DOCSLIB.ORG

DANIELLE KEATS CITRON Boston University School of Law, 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215 [email protected], [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DANIELLE KEATS CITRON Boston University School of Law, 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215 Dkcitron@Bu.Edu, Keatsmorris@Gmail.Com DANIELLE KEATS CITRON Boston University School of Law, 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215 [email protected], [email protected] ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Boston, Massachusetts Professor of Law (July 2019-present), Fletcher Endowed Chair (induction in September 2020) Courses: Information Privacy Law; Civil Procedure; Free Speech in a Digital Age Service: Chair, Workshops Committee (2019-20) UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FRANCIS KING CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law (2016-2019)· Lois K. Macht Research Professor & Professor of Law (with tenure) (2009-present)· Associate Professor of Law (2008-2009)· Assistant Professor of Law (2006-2007)· Visiting Assistant Professor (2004-2006) Courses: Information Privacy Law; Introduction to Civil Procedure; Civil Procedure; Civil Procedure II; Legal Writing and Research I Honors: UMB Champion of Excellence (2018); Teacher of the Year (May 2005); Moot Court Board Recognition (Fall 2006) Service: Faculty Advisor, MARYLAND LAW REVIEW (2010-present); Clerkship Committee (member, 2016-present); Faculty Adviser, American Constitution Society chapter; Curriculum Committee (member, 2013-15); Technology Committee (Co-Chair, 2012-13), Appointments Committee (Co-Chair, 2010-2011, member, 2008); Dean’s Strategic Planning Committee (2009-10); Faculty Advisor, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY (2006-2010); Professionalism and Diversity Committee (member, 2006-08). UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, Chicago, IL Visiting Professor of Law (mini-visit, Spring 2021) HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Boston, MA Visiting Professor of Law (Fall 2022) FORDHAM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, N.Y. Visiting Professor of Law (Fall 2018) (Information Privacy Law course; Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the Digital Age seminar). GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Washington, D.C. 1 Visiting Professor of Law (Spring 2017) (The New Discrimination: From Cyber Harassment to Scoring Systems seminar) WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, St. Louis, Missouri Dean’s Distinguished Visitor (April 20-22, 2016) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST, Amherst, Massachusetts Interdisciplinary Studies Scholar in Residence (April 4-7, 2016) FORDHAM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, New York Adjunct Associate Professor of Legal Research and Writing (1997-2006) AWARDS AND GRANTS 2019 MacArthur Fellow Grant Recipient, Knight Foundation ($75,000 grant supporting project investigating sexual-privacy law’s role in empowering victims, co-led by Jonathon Penney) UMB 2018 Champion of Excellence 2018 Privacy for Policymakers Best Paper Award for “Sexual Privacy” 2016 Privacy for Policymakers Best Paper Award for “The Privacy Policymaking of State Attorneys General” and “Risk and Anxiety: A Theory of Data Breach Harms” (coauthored with Daniel J. Solove) Best Paper of 2016, International Association of Privacy Practitioners for “The Privacy Policymaking of State Attorneys General” Best Paper of 2014, International Association of Privacy Practitioners for “The Scored Society” (coauthored with Frank Pasquale) Top 50 World Thinkers by PROSPECT UK MAGAZINE, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/world-thinkers-2015-danielle-keats-citron (naming 50 “leaders in their fields, engaging in original and profound ways with the central questions of the world today—whether in economics, science, philosophy, religion or feminism. We chose them based on recommendations from our wide pool of writers and editors”). Top 50 Most Influential Marylanders, 2015, Daily Record, http://thedailyrecord.com/influential- marylanders/ PUBLICATIONS BOOK 2 HATE CRIMES IN CYBERSPACE (Harvard University Press September 2014) Excerpted in Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/internet-and-golden-age-bully-271800, and Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/revenge_porn_laws_sample_text_for_ state_lawmakers.html Highlighted in the “20 Best Moments for Women in 2014” by the Editors of Cosmopolitan (“law professor Danielle Keats Citron published a book on Internet harassment that has the potential to totally shift the legal landscape”) Featured as the centerpiece of an online symposium held by the BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (October-November 2015). Cited in academic casebooks, including THE FIRST AMENDMENT (edited by Geoffrey Stone et al.), Daniel J. Solove and Paul Schwartz, INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW (5th edition); WILLIAM