any liability for content produced by third parties. With the hope to encourage internet service providers (“ISPs”) to moderate the content on their platforms so that minors would be less often exposed to indecent material online, the CDA authorized ISPs and users of interactive computer services to restrict access to inappropriate materials without risking liability from being classified as publishers. Section 230 quickly grew to become so central to US internet law that it has been cited as one of the “most important laws supporting the internet, e-commerce and the online economy” and also “the most important law protecting internet speech.” The legal scholar Jeff Kosseff more concisely described it as “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” Although traditionally hailed as one of the most important governmental actions for the development of the internet, the idea of reforming Section 230 has now been increasingly gathering support from government officials. Lately, many politicians on both sides of the aisle have argued that the CDA has been stretched far beyond its original intent and have criticized Section 230 for the role it has allegedly played in “protecting purveyors of hate speech, revenge porn, defamation, disinformation, and other objectionable content.” This comment will address why these latest efforts to reform Section 230 are fundamentally misguided by: (1) analyzing the history and some of the most relevant court decisions surrounding Section 230; (2) summarizing some of the most common elements in proposed Section 230 reform, discussing its policy goals, and arguing that such reforms would either run contrary to the purpose of Section 230, be largely ineffective in achieving their policy goals, or have major economic and free speech consequences that would outweigh any of their potential benefits; and (3) proposing that the best balance between the interests of consumers and interactive computer services is served by courts following the legal framework already articulated by the Ninth Circuit, whereby Section 230 immunity is conditioned on a website not encouraging illegal content or requiring users to input illegal content in its design
