Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering
Florida State University College of LawNot a member yet
4903 research outputs found
Sort by
Cutting Slavery from U.S. Supply Chains: How Supplementing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Withhold Release Order Procedures Will More Effectively Address Forced Labor in Supply Chains
Get PDFSpeech Contestation by Design: Democratizing Speech Governance by AI
Get PDFThe online elaboration of speech norms is enduring a decisive transformation, threatening the vital prospects of democratic contestation, which enable democracies to thrive. In this Article, we demonstrate how a critical space for social deliberation and negotiation of the desirable boundaries of free speech is lost in translation as we shift from governance by law to governance by Artificial Intelligence (Al). The configuration of AI speech filtering systems facilitates a frictionless flow of information-a signature trait of the digital economy, and of social media in particular. It is driven by a probabilistic decisionmaking process based on formal definitions and optimization dynamics, which are designed to enable speedy detection of harmful content. AI speech moderation systems effectively formulate data-driven decision rules, which reflect a single, pre-defined and potentially biased tradeoff. It currently lacks, however, adequate contesting mechanisms and fails to facilitate the vital normative space necessary for deliberating the disagreements in society regarding the scope of free speech. In contrast, governance of online speech by law is discursive, permitting different tradeoffs to coexist. Speech governance by law further facilitates a shared ground for voicing dissent and addressing it. By its institutional design, and various procedures and practices, governance by law in liberal democracies facilitates democratic contestation, and it is therefore better equipped to sustain divided societies in the absence of deeper normative consensus. The absence of democratic contestation in speech governance by AI undermines the legitimacy of speech norms, precludes public engagement in checking and testing which values are embedded in algorithmic tradeoffs, and interferes with the pluralistic aspiration to develop social norms through democratic processes of public engagement and deliberation. This Article proposes to introduce speech contestation by design in order to legitimize the way AI systems currently shape online speech norms. Inspired by the contestation mechanisms of the law, such as separation of powers and adversarial legal procedures, this Article suggests separation of functions and contesting algorithms as exemplary design features of Al systems of speech governance. Embedding such design features into AI systems of speech moderation may enable ongoing social dialogue between diversified views regarding the limits of free speech. Legal policy pertaining to automated speech moderation by digital platforms should therefore focus on promoting such design interventions
Direct Listings and the Weakening of Investor Protections
Get PDFIn 2018, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) amended its rules to allow a company to directly list on the Big Board without engaging in an initial public offering (IPO). This process-called a direct listingallowed a company to list its stock faster and cheaper, and, at least theoretically, at a more accurate price when compared to the traditional IPO. However, this first version of the NYSE\u27s direct listing rule only allowed the company to list, not raise capital. This limited its usefulness to companies. In 2020, the NYSE again amended its rules, this time to allow a company to list and raise capital. Commentators called this new-andimproved direct listing a game changer because it did away with any shortcoming (i.e., inability to raise capital) associated with the prior 2018 direct listing rule. In short, the direct listing could overtake the IPO in coming years. The primary claim of this Article is that when the SEC approved direct listings (the SEC must approve all rule changes proposed by the NYSE), it improperly put the advantages to companies before investor protection. While the SEC should give significant weight to a proposed rule change\u27s advantages to companies, it should not use such weighing to countenance the weakening of core investor protections. Yet, by approving direct listings in 2018 and approving the broader use of direct listings in 2020, the SEC did countenance the weakening of core investor protections. First, direct listings are underwriter-less. There is no traditional underwriter to serve as a gatekeeper to prevent insiders from foisting troubled companies on the public at inflated valuations. Second, if investors are harmed, there are fewer remedies available. One of the primary remedies for harmed investors-Section 11 of the Securities Act-is largely unworkable in the context of a direct listing. The repercussions of the SEC\u27s approval of direct listings are already beginning to show. Pirani v. Slack involves a Section 11 action brought by investors who purchased shares in Slack Technologies Inc.\u27s direct listing. The Northern District of California found that the investors could pursue their claim despite being unable to trace their shares to the direct listing (a holding contrary to IPO precedent), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the holding. However, Slack has announced it is going to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Further, with the number of direct listings growing exponentially (one in 2018, one in 2019, two in 2020, and four in 2021), more such cases are undoubtedly on the way. Important Note to the Reader: This Article contains a postscript to address two significant events that occurred in December 2022, just prior to publication: the New York Stock Exchange further amended its direct listing rules to require underwriters in some circumstances, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Pirani v. Slack