MCGEVERAN, PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION LAW (2016). Reviewed by Erwin Chemerinsky in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Martha Nussbaum in The Nation, Robin West in Jotwell, and many others: “Vividly written and carefully argued, the book is a fine account of law in this area… We should, as Citron argues, reject the facile romanticization of the Internet as the last frontier of true freedom. We should acknowledge that the Internet both facilitates expression and silences, both allows speech and muzzles it… The major contribution of Citron’s book is its lucid summary of the vast network of laws, both state and federal, that are pertinent to cyberabuse. As she shows, we can do quite a lot for victims of cyberabuse without chilling expression… Citron confronts the perpetual free-speech/First Amendment problems attendant to her family of proposals head-on, and the case she makes is persuasive… Citron makes a number of useful proposals for legal reform while convincing readers of the seriousness of the problem.”—Martha C. Nussbaum, The Nation “Danielle Citron’s Hate Crimes in Cyberspace is a breakthrough book. It has been compared, and with good reason, to Catherine MacKinnon’s Sexual Harassment of Working Women. The book makes three major contributions. All are central to furthering the equality of women and men both in cyberspace and elsewhere. The book thus serves as a blueprint for what Citron insightfully calls a new civil rights movement. It gives legal representatives and victims a roadmap for charting out legal actions that can be taken to halt the abuse being currently suffered, and to compensate for past harms. It gives state and federal legislators a menu of options for strengthening the law in this area, so that cyberspace can be a safe as well as robust domain for the expression of views on all subjects. It responds to First Amendment worries about the possibility that her proposed reforms might chill valuable speech, and it suggests paths for interested private parties who want to affect the trajectory here outside the law. It’s a tour de force and I believe it will succeed. It will change the law, change the conversation, and change attitudes toward and regarding this extraordinarily abusive and harmful behavior. It will strengthen women’s civil rights, and thus strengthen women’s equality and at core, it will be a significant step toward ensuring women’s safety in the public space of employment and education, as well as in cyberspace and the home. This is a book to celebrate, to study, to argue over, and, mostly, to use.” —Robin West, Jotwell “Citron…focuses on how online hate speech ruins lives, most often women’s lives. She cites surveys that show that 60 to 70 percent of cyber stalking victims are women, and she details cases in which women have been targeted, defamed, and threatened with rape and murder…The very same things that make the Internet such a uniquely powerful medium for freedom of speech make it a uniquely powerful medium for hate crimes…The difficult question--as always in First Amendment and most constitutional litigation--is where to draw the line. In grappling with that and offering provisional answers, Citron [does] a great service.” — Erwin Chemerinsky Chronicle of Higher Education 3 “This book sets forth a compelling argument that the internet should not be allowed to maintain its ‘Wild West’ anarchic status, because its ability to facilitate cyber-bullying outweighs the virtues of maintaining that status… Hate Crimes in Cyberspace’s main strength lies in its sustained and detailed exploration of the bizarrely convoluted, sustained and extremely hurtful nature of online abuse of individuals… Its pioneering research could and should be used to support the case for introducing a criminal offence of gender-based hate speech in various countries.”—Helen Fenwick, Times Higher Education “To be sure, police and prosecutors regularly fail to enforce existing laws when it comes to online abuse, either because they don’t take the abuse seriously or because they lack the technological skills to find the perpetrators. But while better training and more resources are certainly necessary, Citron argues persuasively that the law itself needs to evolve as well.”—Michelle Goldberg, The Nation “An impassioned call for equal rights for women on the Internet. Citron offers well-considered and modest changes to communications law and judicial procedure that could go a long way toward opening the Internet to safer and wider use by currently victimized groups. Her suggestion that anonymity online should be treated as a privilege that can be lost by violations of a site’s terms of service is particularly constructive… Frightening and infuriating, this demand for legal accountability for Internet barbarism deserves widespread exposure and serious consideration.”—Kirkus Reviews (starred review) “Citron addresses a significant, timely topic in this impressively comprehensive, expertly researched book. An excellent analysis of the social impact of Internet hate crimes.”—Lynne Maxwell, Library Journal (starred review) “There sometimes seems to be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil Recourse Defended: a Reply to Posner, Calabresi, Rustard, Chamallas, and Robinette
