Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
S. Sherry
{"title":"Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace","authors":"S. Sherry","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.319683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Every time a new technology creates legal problems, we face in a particular context the general question of relative institutional competence. Do we turn first to the judiciary, allowing time for a gradual solution derived from common law methods, or do we look instead to the federal legislature for an instant global solution? This Article endorses the judicial approach, suggesting that Congress is particularly likely to err when rapidly changing technology creates a perceived crisis, and when the strongest reasons for not legislating are abstract and inchoate. The Article examines three legal questions raised by computer technology, two the subject of recently enacted federal statutes and the third dealt with solely by the judiciary. The author concludes that both of the factors that maximize the potential for legislative error are present in most cyberlaw questions, and that the judiciary has therefore been more successful than Congress at responding to the legal problems arising from this new technology.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":"55 1","pages":"307"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.319683","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.319683","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Every time a new technology creates legal problems, we face in a particular context the general question of relative institutional competence. Do we turn first to the judiciary, allowing time for a gradual solution derived from common law methods, or do we look instead to the federal legislature for an instant global solution? This Article endorses the judicial approach, suggesting that Congress is particularly likely to err when rapidly changing technology creates a perceived crisis, and when the strongest reasons for not legislating are abstract and inchoate. The Article examines three legal questions raised by computer technology, two the subject of recently enacted federal statutes and the third dealt with solely by the judiciary. The author concludes that both of the factors that maximize the potential for legislative error are present in most cyberlaw questions, and that the judiciary has therefore been more successful than Congress at responding to the legal problems arising from this new technology.
欲速则不达:网络空间中的国会与普通法
每当一项新技术产生法律问题时,我们在特定情况下都会面临相对机构能力的一般问题。我们是应该首先求助于司法部门,给时间从普通法方法中逐步找到解决方案,还是应该转而求助于联邦立法机构,寻求一个即时的全球解决方案?这篇文章支持司法方法,表明当快速变化的技术产生了一种被认为是危机的时候,当不立法的最强有力的理由是抽象和不成熟的时候,国会特别容易出错。这篇文章考察了计算机技术引起的三个法律问题,其中两个是最近颁布的联邦法规的主题,而第三个则完全由司法部门处理。作者的结论是,在大多数网络法律问题中,这两个因素都最大限度地增加了立法错误的可能性,因此,司法部门在应对这种新技术引起的法律问题方面比国会更成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信