FSU Law Focus - 09/06/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Fall 2023 Semester begins, after Hurricane Idalia; 2023 Homecoming Festivities; Alum Profile: Zachary W. Lombardo (\u2715); Student Profile: 3L Trellanie Jordanhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1099/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 09/08/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Henry Zhuhao Wang selected as New Voice in Dispute Resolution Scholars by Association of American Law Schools; Faculty Profile: Emmalyn Dalton; Alum Profile: Katherine Hupp (\u2722); Student Profile: 3L Thomas Kellyhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1102/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 10/02/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Jacob Eisler book launch event (The Law of Freedom: The Supreme Court and Democracy); Alumni and Dean Emeritus Weidner Honored; Alum Profile: Nicole Molner (’20); Student Profile: 3L Angelique Ramirezhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1124/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 10/09/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Kelli Alces Williams elected to American Law Institute; New Viewbook for Prospective Students Available; Alum Profile: Dana C. Matthews (’81); Student Profile: 3L Maxwell Hollemanhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1132/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 08/04/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Introducing exciting courses related to technologyand the law; FSU Law Alumni Association Installs New Leaders; Alum Profile: Travis A. Voyles (’17); Student Profile: 3L Joseph Alvarezhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1208/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 04/07/2023
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Inaugural D’Alemberte & Palmer Lecture in International Human Rights with Lecturer Alberto J. Mora; Admitted Students Visit FSU Law; Alum Amanda Sampaio Bova (’06); Student Profile: 3L Marshawn Younghttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1234/thumbnail.jp
Police Brutality as Torture
Get PDFIf racial justice is the most pressing issue in America today, police brutality is the flashpoint. Incident after incident of police brutality during searches and seizures, and within jails and prisons reinforces the conviction within many communities that police harm with impunity those whom they have a duty to protect. Existing criminal statutes are filled with discretionary standards that give deference to officers while civil remedies require victims to surmount the doctrine of qualified immunity. To increase accountability for police brutality, legislatures and courts have so far focused on reducing or eliminating these procedural hurdles. But their changes have not significantly affected the status quo. Police impunity continues to represent a peculiar gap in our otherwise over-inclusive legal system.This article proposes a new way of increasing accountability for police brutality by highlighting its particularly heinous conduct. Existing criminal law misses the cumulative levels of violence inflicted through police brutality by addressing it under existing offenses such as assault, battery, or homicide. Instead, I propose a model criminal statute specific to this violence, classified as torture committed by public officials. The statute bans acts committed with the intent to cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering during searches and seizures as well as within jails and prisons. This statute combines the deterrent effects of criminal law with the social signaling of a collective condemnation of police brutality, and punishes a crime particularized to those who enact violence while cloaked with state authority.Using the proposed statute to overcome resistance to police accountability offers significant benefits. First, the statute establishes an objective standard for prosecution in place of existing laws that defer to officer and departmental discretion and their attendant presumption that officer conduct falls within the scope of regular police duty or permissible use of force. Second, by redefining police brutality as torture, legislatures will highlight the intensity of the mistreatment a victim suffers, and the distinctive harm of violence when the state agents enact it. If the limits of our language are the limits of our world, our legal system has failed to understand the full horror of police brutality in part because we lack the proper language to describe it. The proposed statute provides a name for a particular kind of terror and cruelty police brutality inflicts without creating yet another offense that can be deployed against private individuals