When intimate privacy is violated, self- and relational development is impaired to the detriment of individuals and society. Despite these costs, there is a lack of systematic empirical and theoretical study of intimate privacy and efforts to protect it. This research helps fill this void through two complementary studies. Through a longitudinal experimental design, results from Study 1 highlight that partner trust and response-efficacy were not only positively predictive of online intimate disclosure, but also strengthened following knowledge of intimate privacy protections. In Study 2, we find individuals are more likely to engage in public-facing online sexual expression if the platform-as opposed to the government-is responsible for intimate privacy policy. This article underscores the value of empirical methods to the law and provides implications for policymakers and platform designers seeking to heighten intimate privacy protections.
In 2020 a "little Facebook spat" ended in a conviction for intentional libel in the Bahamas. This article explores the Court's decision in Archer v. Commissioner of Police, holding that criminal defamation is not an unconstitutional way to protect reputations of persons in the Bahamas. The decision aligns with the earlier decision of the Privy Council in the Grenada case of Worme v. Commissioner of Police. These former British colonies share a final court of appeal, small populations, and similar protections for free expression, with exemptions for libel, and the cases involved identical statutory statements criminalizing libel. The Archer decision occurs against a backdrop of discussions in the Caribbean about the constitutionality of criminal libel laws. The author suggests that where leveraged by the powerful to prevent dissent, criminal defamation laws are despicable, but they may be a legitimate means for private victims to be vindicated when hurt by defamatory statements.
The video taken by an onlooker of George Floyd's death at the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2020 went viral on social media and was likely instrumental in Chauvin's conviction during the murder trial. Despite the obvious value of the public's ability to video-record police activity in this case, and others, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to directly address video-recording police as a First Amendment right. Although many of the federal appellate courts have said there is some First Amendment protection to record police, there is a lack of clarity about what would constitute reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Should peacefully recording an arrest or other police activity in a public space that does not interfere with an officer's duties be subject to any limitation? This analysis addresses this question through the critical lens of cultural legal studies and incorporates elements of traditional jurisprudential analysis and political economic critique. This study shows several legal inconsistencies in the protection of free expression and public safety when civilians video-record police, and it argues that federal and state courts, along with legislatures, should recognize the public value of video-recording police in public spaces.
News literacy is a topic of increasing attention from scholars and policymakers, particularly as disinformation and misinformation proliferate in the communication technology space. In this article we focus on both justifications and messages for news literacy from an international human rights law perspective. Several existing norms provide foundation for what can be called an international human right to news literacy. This right is inherent in the educational guarantees of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Further, if the right to freedom of expression in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is to be fulfilled, news literacy must be part of a state party's effort. The right to justice in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals includes a guarantee of accountable institutions with informed citizen oversight. Finally, an authoritative interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) explicitly requires digital literacy education for minors. The legal context of news merits further development in news literacy scholarship. This article contributes to that effort by discussing the international human rights law foundations of news literacy and then arguing that news literacy education must account for a growing divide between the marketplace of ideas and the anti-marketplace of ideas. Drawing on the economic history research of Fernand Braudel, we contend the anti-marketplace is a zone of speech capitalism embodied by large social media platforms. While the users of these platforms may be engaging in protected freedom of expression in the marketplace of ideas, the platforms themselves largely operate in the anti-marketplace. The actions of platforms in the anti-marketplace are not primarily expressive and lack the social and individual values contributions that would justify expansive and strong protections afforded by free-press and free-speech legal guarantees. This reality has significant ramifications for the legal context surrounding news and is critical for news-literate citizens to understand. The failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to make the distinction between the marketplace and the anti-marketplace in the context of social media is explored here as a suggested case study to be included in news literacy curricula.
Last term, the Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This decision follows other recent Court decisions (e.g., West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency) that have weakened federal agencies' regulatory authority. This article examines how the elimination of the Chevron doctrine will impact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and what level of judicial deference the agency can expect moving forward. The article argues that while the FCC is often successful in cases heard before the Court, its lower track record of success before the lower courts and current deregulatory environment suggest that the FCC will face a reduction of rulemaking and interpretation powers, and will need to stick closer to the statutory laws governing the agency.
