By Nicholas Ulrich

Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals faced that question—can a website be held civilly liable for rape—in Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc. Its decision was not the resounding “no” people probably expected. In fact, the circuit court reversed the decision of the district court, which found the plaintiff’s claims barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In 2011, Lavont Flanders and Emerson Callum raped the plaintiff, who remains anonymous as Jane Doe No. 14. Flanders and Callum lured her to what she thought was a modeling interview. They then drugged her, raped her, and recorded her for a pornographic video. Although Flanders and Callum had not posted an ad on the Internet Brands’s website, Modelmayhem.com, they did use the site to respond to ads posted by models, posing as talent coaches. Further, the perpetrators had a history of this behavior, having lured over 30 women in a similar fashion. Eventually, a federal prosecutor charged the two with multiple counts of enticing the victims to Florida knowing fraud would be used to induce them into sex acts, and multiple counts of administering a date rape drug. The judge sentenced each to multiple life sentences. Continue reading →

The Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts (LTA Journal) has published its Summer 2014 Issue. The LTA Journal publishes concise legal analysis aimed at practicing attorneys on a quarterly basis.

Former Articles Editor Misa K. Bretschneider wrote the first article, “The Evolving Landscape of TCPA Consent Standards and Ways to Minimize Risk.” The article examines recent trends in how the FCC and the courts are delineating the contours of consent for mobile text messaging under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and provides ways businesses can engage with mobile customers without running afoul of the TCPA.

Former Editor-in-Chief Evan Brown wrote the second article, “Fixed Perspectives: The Evolving Contours of the Fixation Requirement in Copyright Law.” The article contextualizes and explores the implications of recent judicial decisions addressing the Copyright Act’s fixation requirement as it applies to new or unusual media.

In the issue’s third article, “Discovering the Undiscoverable: Patent Eligibility of DNA and the Future of Biotechnical Patent Claims Post-Myriad,” Articles Editor Alex Boguniewicz examines the limits of the Supreme Court’s holding in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. He explores the avenues that potential patent seekers still have for making eligible patent claims on naturally occurring products and phenomena, as well as the processes for identifying such products and phenomena. The article highlights the areas where courts are likely to take a hard stance against patent eligibility and where opportunities still exist to claim a valid patent.

Elizabeth Atkins contributed the fourth article, “Spying on Americans: At What Point Does The NSA’s Collection and Searching of Metadata Violate The Fourth Amendment?” She argues that the current standard allowing the National Security Agency to collect and search metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act should be changed from reasonable and articulable suspicion to a higher burden of probable cause.

See the full issue here.

Visit the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Website: http://www.law.washington.edu/wjlta/

We also have a blog: https://wjlta.wordpress.com/

By Farah Ali

“There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.” Would you consider this a threat if you saw it posted on Facebook? What if it was meant to be a rap lyric? Would that still be a threat?

Anthony Elonis turned to posting on Facebook during some troubling times in October 2010. After his wife had left him and taken their children, Elonis began to post statements like the one above on his Facebook profile page. Although Elonis claimed his posts were therapeutic, a jury convicted Elonis under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting an interstate threat and he was sentenced to almost four years in prison. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Third Circuit, arguing that it violates his First Amendment rights. Specifically, Elonis argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Virginia v. Black had overturned the Third Circuit’s precedent in United States v. Kosma. In Kosma, the Third Circuit held that a statement is a true threat when a reasonable speaker would foresee the statement would be interpreted as a threat. Elonis argued that under Virginia v. Black, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires a subjective intent to threaten. Elonis explained that his postings on Facebook were therapeutic and a form of artistic expression. Even in his posts, he referenced the First Amendment, and wrote disclaimers to that extent. In fact, Elonis and his wife were not friends on Facebook and therefore, he argued, he did not intend for her to see the posts or feel threatened. His wife, however, did see the statements and promptly got a restraining order. Continue reading →

By Doug Logan

Many Americans have detailed instructions addressing the dissolution of their assets after they pass away. However, many people are facing a new challenge: what happens to their digital assets? What happens to their pictures, email accounts, banking and brokerage accounts, and social networking profiles? In our increasingly digital world, financial advisors and estate planning attorneys now recommend four steps to properly manage one’s digital assets: 1) identify and inventory all digital assets, 2) appoint a trustee for those assets, 3) provide access, such as passwords, to that trustee, and 4) provide instructions for distributing those assets.

Further, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has recently passed the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), which provides comprehensive provisions governing access to digital assets. The underlying goal of UFADAA is to give fiduciaries the tools they need to carry out the wishes of the deceased. In a press release, the ULC stated the UFADAA “solves the problem using the concept of ‘media neutrality.’  If a fiduciary would have access to a tangible asset, that fiduciary will also have access to a similar type of digital asset.” The UFADAA applies to four common types of fiduciaries: “personal representatives of a deceased person’s estate; guardians or conservators of a protected person’s estate; agents under a power of attorney; and trustees.” The UFADAA “defers to an account holder’s privacy choices as expressed in a document (such as a will or trust), or online by an affirmative act separate from the general terms-of-service agreement. Therefore, an account holder’s desire to keep certain assets private will be honored under UFADAA.” The ULC approved UFADAA at its 123rd annual meeting this past July in Seattle. Continue reading →