Search for: "Packingham v. North Carolina" Results 121 - 139 of 139
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2014, 11:23 am by Eric Goldman
North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social networking sites struck down as unconstitutional. * Robert Brownstone, New Jersey 13th State to Protect Social Media Passwords. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 4:33 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Mark Grabowski argues that the justices’ comments during oral argument in Packingham v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 3:33 am by Scott Bomboy
Fueling these theories were comments made in a 2017 Supreme Court decision, Packingham v. [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 5:03 pm by INFORRM
Panopticon has examined the judgements in the cases of Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens & Ors and Deer v Oxford University. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 4:25 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Douglas Berman weighs in The Washington Post Fact Checker’s assertion that a statement about sex-offender recidivism by Justice Samuel Alito in Packingham v. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
But I should give a trigger warning to readers who are sensitive to discussions of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act: The petition is not a safe space. ============================================================ Granted Relists Packingham v. [read post]
29 May 2020, 7:52 am by Elliot Setzer
President Trump on Thursday, May 28, signed an executive order targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects tech companies from being held liable for third-party content shared on their sites. [read post]
29 May 2020, 7:52 am by Elliot Setzer
President Trump on Thursday, May 28, signed an executive order targetting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that provides tech companies from being held liable for third-party content shared on their sites. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 7:16 am by David Post
There are many strange things about the Internet and the manner in which it operates. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 5:57 am by Eugene Volokh
The Washington Supreme Court, in a case examining the similarly-worded telephone-harassment statute, has defined “intimidate” to include “compel[ling] to action or inaction (as by threats),” Seattle v. [read post]