Search

This paper will argue that non-institutional media such as bloggers should be accorded the same First Amendment protection as institutional media under libel laws. Supreme Court precedent supports making no distinction between the institutional and non-institutional media. The status of the plaintiff is relevant in libel actions, not the status of the defendant. Moreover, when bloggers disseminate information that is a matter of public concern, they are functioning as journalists. Many federal courts have adopted this functional approach when determining whether bloggers can be protected by shield laws. This paper argues that the same standard should apply to libel laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the factors influencing the design of Democracy Network (DNet), by the Center for Governmental Studies in California. Features of the DNet design; Motivation of technical choices in DNet design; Implications of technical decisions on the society; Models shaping technical decisions; Influence of interactive television technology on DNet design.

Comments on the article `On the Regulation of Broadcast Indecency to Protect Children,' by Donnerstein, Wilson, and Linz (1992). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in their view, has banned the broadcast of indecent speech based on the assumption that indecent speech harms children. Indecent speech as protect ed by the First Amendment; The courts' acceptance of additional justification for regulating broadcast of indecent speech; More.