scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on digital monitoring of individual reading habits for purposes of so-called "copyright management" in cyberspace, and evaluate the import of this monitoring for traditional notions of freedom of thought and expression.
Abstract: It has become commonplace to say that we have entered the age of information. The words conjure up images of a reader's paradise ~ an era of limitless access to information resources and unlimited interpersonal communication. In truth, however, the new information age is turning out to be as much an age of information about readers as an age of information for readers. The same technologies that have made vast amounts of information accessible in digital form are enabling information providers to amass an unprecedented wealth of data about who their customers are and what they like to read. In the new age of digitally transmitted information, the simple, formerly anonymous acts of reading, listening, and viewing ~ scanning an advertisement or a short news item, browsing through an online novel or a collection of video clips ~ can be made to speak volumes, including, quite possibly, information that the reader would prefer not to share. This Article focuses specifically on digital monitoring of individual reading habits for purposes of so-called "copyright management" in cyberspace, and evaluates the import of this monitoring for traditional notions of freedom of thought and expression.

17 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that these proposals fail to take account of dramatic changes in the structure and operation of stock exchanges that are already making possible a vibrant market for securities laws, and that by merging with foreign competitors, stock exchanges are now able offer firms greater choice as to where their securities will be sold and, as a result, greater choice over the regulatory regime governing their offerings.
Abstract: Leading scholars have lamented for nearly a decade the absence of what can be termed a market for securities laws. In contrast to U.S. corporate law, which is said to prompt competition among states for charters, no competition for issuers animates the enactment of federal securities laws. Indeed, the conventional view is that the U.S. government has enjoyed a virtual monopoly over securities laws since the passing of the 1933 Securities Act. In response, academics such as Roberta Romano, Andrew Guzman, and Stephen Choi have proposed a variety of reforms aimed at generating competition among securities regulators by giving either issuers or stock exchanges expanded choice as to the legal regime governing their securities transactions. This Article argues that these proposals fail to take account of dramatic changes in the structure and operation of stock exchanges that are already making possible a vibrant market for securities laws. First, the Article identifies what can be viewed as a 'public' market for securities laws. In this market, the services offered by stock exchanges are increasingly commoditized as exchanges transition from floor trading to electronic trading. As a result, national regulators eager to protect or expand their financial centers are incentivized to provide attractive rules for securities issuances. Second, the Article demonstrates how the acquisition of foreign competitors by U.S. stock exchanges has created a nascent 'private' market for securities laws. The Article shows that by merging with foreign competitors, stock exchanges are now able offer firms greater choice as to where their securities will be sold, and, as a result, greater choice over the regulatory regime governing their offerings. The Article then assesses the degree of regulatory competition created by these new markets for securities laws by comparing them to the reform proposals advanced by the critics of the current securities law regime.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This brief report describes what the authors know about the nature and costs of survivor loneliness and uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a lens through which to review the ways current DV interventions may help alleviate loneliness, and how these might be expanded to enhance survivor wellbeing, immediately and even after a return to “normal.”
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically highlighted the isolation of domestic violence survivors, triggering media coverage and innovative efforts to reach out to those who are trapped in their homes, facing greater danger from their partners than from the virus. But another harmful aspect of this difficult time has received far less attention: survivors' intensified loneliness. Although loneliness can be catalyzed by isolation, it is a distinct psychological phenomenon that is internal and subjective in nature. Loneliness is not only acutely painful in its own right; it also inflicts a range of long lasting, health-related harms, and heightens survivors' vulnerability to violence, creating a vicious cycle that may continue long after strict stay-at-home and physical distancing policies end. This may be particularly true for marginalized survivors, for whom larger structural inequalities and institutional failures compound the negative impact of loneliness. This brief report describes what we know about the nature and costs of survivor loneliness and uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a lens through which to review the ways current DV interventions may help alleviate loneliness (as distinct from isolation), and how these might be expanded to enhance survivor wellbeing, immediately and even after a return to "normal."

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
05 Dec 2007-JAMA
TL;DR: The commentary argues that perhaps the most important effect of tobacco litigation has been to transform public and political perceptions about risk and responsibility in smoking, making clear what manufacturers knew, how they concealed this knowledge, and how they manipulated consumers.
Abstract: THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONtrol (FCTC) identifies civil and criminal litigation as a public health strategy and promotes international cooperation(reporting, technicalassistance,and information exchange). Holding the tobacco industry accountable throughcivil andcriminal liability servesanumberofpublic health objectives: punishes companies for hiding known health risks, manipulating nicotine content, and misleading the public; deters and prevents future harmful behavior; compensates individualsandstake-holders forhealthcareandother costs associated with smoking and exposure to environmental tobaccosmoke(ETS);raisesprices, resultinginlowertobacco consumption; increasesdisclosureofhealthrisks, throughlabeling and advertising restrictions; and promotes transparency, by compelling discovery of internal industry documents. Tobacco litigation frequently has been used as a method for promoting tobacco control in the United States. Litigation is less common outside the United States, but increasingly advocates have brought innovative lawsuits abroad. This commentary explores global tobacco litigation strategies, with 4 key elements: compensation/recovery, advertising restrictions, criminal liability, and public interest writ litigation.

17 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Glaeser and Koolhaas as mentioned in this paper argued that preservation lacks an organizing theory, imposes inauthentic consumer-friendly glosses on older structures, and inhibits architectural creativity.
Abstract: The past years have seen widely noticed critiques of historic preservation by “one of our leading urban economists,” Edward Glaeser, and by star architect Rem Koolhaas. Glaeser, an academic economist specializing in urban development, admits that preservation has value. But he argues in his invigorating book, Triumph of the City, and in a contemporaneous article, Preservation Follies, that historic preservation restricts too much development, raises prices, and undermines the vitality of the cities. Koolhaas is a Pritzker Prize-winning architect and oracular theorist of the relation between architecture and culture. In his New York exhibit, Cronocaos, he argued that preservation lacks an organizing theory, imposes inauthentic consumer-friendly glosses on older structures, and inhibits architectural creativity. Although these critiques are as different as the cultural spaces inhabited by their authors (although both are professors at Harvard), both seemed to strike nerves, suggesting an underlying unease about how large a role preservation has come to play in urban development. This article assesses these critiques as part of an ongoing effort to make sense of historic preservation law.This article proceeds as follows: First, it presents Glaeser’s critique in detail, placing it within the context of his larger argument about what makes cities attractive and dynamic. Grappling with the strengths and weaknesses of Glaeser’s critique leads to a discussion of how preservation regulation actually works and clarification of some of the benefits it confers. Second, this Article will attempt to specify Koolhaas’s critique, connecting it to similar complaints about preservation by more linear thinkers. Weighing objections to the coherence or authenticity of preservation leads to further discussion of the role that preservation plays in the larger culture. This article concludes with a call for future research.

17 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118