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 88 Issue 2 Article 6 Spring 2013 Civil Recourse Defended: A Reply to Posner, Calabresi, Rustard, Chamallas, and Robinette John C. Goldberg Harvard Law School, [email protected] Benjamin Zipursky Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Civil Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Goldberg, John C. and Zipursky, Benjamin (2013) "Civil Recourse Defended: A Reply to Posner, Calabresi, Rustard, Chamallas, and Robinette," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 88 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol88/iss2/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Civil Recourse Defended: A Reply to Posner, Calabresi, Rustad, Chamallas, and Robinette JOHN C. P. GOLDBERG* BENJAMIN C. ZIPURSKY** INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 569 I. CIVIL RECOURSE THEORY IN A NUTSHELL ......................................................... 570 II. CALABRESI AND POSNER .................................................................................. 575 A. POSNER ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Updated: February 2021 Curriculum Vitae ARTHUR RIPSTEIN Faculty Of
    Updated: February 2021 Curriculum Vitae ARTHUR RIPSTEIN Faculty of Law Telephone: 416-978-0735 University of Toronto E-mail: [email protected] 78 Queen’s Park Crescent www.law.utoronto.ca/faculty/ripstein Toronto, ON, M5S 2C5 I. Biographical Information: a. Personal Information Born June 12, 1958, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Citizen of Canada and Germany b. Education: 1994 M.S.L., Yale Law School 1986 Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, Dissertation title: Explanation and Empathy in Commonsense Psychology. Committee members: John Haugeland (director) Annette Baier (second reader) Peter King, Peter Machamer. 1984 M.A. University of Pittsburgh 1981 B.A. (Hons.) University of Manitoba II. Honours and Awards: 2021 Killam Prize for the Humanities, Canada Council for the Arts (Annual Award “awarded to active Canadian scholars who have distinguished themselves through sustained excellence, making a significant impact in their respective fields”) 2019 Keynote Lecturer, World Kant Congress, Oslo, Norway 2019 JJ Berry Smith Doctoral Supervision Award, University of Toronto (Annual University-wide Award. One award is given in natural Sciences and one in Social Sciences and Humanities. First person from humanities selected to win.) 2019 Tanner Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley. (Annual Lecture Series) 2016 Killam Fellowship, Canada Council for the Arts (Two-year leave fellowship, one of six awarded annually in Canada across all disciplines.) 2016 Society for Applied Philosophy (UK) Annual Lecturer. Arthur Ripstein /2 II. Honours and Awards (continued): 2016 University Professor, University of Toronto (special rank reserved for no more than 2% of tenured faculty. 2015 Kissel Lecturer, Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.
    [Show full text]
  • Platform Justice: Content Moderation at an Inflection Point 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY ON Platform Justice C ONTENT MODERATION at an INFLECTION POINT DANIELLE CITRON & QUINTA JURECIC Aegis Series Paper No. 1811 In June 2016, Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth circulated an internal memorandum describing the company’s mission. “We connect people,” he wrote. “Maybe someone finds love. Maybe [Facebook] even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”1 Bosworth was not speaking metaphorically. The month after he distributed the memo, Facebook was sued by the parents of five victims of terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas, which had made extensive use of the company’s platform to recruit and organize. Days before, the social media platform had inadvertently broadcast a murder over the streaming app Facebook Live. National Security, Technology, and Law and Technology, Security, National Yet the outrage Facebook weathered in the aftermath of this violence was nothing compared to the scathing criticism it endured two years later after Buzzfeed News published Bosworth’s memo. When the memo leaked in March 2018, Facebook was neck-deep in controversies over its influence on the 2016 presidential election, including the use of the platform’s ad-targeting function by Russian trolls to sow political discord and the harvesting of user data under false pretenses by the Trump-affiliated political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.2 Meanwhile, Facebook’s competitors, Twitter and Google, faced mounting criticism over their failure to curb disinformation and abusive content.3 In 2016, Bosworth’s memo might have been an awkward attempt at self-reflection.
