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

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

Information Outlook, May 1997

Volume 1, Issue 5https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_io_1997/1004/thumbnail.jp

Learning about America's Best: Resources on Educating, Training, and Hiring Returning Veterans and Service Members

This document provides a quick list of some of the many books, articles, and web sites that offer information for educators, trainers, employers, service members, veterans, and family members. It is part of a series of materials written to address the growing need for information and ideas that can help our nation's schools, training organizations, and workplaces make a welcoming, productive, and satisfying place for returning veterans and transitioning service members

CHORUS Deliverable 2.2: Second report - identification of multi-disciplinary key issues for gap analysis toward EU multimedia search engines roadmap

After addressing the state-of-the-art during the first year of Chorus and establishing the existing landscape in multimedia search engines, we have identified and analyzed gaps within European research effort during our second year. In this period we focused on three directions, notably technological issues, user-centred issues and use-cases and socio- economic and legal aspects. These were assessed by two central studies: firstly, a concerted vision of functional breakdown of generic multimedia search engine, and secondly, a representative use-cases descriptions with the related discussion on requirement for technological challenges. Both studies have been carried out in cooperation and consultation with the community at large through EC concertation meetings (multimedia search engines cluster), several meetings with our Think-Tank, presentations in international conferences, and surveys addressed to EU projects coordinators as well as National initiatives coordinators. Based on the obtained feedback we identified two types of gaps, namely core technological gaps that involve research challenges, and “enablers”, which are not necessarily technical research challenges, but have impact on innovation progress. New socio-economic trends are presented as well as emerging legal challenges

Academic Libraries in Transition: Current Trends, Future Prospects

Academic libraries are in transition because of changes in the context of higher education. Changes in the world of information are even more radical: the displacement of paper, the primacy of the search engine, the emergence of the digital lifestyle, and innovative patterns of scholarly communication. Decreasing reliance on local collections is transforming the library as a physical destination.Traditional measures of library success have begun to be replaced. Given the superiority of other information professionals’ data management skills, the role of academic librarians will shift toward the enablement of learning.This environment of upheaval will pose both opportunities and challenges for academic librarians

Can Government policy make the difference?: Analysis of the Long and Short-term prospects for Government Economic Policies to commercialise Carbon Capture and Storage, Biomass and reduced CO2 transport technologies in the UK

The article analyses the capability of carbon abatement technologies to be made commercially viable by way of government policy incentives over a long and short-term time frame. It is concluded that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Biomass require issues such as technological improvements and infrastructure scale up to be resolved positively to realise their long and short-term potential. Low CO2 transport meanwhile is highly dependent on the construction of infrastructure which commercial success with the other two technologies would instigate. Broader implications are also drawn by reference to the UK's advantages and disadvantages in the Global market. These reveal that the UK has strong opposition from foreign businesses in bio-fuels and low CO2 transport but can potentially perform CCS more economically due to its geographic location. The study draws on an interview conducted on 25th March with Dr. Peter Iron. Dr. Iron's career started in the UK where he worked for British coal researching clean coal technologies. After obtaining his PhD in Chemical Engineering at Imperial College he then moved to Australia to work as a senior research manager for CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Low Emission Technology Centre in Brisbane Australia