The group of technologies known as the Internet has transformed information gathering and sharing in a way never imagined previously. Because of some of the controversial content on the Internet, public university libraries grapple with Internet access issues because of governing university policies, governmental legislation and other types of regulation. The primary purpose of making information available for the furtherance of research and ideas is the cornerstone of the university library's purpose. The First Amendment provides protection against the limitations of government imposed on modes of communication. This protection applies to the Internet as well. The legal system struggles with balancing the modalities of constraint (powers), versus the modalities of protection (rights), when applying the First Amendment to the Internet and access restriction issues. Currently, little case law exists to solidify a unified stance on this technological ''new kid on the block," with issues concerning access in the public library system, or in the university library realm. Just as there are those that would restrict the reading of various printed publications or the viewing of provocative works of art, the restriction of access to the Internet at the university level could well be construed as a twenty-first century form of censorship. The purpose of this study is to investigate the application of the First Amendment to the Internet in relation to access restrictions in university libraries. Further, the access restriction methods employed by the libraries are examined and critiqued, as well as the development and expansion of the Internet as a primary research tool. If the First · Amendment was created for the protection of speech, the protection extends to access of that speech.

Owning property, starting a business, and owning your own home are things considered to be part of the American dream. Our country was founded upon certain rights, which allow ownership of homes and small businesses. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the interests of private property owners from the seizure of their land, except where the property is needed to satisfy a public use, and they are provided with just compensation for their loss. The 2005 United States Supreme Court case decision in Keio v. City of New London eliminated private property owner's protection under the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision allows for the public taking of private property which is then transferred to another private party for the economic development of a city. The court determined that the redevelopment of the city which provided an increase in jobs and in tax revenue for the city, is a public use under the Fifth Amendment. As a result of the decision in Keio, the floodgates to hundreds of similar cases across the county are open. Throughout the United States, local governments are attempting to seize land needed for economic gain and redevelopment through eminent domain. Thousands of private residences, businesses, churches, and other community buildings are being seized and transferred to other private owners who will benefit from this seizure and transfer. The courts are moving away from the words actually written in the Constitution, "for public use" and instead accepting a looser interpretation of a public benefit as a result of a huge governmental and corporate gain, to meet the requirements set forth in the Fifth Amendment.

Creditors "loosely lend" funds to third world nations controlled by despotic governments who in turn use the funds for their personal gain. According to the Doctrine of Odious Debts, debts incurred through the interests of corrupt leaders are odious and not enforceable. South Africa is a third world nation that is hindered from progress because they are drowning in debts incurred during the unjust apartheid era. This research examines the application of the doctrine of odious debts to South Africa and the legal effects of its application.

The standing doctrine is an evolving judicial tool to limit cases in the courtroom. However, the issue of how citizens are granted standing in environmental litigation remains unclear. This thesis will analyze the evolution of the standing doctrine and the requirements for future environmental litigation through an analysis of the more prominent cases that set the historical precedent. Particularly, this thesis is focused through the lens of climate change and the additional hurdles its standing requirements can bring to litigation brought by individual citizens. Jurisdiction has become a very complex issue in climate change lawsuits. While at first glance it may seem that causation is the largest obstacle for climate change plaintiffs, injury is equally difficult to prove. This thesis looks at the use of present and future injury in addressing the requirements for standing, as well as whether the injury can be redressed by the courts. Standing, which is a threshold issue for any court, has been limited to past harm. However, looking at issues regarding climate change requires the court to consider how the present impacts the future of litigation. Climate change litigation brings a new angle to these debates and will force the courts to reevaluate their previous conclusions.

No description available.

No description available.

Both federal and state statutes prohibit the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of an oral, wire or electronic communication yet an exception to this general rule is that a law enforcement officer, or someone acting on behalf of a law enforcement officer, is allowed to intercept. a conversation without a warrant when he is a party to the conversation. This practice is a violation of rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. Society should be able to prosecute the guilty and protect the innocent with methods that do not produce violations of civil liberties. To protect the guarantees of the Constitution, changes must be made to current law to preserve the right to privacy.

Affirmative action has received tremendous attention since President Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10,925 that directed federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure they treat job, applicants and employees "without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin." Proponents argue the positive effects of affirmative action, while opponents argue the negative implications of affirmative action. This paper explores both sides of this heated political debate. The first part of this paper analyzes the historical events that prompted the initiation of affirmative action; the second part focuses on the positive and negative effects of affirmative action. Part three explores the Court's interpretation of race-based affirmative action programs. The final portion of this paper offers socioeconomic-based affirmative action as an alternative approach to replace race-based affirmative action.

This thesis explores the world of physical education and organized sport and the changes to these aspects as a result of legal liability. It focuses on exactly what bearing legal lawsuits have on our education and athletic programs. There have been extensive changes over the past years to the physical education curriculum in the public school system, many the result of legal action. This thesis explains exactly who is liable when a child is injured in an athletic event at school, and further suggests how athletic teachers and coaches can protect themselves against the ever-present threat of legal action. Finally, exploration is made into the world of negligence as it pertains to the sport arena. Anyone connected with the field of sport, be it coach, teacher, or trainer, might benefit by reading this thesis.

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) was an integral part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. In creating the judiciary, the Founding Fathers did not want to make the United States safe haven for enemies of nations. The ATCA provides a federal forum for suits involving foreign plaintiffs injured abroad by a person under U.S. jurisdiction in violation of the law of nations. Up until approximately twenty-five years ago, the ATCA remained predominantly unused in U.S. jurisprudence. In 1997, a suit was filed on behalf of Burmese villagers alleging human rights abuses. Doe v. Unocal involves claims that Unocal Corporation, a California corporation, enlisted the ruling military junta of Myanmar to provide security for a pipeline project. Egregious human rights abuses including murder, rape, torture, slavery, summary and arbitrary execution, forced relocation, and forced labor were committed upon the plaintiffs in furtherance of the joint venture. Drawing upon international law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the validity of plaintiffs' ATCA claims against Unocal for knowledge of the human rights abuses. This study intends to clarify issues relevant to parties in future ATCA cases. By distinguishing the need for a liability standard in cases filed under the ATCA and identifying the legal entities that can contribute to that effect, U.S. federal courts can develop sensible precedent in ATCA cases.