    [Show full text]
  • The V-Chip and the Constitutionality of Television Ratings
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 8 Volume VIII Number 2 Volume VIII Book 2 Article 1 1997 The V-Chip and the Constitutionality of Television Ratings Benjamin C. Zipursky Eric Burns Donald W. Hawthorne Thomas Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Zipursky, Eric Burns, Donald W. Hawthorne, and Thomas Johnson, The V-Chip and the Constitutionality of Television Ratings, 8 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 301 (1997). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol8/iss2/1 This Transcript is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PANEL1.TYP 9/29/2006 4:44 PM Panel 1: The V-Chip and the Constitutionality of Television Ratings Moderator: Benjamin C. Zipursky* Participants: Eric Burns** Donald W. Hawthorne, Esq.*** Thomas Johnson**** David H. Moulton, Esq.***** Robert W. Peters, Esq.****** MR. ZIPURSKY: Welcome to the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal’s Sixth Annual Symposium on the First Amendment and the Media. I am Profes- sor Benjamin Zipursky of Fordham University School of Law. Out first panel discussion covers one of the hot topics in both the television industry and the legal profession, the V-chip and the constitutionality of the associated television ratings that will be re- quired to make the chip work properly.
    [Show full text]
  • Danielle Keats Citron, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
    PREPARED WRITTEN TESTIMONY AND STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FOR Danielle Keats Citron, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law HEARING ON “Fostering a Healthier Internet to Protect Consumers” BEFORE THE House Committee on Energy and Commerce October 16, 2019 John D. Dingell Room, 2123, Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. INTRODUCTION Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to testify about corporate responsibility for online activity and fostering a healthy internet to protect consumers. My name is Danielle Keats Citron. I am a Professor of Law at the Boston University School of Law. In addition to my home institution, I am an Affiliate Faculty at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard Law School, Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School’s Center on Internet & Society, Affiliate Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and Tech Fellow at NYU Law’s Policing Project. I am also a 2019 MacArthur Fellow. My scholarship focuses on privacy, free speech, and civil rights. I have published more than 30 articles in major law reviews and more than 25 opinion pieces for major news outlets.1 My book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace tackled the phenomenon of cyber stalking and what law, companies, and society can do about it.2 As a member of the American Law Institute, I serve as an adviser on Restatement (Third) Torts: Defamation and Privacy and the Restatement (Third) Information Privacy Principles Project. In my own writing and with coauthors Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, Quinta Jurecic, and Mary Anne Franks, I have explored the significance of Section 230 to civil rights and civil liberties in a digital age.3 * * * Summary: In the early days of the commercial internet, lawmakers recognized that federal agencies could not possibly tackle all noxious activity online.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Cybercrime After United States V. Jones David Gray
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 103 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 2013 Fighting Cybercrime After United States v. Jones David Gray Danielle Keats Citron Liz Clark Rinehart Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation David Gray, Danielle Keats Citron, and Liz Clark Rinehart, Fighting Cybercrime After United States v. Jones, 103 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 745 (2013). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss3/4 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/13/10303-0745 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 103, No. 3 Copyright © 2013 by David Gray, Danielle Keats Citron & Liz Clark Rinehart Printed in U.S.A. FIGHTING CYBERCRIME AFTER UNITED STATES V. JONES DAVID GRAY,* DANIELLE KEATS CITRON** & LIZ CLARK RINEHART*** In a landmark nondecision last term, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court would have held that citizens possess a Fourth Amendment right to expect that certain quantities of information about them will remain private, even if they have no such expectations with respect to any of the information or data constituting that whole. This quantitative approach to evaluating and protecting Fourth Amendment rights is certainly novel and raises serious conceptual, doctrinal, and practical challenges. In other works, we have met these challenges by engaging in a careful analysis of this “mosaic theory” and by proposing that courts focus on the technologies that make collecting and aggregating large quantities of information possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Cyber Harassment: an Overview of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace
    Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet · Vol. 6 · 2015 ADDRESSING CYBER HARASSMENT: AN OVERVIEW OF HATE CRIMES IN CYBERSPACE Danielle Keats Citron∗ INTRODUCTION It is an auspicious time to discuss cyber harassment and cyber stalking. When I began writing about cyber harassment in 2007, it was dismissed as a part of the bargain of online life. Although the abuse often involved threats, defamation, and privacy invasions, commentators regarded it as “no big deal.”1 Victims were told to stop “whining” because they chose to blog about controversial topics or to share nude images of themselves with confidantes. Victims were advised to toughen up or go offline.2 The choice was theirs—that was the deal. Since 2007, so much has changed. Cyber harassment’s harms are now part of the national conversation. Perceptions and attitudes have changed,3 thanks in no small part to the work of Cyber Civil Rights Initiative4 (CCRI), End Revenge Porn,5 and Without My Consent,6 advocacy groups devoted to educating the public about online harassment and to spearheading reform. ∗ Lois K. Macht Research Professor & Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Senior Fellow, Future of Privacy, Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet & Society, Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project. I am grateful to Co-Dean Michael Scharf, Professor Ray Ku, Stephen Congdon, and the staff of Case Western University’s Journal of Law, Technology, and the Internet who kindly hosted me to talk about my book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace as its first inaugural distinguished speaker. This short piece is adapted from my talk.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Danielle Keats Citron, Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law
    PREPARED WRITTEN TESTIMONY AND STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF Danielle Keats Citron, Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law* HEARING ON “The National Security Challenge of Artificial Intelligence, Manipulated Media, and ‘Deep Fakes’” BEFORE THE House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence June 13, 2019 Longworth House Office Building Room 1100 Washington, D.C. * As of July 1, 2019, Citron will join the faculty of Boston University School of Law as a Professor of Law. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Chairman Schiff, Ranking Member, and Committee Members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you to testify about manipulated media generally and “deep fakes” specifically. My name is Danielle Keats Citron. I am the Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law where I have taught for fifteen years. On July 1, 2019, I am joining the faculty of Boston University School of Law as a Professor of Law. In addition to my home institutions, I am an Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School’s Center on Internet & Society, Affiliate Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and Tech Fellow at NYU Law’s Policing Project. I am a member of the American Law Institute where I have been an adviser to the Restatement Third, Information Privacy Principles Project. I have written extensively about privacy, free speech, and civil rights, publishing more than 30 articles in major law reviews and scores of opinion pieces for major news outlets.1 My book HATE CRIMES IN CYBERSPACE (Harvard University Press 2014) tackled the phenomenon of cyber stalking.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 APA Eastern Division Meeting Program
    The American Philosophical Association EASTERN DIVISION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM VIRTUAL MEETING JANUARY 7 – 9, 2021 AND JANUARY 14 – 16, 2021 Use Coupon Code ZAPE21 to Save 30% (PB)/50% (HC) THROUGH FEBRUARY 16, 2021 ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.SUNYPRESS.EDU Critique in German Philosophy The Aesthetic Clinic From Kant to Critical Theory Feminine Sublimation in Contemporary María del Rosario Acosta López and Writing, Psychoanalysis, and Art J. Colin McQuillan, editors Fernanda Negrete The Primary Way The Disintegration of Community Philosophy of Yijing On Jorge Portilla’s Social and Political Chung-ying Cheng Philosophy, With Translations Foreword by Robert Cummings Neville of Selected Essays Carlos Alberto Sánchez and Jouissance Francisco Gallegos, editors A Lacanian Concept Néstor A. Braunstein Endangered Excellence Translation and Introduction by On the Political Philosophy of Aristotle Silvia Rosman Pierre Pellegrin Translated by Anthony Preus Epistemic Responsibility Lorraine Code A World Not Made for Us Topics in Critical Environmental Philosophy Manufactured Uncertainty Keith R. Peterson Implications for Climate Change Skepticism Recovering the Liberal Spirit Lorraine Code Nietzsche, Individuality, and Spiritual Freedom On Metaphysical Necessity Steven F. Pittz Essays on God, the World, Morality, and Democracy Adult Life Franklin I. Gamwell Aging, Responsibility, and the Pursuit of Happiness Carl Schmitt between John Russon Technological Rationality and Theology Modernity as Exception The Position and Meaning and Miracle
