Pace law review最新文献_第9页

The Federal Criminal Forfeiture Statute: Reining in The Government’s Previously Unbridled Ability to Seize Pretrial Assets 联邦刑事没收法规:控制政府先前不受约束的没收审前资产的能力

Pace law review Pub Date : 2018-05-14 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1972

Kristyn Fleming Francese

引用次数: 0

No More Tiers? Proportionality as an Alternative to Multiple Levels of Scrutiny in Individual Rights Cases 没有更多的分层？在个人权利案件中，比例作为多层次审查的替代方案

Pace law review Pub Date : 2018-05-14 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1967

Donald L. Beschle

引用次数: 0

Platforms, the First Amendment and Online Speech: Regulating the Filters 平台，第一修正案和在线言论:规范过滤器

Pace law review Pub Date : 2018-05-01 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1987

Sofia Grafanaki

{"title":"Platforms, the First Amendment and Online Speech: Regulating the Filters","authors":"Sofia Grafanaki","doi":"10.58948/2331-3528.1987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.1987","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, online platforms have given rise to multiple discussions about what their role is, what their role should be, and whether they should be regulated. The complex nature of these private entities makes it very challenging to place them in a single descriptive category with existing rules. In today’s information environment, social media platforms have become a platform press by providing hosting as well as navigation and delivery of public expression, much of which is done through machine learning algorithms. This article argues that there is a subset of algorithms that social media platforms use to filter public expression, which can be regulated without constitutional objections. A distinction is drawn between algorithms that curate speech for hosting purposes and those that curate for navigation purposes, and it is argued that content navigation algorithms, because of their function, deserve separate constitutional treatment. By analyzing the platforms’ functions independently from one another, this paper constructs a doctrinal and normative framework that can be used to navigate some of the complexity. \u0000 \u0000The First Amendment makes it problematic to interfere with how platforms decide what to host because algorithms that implement content moderation policies perform functions analogous to an editorial role when deciding whether content should be censored or allowed on the platform. Content navigation algorithms, on the other hand, do not face the same doctrinal challenges; they operate outside of the public discourse as mere information conduits and are thus not subject to core First Amendment doctrine. Their function is to facilitate the flow of information to an audience, which in turn participates in public discourse; if they have any constitutional status, it is derived from the value they provide to their audience as a delivery mechanism of information. \u0000 \u0000This article asserts that we should regulate content navigation algorithms to an extent. They undermine the notion of autonomous choice in the selection and consumption of content, and their role in today’s information environment is not aligned with a functioning marketplace of ideas and the prerequisites for citizens in a democratic society to perform their civic duties. The paper concludes that any regulation directed to content navigation algorithms should be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny, similar to the standard for commercial speech.","PeriodicalId":82250,"journal":{"name":"Pace law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43859767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Hope vs. Fear: The Debate Over a State Constitutional Convention 希望与恐惧:关于州制宪会议的辩论

Pace law review Pub Date : 2017-10-12 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1953

H. Greenberg

引用次数: 0

Home Rule in New York: The Need for a Change 纽约自治：改变的必要性

Pace law review Pub Date : 2017-10-12 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1959

Michael A. Cardozo, Zachary Klinger

引用次数: 0

Unusual “Politics as Usual”: The 2017 Ballot Proposition Calling for a Constitutional Convention in New York 不同寻常的“照常政治”：2017年呼吁在纽约举行制宪会议的投票提案

Pace law review Pub Date : 2017-10-12 DOI: 10.58948/2331-3528.1955

Peter J. Galie