Search for: "United States v. M/V Santa Clara I" Results 21 - 40 of 58
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2022, 8:50 am by Eric Goldman
Nevertheless, as the semester has already started at Santa Clara Law, I’ll do my rundown of my 2022 outputs-to-date anyway. [read post]
23 May 2022, 6:42 am by Eric Goldman
They could not remove speech glorifying terrorist attacks against the United States—unless they also remove speech decrying, memorializing, or educating about terrorist attacks against the United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 7:15 am by Eric Goldman
Overview of the Bill The bill has three main components: dictating procedural operations for UGC sites (what I call the “Santa Clara Principles”); reducing Section 230; and requesting studies. 1) “Santa Clara Principles” The Santa Clara Principles emerged alongside the Santa Clara University conference on Content Moderation and Removal in 2018. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
Deepfakes, Privacy, and Freedom of Speech, YourWitness Blog, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, 2021, Christa Laser, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University – School of Law. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 1:00 pm
Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, every trial court in the state is entitled to follow either one of them. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:01 am by Schachtman
I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief”); Daubert v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 12:23 pm by Dawn Goulet, Associate
County of Santa Clara The controversy was reignited in part by the United States Supreme Court’s recent refusal to hear the appeal of a California Supreme Court decision holding that the government can hire private attorneys on a contingenct basis under certain circumstances. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm by Anna Christensen
§ 35.150(d), are enforceable by private right of action.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (9th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's replyAmicus brief for Disability Rights Advocates et al.Amicus brief for Richard M. [read post]