International Media Law Reform and First Amendment Agnosticism: Review of Lee Bollinger’s Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century

Lee Bollinger\u27s Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open argues that in an increasingly globalized world, the United States must seek to export First Amendment free press principles to other countries. His project, however, is belied by the fact that media law is a product of context and history as much as legalism. His proposals for reconceptualizing our own animating vision for a free press here in the States are also in many important respects inconsistent with the First Amendment itself

\u3cem\u3eReed v. Town of Gilbert\u3c/em\u3e: Relax, Everybody

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a law is content-based if it draws distinctions on its face based on the message an affected speaker conveys. Reed rejected previous lower court interpretations of the Court’s content discrimination doctrine, which had consistently held that a content-based law was not subject to strict scrutiny if its reference to content was not based on government disapproval of that content. Reed has set off a firestorm. The justices who concurred in the judgment warned that the case’s rule would cast doubt on a range of government action historically considered to not implicate the First Amendment, from securities regulation to product labeling. Commentators have called Reed everything from a “groundbreaker” to a “redefinition” of content discrimination doctrine that will have “profound consequences.” The message of this Article is that Reed’s critics should, in a word, relax. Close review of those areas in which Reed’s critics claim the case will cause the most harm demonstrates that other parts of First Amendment doctrine, all of which survive Reed, will limit the case’s reach. The case also clarified several murky areas of that doctrine. Additionally, the focus on Reed obscures a far more important issue: the fallacy of continuing to use a categorical approach to First Amendment cases that turns entirely on whether or not a given law refers to content and ignores a law’s actual effect on speech

The “Ample Alternative Channels” Flaw in First Amendment Doctrine

In reviewing a content-neutral regulation affecting speech, courts ask if the regulation leaves open “ample alternative channels of communication” for the restricted speaker’s expression. Substitutability is the underlying rationale. If the message could have been expressed in some other legal way, the ample alternative channels requirement is met. The court then deems the restriction’s harm to the speaker’s expressive right as de minimis and upholds the law. For decades, courts and free speech scholars have assumed the validity of this principle. It has set First Amendment jurisprudence on the wrong course. Permitting a speech restriction because the speaker could have communicated the same message another way distorts the First Amendment. Ample alternative channels analysis instructs courts to engage in counterfactual, post-hoc reasoning as to the expressive choices the speaker could have made, but didn’t—i.e., to substitute the court’s own value judgments for those of the speaker’s. The modern communications world expands the doctrine’s pernicious effects, since speech-facilitating technologies can always theoretically grant an alternative means of expression to any infringed speaker. And the origin of the doctrine, from Justice Harlan’s concurrence in United States v. O’Brien, shows that In reviewing a content-neutral regulation affecting speech, courts ask if the regulation leaves open “ample alternative channels of communication” for the restricted speaker’s expression. Substitutability is the underlying rationale. If the message could have been expressed in some other legal way, the ample alternative channels requirement is met. The court then deems the restriction’s harm to the speaker’s expressive right as de minimis and upholds the law. For decades, courts and free speech scholars have assumed the validity of this principle. It has set First Amendment jurisprudence on the wrong course. Permitting a speech restriction because the speaker could have communicated the same message another way distorts the First Amendment. Ample alternative channels analysis instructs courts to engage in counterfactual, post-hoc reasoning as to the expressive choices the speaker could have made, but didn’t—i.e., to substitute the court’s own value judgments for those of the speaker’s. The modern communications world expands the doctrine’s pernicious effects, since speech-facilitating technologies can always theoretically grant an alternative means of expression to any infringed speaker. And the origin of the doctrine, from Justice Harlan’s concurrence in United States v. O’Brien, shows that ample alternative channels analysis was in its incipiency a misguided afterthought—born, as historical Supreme Court case files never examined before this Article show, as literally a margin note to an unpublished draft. In the place of ample alternative channels analysis, courts should ask whether a speaker’s chosen mode is incompatible with the government’s interest in the restriction in question. An incompatibility rule would be more consistent with the Roberts Court’s turn toward reviewing content-neutral speech restrictions rigorously, as evidenced in 2014’s McCullen v. Coakley

Speech Regulation by Algorithm

The rapid convergence of speech and technology on social media platforms means it is likely the case that, either now or soon, more expressive activity will be regulated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) than by any legislature, regulator, or other government entity. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly told Congress and other audiences that AI is the key to resolving Facebook\u27s content moderation challenges, envisioning a moderation regime where algorithms detect and take down speech infringing Facebook\u27s Community Standards ex ante, that is, prior to its public posting and before it reaches other users. According to Zuckerberg, this would eventually replace its initial content moderation practices, which relied more on human moderators and user complaints than on automated detection and removal -- a system that can be slow, inconsistently applied, and often subjects front-line moderators to harrowing emotional harms by exposing them to the worst of the Internet. This Article argues that private parties\u27 speech-regulation-by-algorithm is itself protected speech. Government efforts to regulate the content moderation of platforms will thus necessarily be barred by the First Amendment, even if that moderation is automated via AI. Nor would users whose speech has been regulated by AI have any better speech-related claims against AI-informed platform moderation decisions than they have had against nonautomated moderation, for the same reason. However, automated front-end filtering of user speech via AI is in serious tension with several core tenets of First Amendment doctrine. Ex ante AI-based content moderation operates in much the same way as a prior restraint; like government prepublication censorship, it gives users no notice of takedowns prior to publication, nor reasons for the takedown decision (at least reasons that a lay user would be capable of understanding). Additionally, it is already clear based on its current use, and the necessities of machine learning processes, that content-based speech regulation via AI is necessarily overinclusive, which is normally sufficient to find a law or regulation unconstitutional under the First Amendment -- a problem that will only grow worse as AI moderates more speech. Given these concerns, this Article advocates for many of the same robust notice and procedural rights for platform users whose speech is regulated via AI, as the First Amendment compels of governments seeking to regulate private speakers

Estudio de validación de un aplicativo móvil no invasivo para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de anemia en niños menores de 5 años de Lima Norte - periodo enero a mayo 2021

La anemia es un problema de salud pública a nivel mundial1. Se estima que alrededor de 800 millones de personas la sufren2. La incidencia es mayor en la población pediátrica y más aún en aquellos que no reúnen condiciones sanitarias adecuadas3. En el Perú, se estima que aproximadamente 1 de cada 2 niños menores de 3 años sufren de esta enfermedad4. Durante los últimos 9 años la prevalencia de anemia en nuestro país no ha sufrido cambios significativos a pesar de las diferentes políticas de salud pública adoptadas5. En nuestro país se realizan campañas masivas enfocadas a la prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento de la enfermedad las cuales, como se ha mencionado, no han tenido impactado hasta la actualidad6. Las campañas de prevención se enfocan en la higiene de manos, hábitos saludables y el consumo de alimentos ricos en hierro; sin embargo, la mayoría de estas intervenciones no tienen un método de medición efectivo que permita valorar el impacto de este tipo de estrategias7

Identificación de Botrytis prunorum y B. cinerea asociados a la pudrición calicinal en peras durante poscosecha

39 p.La exportacion de peras (Pyrus communis L.) a nivel mundial es muy importante, siendo Chile actualmente considerado como uno de los principales paises exportadores de pera fresca del hemisferio sur. La superficie de perales alcanza las 7.271 ha, siendo la region del Maule la segunda region con mas produccion nuestro pais, luego de la region de O´Higgins. La pudrición calicinal de la pera es causado predominantemente por Botrytis cinerea, siendo esta enfermedad una de las importantes durante poscosecha. Recientemente se han identificado a otras especies de Botrytis causando pudricion gris en diferentes hospederos (manzana, ciruelo, kiwis, arandanos entre otros). Por ello, es muy importante realizar diversos tipos de estudios que puedan identificar las posibles especies de Botrytis para determinar de forma mas exacta la etiologia de la pudrición calicinal de peras en la Region del Maule. El objetivo del presente estudio fue caracterizar molecularmente y estudiar el comportamiento bajo la temperatura de 0°C de aislados de Botrytis cinerea de alta esporulacion y aislados de Botrytis sp. de baja esporulacion obtenidos recientemente causando pudricion calicinal en peras en la Region del Maule. Basados en los resultados obtenidos, se identificó por medio de la identificacion molecular (comparacion de secuencias, Blast) y analisis filogeneticos (incluyendo genes G3PDH, HSP60 y RPB2) a Botrytis prunorum asociados a los aislados de baja esporulacion de Botrytis. Los aislados de B. prunorum crecieron a 0oC. Sin embargo, la tasa de crecimiento de los aislados de B. prunorum fue baja, al compararla con los aislados de B. cinerea. Por lo tanto, los aislados de B. prunorum, mostraron diferencias geneticas y fisiologicas diferentes a B. cinerea, colectados desde pudriciones de peras en Chile