Digital Millennium Copyright Act The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[1][2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. Provisions[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit]
Stop Online Piracy Act Failed United States bill Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in existing laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. Opponents argued that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire Internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. History[edit] The originally proposed bill would allow the United States Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Goals[edit] Sponsor Rep.
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. Background[edit] In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. One primary purpose of the legislation was to regulate what were colloquially known as "issue ads." "Issue ads" typically discussed a candidate name with regards to a particular issue, but because they did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, they fell outside the prohibitions and limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. In the first round of litigation, the federal district court ruled that the language of McConnell v. Opinion of the Supreme Court[edit] Proposed text of WRTL ad[edit]
July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of air-to-ground attacks conducted by a team of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, in the district of New Baghdad in Baghdad, during the Iraqi insurgency which followed the Iraq War. The attacks received worldwide coverage following the release of 39 minutes of classified cockpit gunsight footage in 2010. In the first strike, the crew of the two Apaches directed 30mm cannon fire at a group of ten men in the path of advancing U.S. The second strike, also using 30 mm rounds, was directed at a wounded Chmagh and two other unarmed men as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van just before American soldiers arrived on the ground. In a third strike the helicopter team fired three AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to destroy a building they believed was the source of enemy gunfire.[10][11][12] Context[edit] Incidents[edit] Attack on personnel[edit] Attack on a van[edit] Attack on a building[edit] [edit] [edit]
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[2] History[edit] In May 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, but the ruling never took effect because the case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Oral arguments[edit] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. Opinions[edit] Justices Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg established the majority for two parts of the Court's opinion: With respect to Titles I and II of the BCRA, Justices Stevens, O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court.With respect to Title V of the BCRA, Justice Breyer wrote the Court's opinion.
Afghan War documents leak The leak, which is considered to be one of the largest in U.S. military history,[5][12] revealed information on the deaths of civilians, increased Taliban attacks, and involvement by Pakistan and Iran in the insurgency.[1][13][14] Wikileaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data.[15] The three outlets which had received the documents in advance, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel, have all concluded that they are genuine when compared to independent reports.[1] Some time after the first dissemination by WikiLeaks, the US Justice Department were considering the use of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 to prevent WikiLeaks from posting the remaining 15,000 secret war documents it claimed to possess.[16][17][18] Background[edit] Wikileaks describes itself as "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public Issues raised[edit] Pakistan[edit] Iran[edit]
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections," and the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund. Background[edit] The Michigan Campaign Finance Act banned corporations from spending treasury money on "independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices." Decision of the Supreme Court[edit] Louis J. The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] 494 U.S. 652 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)
Iraq War documents leak The Iraq War documents leak is the WikiLeaks disclosure of a collection of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 to several international media organizations and published on the Internet by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010.[1][2][3] The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths.[2][3][4][5][6] The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.[7] It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,[1][8] surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.[9] Contents[edit] The logs contain numerous reports of previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war. After criticism over the Afghan War documents leak, more material, including certain names and details, were redacted from these documents by WikiLeaks.[23] [edit] Other Countries[edit]
Corporate personhood Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. Corporate personhood in the United States[edit] As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Historical background in the United States[edit] Misconceptions[edit]
United States diplomatic cables leak The United States diplomatic cables leak, widely known as Cablegate, began on Sunday, 28 November 2010[1] when WikiLeaks—a non-profit organization that publishes submissions from anonymous whistleblowers—began releasing classified cables that had been sent to the U.S. State Department by 274 of its consulates, embassies, and diplomatic missions around the world. Dated between December 1966 and February 2010, the cables contain diplomatic analysis from world leaders, and the diplomats' assessment of host countries and their officials.[2] According to WikiLeaks, the 251,287 cables consist of 261,276,536 words, making Cablegate the world's largest release of classified material.[3] The publication of the cables was the third in a series of U.S. classified document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents leak in October. Background[edit] On 26 November, Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Release[edit]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[dead link], is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. Background[edit] The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. Before the Supreme Court[edit] Opinions of the Court[edit] Overview[edit]