![]() State aid program on December 1,1959, climaxed more than a decade of effort by the New Jersey Library Association and other groups. It also adds a few notes on the problem of partisanship, arguing that academics should not take public positions on questions unless they would be equally ready to make the same arguments publicly when they are helpful to their political enemies - unless, again, they disclose that they are serving as advocates for one side or the other. Part IV discusses the proposed convention for legal academics to follow in deciding whether to sign an opinion addressed to a court or legislature. Part III applies these distinctions to the law professors' letter to Congress opposing the impeachment of President Clinton. Part II demonstrates that some contributions of academic opinion to a tribunal are more valuable than others, even if the academics making the contributions are equally confident that what they are saying is correct there are important differences in value between contributions made by generalists and specialists, and contributions made on the basis of "hard" expertise (involving factual representations) and "soft" expertise (involving normative judgments). Part I sketches the nature of the collective action problem created by academics who sign opinion letters and petitions indistinguishably on the basis of different levels of expertise, analogizing this practice to abuse of a trademark (here the "law professor" mark) that is likely to lead either to consumer confusion or dilution of the mark. ![]() documents unless they would be ready to defend them orally in the tribunals to which the documents are being presented. This Article proposes some conventions for law professors who render opinions in the course of public debate, arguing that when academics offer public opinions in their professional capacities they should use the same care and have the same expertise called for in their published work, or else should disclose that they are adhering to a lesser standard. The Act would require schools and libraries to prohibit access to “social networking Websites or chat rooms through which minors may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material (or) may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults.”The debate over filtering and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) highlighted the tension that exists between free speech and the legitimate need to protect children from obscene content and sexual predators. In response to this concern, Congress introduced the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (DOPA). A growing concern has emerged about sexual predators using these sites to locate potential abuse victims. and other social networking Websites allow individuals, including children, to create profiles, post photos and establish blogs, which are then shared with other MySpace users and are accessible throughout the Internet. The recent eruption of interest and concern about social networking Websites like has brought Internet filtering back to the front pages.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |