Clay Calvert

Bio: Clay Calvert is an academic researcher from University of Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Jurisprudence. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 56 publications receiving 390 citations. Previous affiliations of Clay Calvert include Fredric G. Levin College of Law & University of California, Berkeley.

Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy, And Peering In Modern Culture

Abstract: Introduction Peeping Tom Meets Jennifer Ringley Social Forces Driving Mediated Voyeurism Priming the Economic and Political Pumps of Mediated Voyeurism Dont Look Now, But Somebodys Watching You Free Press, Free Voyeurs? Check Your Camera at the Castle Door Seeing Voyeurs in First Amendment Theory Conclusion

Sex, Cell Phones, Privacy, and the First Amendment: When Children Become Child Pornographers and the Lolita Effect Undermines the Law

Abstract: It is a sure-fire recipe for legal trouble: combine hormone-raging teens with image-transmitting technologies, and then stir them together in a sex-saturated society replete with outdated laws and a criminal justice system that never could have anticipated such a combustible confluence of forces. Signs and symptoms of this salacious problem are cropping up across the United States: • In March 2009, a fourteen-year-old boy in Brooksville, Florida, was arrested and “accused of sending a picture of his genitalia” to the cell phone of a female high school classmate. • That same month, a fourteen-year-old girl from Passaic County, New Jersey, faced child pornography charges “after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com—charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.” • In January 2009, three high school girls from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania “were charged with manufacturing and disseminating or possess-

Counterspeech 2000: A New Look at the Old Remedy for "Bad" Speech

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION Justice Louis Brandeis, in his concurring opinion nearly seventyfive years ago in the criminal syndicalism case of Whitney v. California,l articulated the premise of what today is known as the doctrine of counterspeech.2 When it came to expression that was perceived by some to be dangerous, threatening, or harmful, Brandeis famously wrote, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."3 At the heart of the counterspeech doctrine is the principle, as Laurence Tribe writes, that "whenever `more speech' could eliminate a feared injury, more speech is the constitutionally-mandated remedy."4 Rather than censor allegedly harmful speech and thereby risk violating the First Amendment5 protection of expression, or file a lawsuit that threatens to punish speech perceived as harmful, the preferred remedy is to add more speech to the metaphorical marketplace of ideas.6 In defamation law,7 for instance, the United States Supreme Court has held that "the first remedy of any victim of defamation is self help-using available opportunities to contradict the lie or correct the error and thereby to minimize its adverse impact on reputation. "8 The idea that "bad speech" can be effectively countered or cured with more speech, however, has recently come under fire in some quarters.9 The effectiveness of counterspeech, for instance, may be limited by the amount of time available to refute the pernicious speech in question and "whether the counter-message comes to the attention of all the persons who were swayed by the original idea."10 Critical race theorists have argued as well that some minority groups experience "diminished access to private remedies such as effective counterspeech."11 Hate speech also may have what Professor Owen Fiss describes as a "silencing effect" on its victims, disabling and discrediting "a would-be speaker" and thereby reducing the effectiveness of counterspeech.12 Catharine A. MacKinnon, the outspoken feminist legal scholar, suggests that the same problem observed by critical race theorists-- limited access to the means of communication-plagues those who would use counterspeech to criticize individuals in power. She writes that "silencing" may occur through "the refusal of publishers and editors to publish, or publish well, uncompromised expressions of dissent that make them uncomfortable by challenging the distribution of power, including sexual power."13 It is, in other words, an unfair marketplace of ideas in which unequal access to the means of communication denies some groups the remedy of counterspeech. As legal scholars Robert Jensen and Elvia Arriola write from a critical perspective, "those who have power continue to have the greatest opportunities to speak in an effective manner."14 Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that in some cases counterspeech may not be an effective remedy for harmful speech. In Hustler Magazine, Inc. ro. Falwell,15 for instance, the Court suggested, "False statements of fact are particularly valueless" because "they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective."16 Counterspeech, in brief, is seen as a constitutionally preferred yet somewhat suspect and sketchy remedy for harmful speech. Although counterspeech is not always a perfect remedy, individuals and courts should seriously consider it as a solution. When used wisely, counterspeech may prove to be a very effective solution for harmful or threatening expression. This article examines an eclectic collection of recent free-speech battles in which various manners and modes of counterspeech have been used-some perhaps more effectively than others-as antidotes for allegedly harmful speech. The examples of counterspeech described here take many forms, stretching from the thoroughly lowtech use of billboards by concerned citizens in Missouri to counteract expression by the Ku Klux Klan17 to the very high-tech employment of the World Wide Web18 by the maker of a diet pill to launch a pre-emptive counter strike against an allegedly critical television broadcast. …

Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review

Abstract: To date, many important threads of information privacy research have developed, but these threads have not been woven together into a cohesive fabric. This paper provides an interdisciplinary review of privacy-related research in order to enable a more cohesive treatment. With a sample of 320 privacy articles and 128 books and book sections, we classify previous literature in two ways: (1) using an ethics-based nomenclature of normative, purely descriptive, and empirically descriptive, and (2) based on their level of analysis: individual, group, organizational, and societal. Based upon our analyses via these two classification approaches, we identify three major areas in which previous research contributions reside: the conceptualization of information privacy, the relationship between information privacy and other constructs, and the contextual nature of these relationships. As we consider these major areas, we draw three overarching conclusions. First, there are many theoretical developments in the body of normative and purely descriptive studies that have not been addressed in empirical research on privacy. Rigorous studies that either trace processes associated with, or test implied assertions from, these value-laden arguments could add great value. Second, some of the levels of analysis have received less attention in certain contexts than have others in the research to date. Future empirical studies-both positivist and interpretive--could profitably be targeted to these under-researched levels of analysis. Third, positivist empirical studies will add the greatest value if they focus on antecedents to privacy concerns and on actual outcomes. In that light, we recommend that researchers be alert to an overarching macro model that we term APCO (Antecedents → Privacy Concerns → Outcomes).

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

The Economics of Privacy

Abstract: This article summarizes and draws connections among diverse streams of theoretical and empirical research on the economics of privacy. We focus on the economic value and consequences of protecting and disclosing personal information, and on consumers' understanding and decisions regarding the trade-offs associated with the privacy and the sharing of personal data. We highlight how the economic analysis of privacy evolved over time, as advancements in information technology raised increasingly nuanced and complex issues associated with the protection and sharing of personal information. We find and highlight three themes that connect diverse insights from the literature. First, characterizing a single unifying economic theory of privacy is hard, because privacy issues of economic relevance arise in widely diverse contexts. Second, there are theoretical and empirical situations where the protection of privacy can both enhance, and detract from, individual and societal welfare. Third, in digital economies, consumers' ability to make informed decisions about their privacy is severely hindered, because consumers are often in a position of imperfect or asymmetric information regarding when their data is collected, for what purposes, and with what consequences. We conclude the article by highlighting some of the ongoing issues in the privacy debate of interest to economists.

The Economics of Privacy

Abstract: This article summarizes and draws connections among diverse streams of theoretical and empirical research on the economics of privacy. We focus on the economic value and consequences of protecting and disclosing personal information, and on consumers' understanding and decisions regarding the trade-offs associated with the privacy and the sharing of personal data. We highlight how the economic analysis of privacy evolved over time, as advancements in information technology raised increasingly nuanced and complex issues. We find and highlight three themes that connect diverse insights from the literature. First, characterizing a single unifying economic theory of privacy is hard, because privacy issues of economic relevance arise in widely diverse contexts. Second, there are theoretical and empirical situations where the protection of privacy can both enhance and detract from individual and societal welfare. Third, in digital economies, consumers' ability to make informed decisions about their privacy is severely hindered because consumers are often in a position of imperfect or asymmetric information regarding when their data is collected, for what purposes, and with what consequences. We conclude the article by highlighting some of the ongoing issues in the privacy debate of interest to economists.

Social Media Definition and the Governance Challenge: An Introduction to the Special Issue

Abstract: This introduction to a special issue of "Telecommunications Policy" entitled "The Governance of Social Media" begins with a definition of social media that informs all contributions in the special issue. A section describing the challenges associated with the governance of social media is presented next, followed by an overview of the various articles included in the special issue.While the Internet and the World Wide Web have always been used to facilitate social interaction, the emergence and rapid diffusion of Web 2.0 functionalities during the first decade of the new millennium enabled an evolutionary leap forward in the social component of web use. This and falling costs for online data storage made it feasible for the first time to offer masses of Internet users access to an array of user-centric spaces they could populate with user-generated content, along with a correspondingly diverse set of opportunities for linking these spaces together to form virtual social networks.To define “social media” for our current purposes, we synthesize definitions presented in the literature and identify the following commonalities among current social media services:1) Social media services are (currently) Web 2.0 Internet-based applications,2) User-generated content is the lifeblood of social media,3) Individuals and groups create user-specific profiles for a site or app designed and maintained by a social media service,4) Social media services facilitate the development of social networks online by connecting a profile with those of other individuals and/or groups.Transformative communication technologies have always called for regulatory innovation. Theodor Vail’s vision of “one policy, one system, universal service” preceded more than one-hundred years of innovative regulations aimed at connecting all Americans to a single telephone network. The sinking of the Titanic, caused in part by “chaos in the spectrum” led to the Radio Act of 1912 and the creation of a command and control model designed to regulate broadcast radio. Safe-harbor hours were put in place after a father and son heard George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” routine over the radio in their car. The fairness doctrine and the minority tax certificate program were designed to address inequalities in the broadcast television industry. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act responded to intellectual property concerns raised by a global Internet and the FCC’s 700mhz auction was the result of demand for smarter mobile phones. Now we must consider the role of regulatory innovation in response to the emergence of social media.