Home » 2016 » November

Monthly Archives: November 2016

Winning with Social Media: A Desktop Guide for Lawyers Using Social Media in Litigation and Trial


By Michelle Sherman


Winning with Social Media: A Desktop Guide for Lawyers Using Social Media in Litigation and Trial

Publisher: NITA

Litigation is about winning. Social media, once the stomping grounds of a youthful, tech-savvy generation, a phenomenon with an incredible impact in the legal arena. The oversharing that happens on social networking sites can make or break a case, and that’s where Winning with Social Media comes in. In the twenty-first century, dealing with social media evidence is a crucial part of your discovery plan and trial preparation, and Winning with Social Media will help you meet that challenge.

Law in the Age of Social Media


Forbes: Law In The Age Of Social Media


Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair and Logistics (Personal Jurisdiction)

Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair and Logistics (Personal Jurisdiction)

November 4, 2016
Labor & Employment Law, Cyberspace Law
(California Court of Appeal) – In an action for injuries plaintiff suffered when an employee of defendant’s allegedly uploaded a private photograph of plaintiff to her Facebook page from a mobile telephone she had returned to T-Mobile, the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons and amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff has failed to establish any defendant’s minimum contacts with California sufficient to allow for the exercise of specific jurisdiction.

Court revives defamation suit over blog-post comment about lawyer


Court revives defamation suit over blog-post comment about lawyer

The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has reinstated a lawsuit by a Chicago-based lawyer over defamation claims stemming from a comment on a Jezebel blog post. The comment about Meanith Huon, who was acquitted of sexual-assault charges, favored the accuser’s version of events.

ABA Journal (11/2016)

Updating the Social Network: How Outdated and Unclear State Legislation Unconstitutionally Violates Sex Offenders’ First Amendment Rights

Elizabeth Tolon


Updating the Social Network: How Outdated and Unclear State Legislation Unconstitutionally Violates Sex Offenders’ First Amendment Rights


In an effort to protect the public, sex offenders are subject to a wide variety of restrictions. Where they live, what they can do, who they can see – the government regulates almost every aspect of sex offenders’ lives. In an effort to curb internet based criminal activity, states have enacted legislation restricting sex offenders’ internet use.

Unfortunately, current legislation is often outdated, overly restrictive, and unconstitutional. To avoid being unconstitutional and irrelevant, these statutes must be tailored to restrict social media use by the type of offense and/or offender, differentiate true social networking sites from those websites that employ secondary social features, and provide caveats for job related sites.

This paper will analyze current state legislation, focusing specifically on North Carolina’s statute, and how it falls short of the requirements. In comparing and contrasting North Carolina’s statute to other state statutes, this paper will also provide an analysis of State v. Packingham, and its importance to future legislation. Finally, this paper will suggest a model statute for restricting sex offenders’ internet use, while avoiding constitutional concern.


Facebook turns off ethnicity targeting for some ads


Facebook turns off ethnicity targeting for some ads

Facebook has agreed to remove the ability for marketers to target certain ethnicities in some ad categories, like housing and employment. The decision came after some lawmakers and civil rights organizations, such as the ACLU, felt the targeting could reduce opportunities for minorities and other disadvantaged groups.

Bloomberg (11/11),  The Wall Street Journal (tiered subscription model) (11/13), The New York Times (free-article access for SmartBrief readers) (11/11)

Seventh Annual Internet Law Works-in-Progress conference at Santa Clara University School of Law (March 4, 2017)

Inline image 1

Seventh Annual Internet Law Works-in-Progress conference at Santa Clara University School of Law (March 4, 2017)

The conference enables Internet law scholars from around the world to receive feedback about their in-process research from their academic peers. We broadly construe what topics fit under the Internet Law umbrella. For more background about the series, see http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2015/03/reflections-on-the-internet-law-work-in-progress-conference-series.html

Participation Options

The conference has three categories of participation:

papers-in-progress. Category 1 papers are drafts that are far enough along to benefit from peer feedback but still early enough to accommodate substantial feedback. They have the following attributes: (1) the paper draft is submitted no later than February 15, 2017, noon Pacific time (no extensions!), and (2) as of March 4, 2017, the draft has not been circulated/accepted for publication or posted to SSRN or a similar site. Category 2 papers are due at the same time, but they will have been circulated/accepted for publication or posted to SSRN or a similar site prior to March 4, 2017, which means they may not incorporate substantial peer feedback as easily. We may allocate additional presentation time to Category 1 papers; and we may allocate less time to Category 2 papers and/or require that they be presented by a third-party commenter instead of the author.

projects-in-progress. These are presentations on any other academic project, ranging from nearly finished papers to half-baked ideas.

discussant. Space permitting, we welcome other scholars to join the conversation as an active audience participant.

Each participant may make only one presentation at the conference. If you seek an exception to this rule, contact me ASAP.

How to Participate

If you would like to participate, email Eric Goldman (egoldman@gmail.com) the following information by the priority deadline of November 13, 2016, noon Pacific time:

* your name, email address and institutional affiliation
* your preferred category of participation, including (if applicable) your anticipated paper category
* the title of your project (if applicable)
* if you would be willing to serve as a commentator-presenter for someone else’s paper (if we create such roles)

We expect to reply to participation requests by November 17, 2016. We will accommodate participation requests after the priority deadline on a space-available basis. However, in the past, requests after the priority deadline have initially gone onto a waitlist, so don’t delay!

There is no conference participation fee, but all participants are responsible for their own travel and lodging expenses. We will provide further travel information soon. There are no publication obligations associated with presenting at the conference.

Game Night

The conference’s game nights have included PowerPoint karaoke, Dungeons & Dragons, Cards Against Humanity and more. See, e.g.,https://secure.flickr.com/photos/81901130@N03/sets/72157633737216641/ Although the details aren’t finalized, we expect another game night to remember on March 4. Plan your travel schedule accordingly!

More Information

The conference website is http://law.scu.edu/event/2017-internet-law-wip/. It’s just a placeholder for now but more information will be added soon. Contact Eric Goldman at egoldman@gmail.com with any questions or comments.

We look forward to seeing you in Santa Clara! Thanks, Eric.

Eric Goldman
Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law

Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate

Email: egoldman@gmail.com
Personal website: http://www.ericgoldman.org
Blogs: http://blog.ericgoldman.org & http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ericgoldman