    [Show full text]
  • Four Principles for Digital Expression (You Won't
    FOUR PRINCIPLES FOR DIGITAL EXPRESSION (YOU WON’T BELIEVE #3!) DANIELLE KEATS CITRON* & NEIL M. RICHARDS** ABSTRACT At the dawn of the Internet’s emergence, the Supreme Court rhapsodized about its potential as a tool for free expression and political liberation. In ACLU v. Reno (1997), the Supreme Court adopted a bold vision of Internet expression to strike down a federal law - the Communications Decency Act - that restricted digital expression to forms that were merely “decent.” Far more than the printing press, the Court explained, the mid-90s Internet enabled anyone to become a town crier. Communication no longer required the permission of powerful entities. With a network connection, the powerless had as much luck reaching a mass audience as the powerful. The “special justifications or regulation of the broadcast media” had no application to the “vast democratic forums of the Internet.” Twenty years later, the Roberts Court had an opportunity to explain how the First Amendment should operate in the mature Internet of 2017. Despite the interval of time, the Roberts Court of 2017 took a remarkably similar approach to the Rehnquist Court of 1997. In Packingham v. North Carolina, Justice Kennedy announced the start of the “Cyber Age.” The Internet was the virtual public square, much like streets and parks. Because the “Internet” was still in its infancy, its impact on expression was not fully understood. The expressive potential of the “Internet” would be imperiled in the absence of a hands-off approach. Justice Kennedy noted that someday, the Internet might be used for anti-social ends. Until then, extreme caution was in order so the Internet’s democratic potential could be realized.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Mobs, Disinformation, and Death Videos: the Internet As It Is (And As It Should Be)
    Michigan Law Review Volume 118 Issue 6 2020 Cyber Mobs, Disinformation, and Death Videos: The Internet as It Is (and as It Should Be) Danielle Keats Citron Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Danielle Keats Citron, Cyber Mobs, Disinformation, and Death Videos: The Internet as It Is (and as It Should Be), 118 MICH. L. REV. 1073 (2020). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss6/9 https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.118.6.cyber This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CYBER MOBS, DISINFORMATION, AND DEATH VIDEOS: THE INTERNET AS IT IS (AND AS IT SHOULD BE) Danielle Keats Citron* SABRINA. By Nick Drnaso. Montreal: Drawn & Quarterly. 2018. Pp. 203. $27.95. INTRODUCTION Nick Drnaso’s1 graphic novel Sabrina provides a powerful snapshot of online norms. The picture is not pretty: A young woman goes missing. Her grief-stricken boyfriend cannot bear to stay in their home and escapes to a friend’s house. Her sister struggles with the pain of her loss. We learn that the woman’s neighbor, a misogynist loner, killed her and recorded the mur- der.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Of
    Updated: July 2013 Curriculum Vitae ARTHUR RIPSTEIN Faculty of Law Telephone: 416-978-0735 University of Toronto Fax: 416-978-2648 78 Queen’s Park Crescent E-mail: [email protected] Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5 www.law.utoronto.ca/faculty/ripstein Chair, Department of Philosophy Telephone: (416) 978-3313 University of Toronto Fax: (416) 946-7436 Jackman Humanities Building E-mail: [email protected] 170 St. George Street Toronto, ON M5R 2M8 Personal Information Born June 12, 1958, Winnipeg, Manitoba Citizen of Canada and Germany Education: 1994 M.S.L. Yale Law School 1986 Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, Dissertation title: Explanation and Empathy in Commonsense Psychology. Committee members: John Haugeland (director) Annette Baier (second reader) Peter King, Peter Machamer. 1984 M.A. University of Pittsburgh 1981 B.A. (Hons.) University of Manitoba Academic Positions: 2011- Chair, Department of Philosophy 1999- Professor, Faculty of Law and Department of Philosophy 1996-1999 Professor, Department of Philosophy and Faculty of Law 1991-1996 Associate Professor, (with tenure) Department of Philosophy and Faculty of Law 1990 Cross- appointed (status only) to Faculty of Law 1988 Appointed to Graduate Faculty 1987-1991 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto 1986-1987 Visiting Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Franklin and Marshall College Awards: 2012 Faculty Award, University of Toronto Alumni Association (Annual Award given to one faculty member across the University for Excellence in Research
    [Show full text]