Algorithms and Speech

One of the central questions in free speech jurisprudence is what activities the First Amendment encompasses. This Article considers that question in the context of an area of increasing importance – algorithm-based decisions. I begin by looking to broadly accepted legal sources, which for the First Amendment means primarily Supreme Court jurisprudence. That jurisprudence provides for very broad First Amendment coverage, and the Court has reinforced that breadth in recent cases. Under the Court’s jurisprudence the First Amendment (and the heightened scrutiny it entails) would apply to many algorithm-based decisions, specifically those entailing substantive communications. We could of course adopt a limiting conception of the First Amendment, but any nonarbitrary exclusion of algorithm-based decisions would require major changes in the Court’s jurisprudence. I believe that First Amendment coverage of algorithm-based decisions is too small a step to justify such changes. But insofar as we are concerned about the expansiveness of First Amendment coverage, we may want to limit it in two areas of genuine uncertainty: editorial decisions that are neither obvious nor communicated to the reader, and laws that single out speakers but do not regulate their speech. Even with those limitations, however, an enormous and growing amount of activity will be subject to heightened scrutiny absent a fundamental reorientation of First Amendment jurisprudence

For Our Information, November 1949, Vol. II, no. 7-8

An official publication of the ILR School, Cornell University, “for the information of all faculty, staff and students.

Algorithms and Speech

One of the central questions in free speech jurisprudence is what activities the First Amendment encompasses. This Article considers that question in the context of an area of increasing importance – algorithm-based decisions. I begin by looking to broadly accepted legal sources, which for the First Amendment means primarily Supreme Court jurisprudence. That jurisprudence provides for very broad First Amendment coverage, and the Court has reinforced that breadth in recent cases. Under the Court’s jurisprudence the First Amendment (and the heightened scrutiny it entails) would apply to many algorithm-based decisions, specifically those entailing substantive communications. We could of course adopt a limiting conception of the First Amendment, but any nonarbitrary exclusion of algorithm-based decisions would require major changes in the Court’s jurisprudence. I believe that First Amendment coverage of algorithm-based decisions is too small a step to justify such changes. But insofar as we are concerned about the expansiveness of First Amendment coverage, we may want to limit it in two areas of genuine uncertainty: editorial decisions that are neither obvious nor communicated to the reader, and laws that single out speakers but do not regulate their speech. Even with those limitations, however, an enormous and growing amount of activity will be subject to heightened scrutiny absent a fundamental reorientation of First Amendment jurisprudence

Spartan Daily, October 1, 1997

Volume 109, Issue 23https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/9170/thumbnail.jp

The State of the 4th Estate

Given that the old business models for print and broadcast news have largely collapsed, is quality, in-depth journalism a dying breed -- or can it find a place within the new normal

Editing Bill Gates\u27s E-Mail

Although there has been a great deal of discussion about preserving electronic documents, editors have given little thought to how these would be edited once preserved, and no one has yet proposed an edition of electronic correspondence. Many argue that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, but I think we need to get our collective head out of the sand and grapple with the relevant issues. Toward that end, I offer a plan for an edition of the e-mail of Bill Gates. It is, at the moment, purely hypothetical, but that could change at any moment

Spartan Daily, December 7, 1990

Volume 95, Issue 66https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/8065/thumbnail.jp

Trademark Vigilance in the Twenty-First Century: An Update

The trademark laws impose a duty upon brand owners to be vigilant in policing their marks, lest they be subject to the defense of laches, a reduced scope of protection, or even death by genericide. Before the millennium, it was relatively manageable for brand owners to police the retail marketplace for infringements and counterfeits. The Internet changed everything. In ways unforeseen, the Internet has unleashed a tremendously damaging cataclysm upon brands—online counterfeiting. It has created a virtual pipeline directly from factories in China to the American consumer shopping from home or work. The very online platforms that make Internet shopping so convenient, and that have enabled brands to expand their sales, have exposed buyers to unwittingly purchasing fake goods which can jeopardize their health and safety as well as brand reputation. This Article updates a 1999 panel discussion titled Trademark Vigilance in the Twenty-First Century, held at Fordham Law School, and explains all the ways in which vigilance has changed since the Internet has become an inescapable feature of everyday life. It provides trademark owners with a road map for monitoring brand abuse online and solutions for taking action against infringers, counterfeiters and others who threaten to undermine brand value

Business concept as a relational message: supermarket vs independent grocery as competitors for sustainability

The paper deals with a new competition situation between a large consumer co-operative and a very small local food shop as its rival. While both businesses are selling food, their business concepts look very different. These concepts are analysed as ideology, identity and shopkeeper/retailer speech. The results show the deep cutting change in trade introduced by the small food shop as concern for sustainable food system and social relations as resources for new community building, suggesting conditional possibilities for further business growth. The large retailer has problems in answering the challenge as its concept seems to exclude concern for food system, the trade includes economic interests and rather negligible social relations. In principle, the small contester could succeed in expanding its business model through staying small and proliferating, supporting small farms’ economic viability. The large retailer could succeed by investing in launching more local and organic produce and thereby developing both primary production and processing capacity in a lagging rural region. The study shows the importance of the business concept as a condition and limitation for further growth