{"id":52392,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-6.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"julie-hilden-archive-6","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/julie-hilden-archive-6.html","title":{"rendered":"Julie Hilden Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Julie Hilden Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n

GOING AFTER INDIVIDUALS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS:
THE NEW BILL THAT WOULD GRANT COPYRIGHT OWNERS \n\n A “LICENSE TO HACK” PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discuses a new cyberlaw bill sponsor by California Representative Howard Berman. The bill would immunize copyright owners from legal liability, both criminal and civil, that would otherwise arise from their hacking into th peer-to-peer file trading networks, such as Gnutella, that have succeeded Napster as the place to trade MP3s on the Internet. Hilden summarizes the bill and its limitations, but argues they are not sufficient to protect users. She also predicts a trend in which copyright industries increasingly go after copyright-infringing users, whether through hacking or more traditional means.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Aug. 20, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUMMER OF KIDNAPPED GIRLS:
COULD AN EXPANSION OF MEGAN’S LAW HELP TO PREVENT MORE ABDUCTIONS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden argues that some of this summer’s abductions — including Samantha Runnion’s and the two California teenagers’ — might well have been prevented by an expansion of California’s version of Megan’s Law. Under Hilden’s proposed expansion, the law would provide for Internet posting of photos and addresses of anyone who had been charged with a sex or violent crime — regardless of the outcome. That would have meant photos of Alejandro Avila (acquitted of molestation) and Roy Ratliff (prior rape charges pending) would have appeared, and possibly aided in saving their victims.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Aug. 06, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE HITCHING POST CASE:
THE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON \n\n WHEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHOULD KNOW THEIR ACTIONS \n\n COUNT AS “CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT”<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses Hope v. Pelzer, an opinion the Supreme Court issued at the end of its most recent Term. The opinion holds that prison guards violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments if, as a prisoner claims, they tied him to a hitching post for hours in the hot sun without water or bathroom breaks. It also holds that any reasonable person would know such conduct violates the Eighth Amendment — but the dissent disagrees, and Hilden notes there is something to be said for its position.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jul. 16, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WERE THE BUSH V. GORE JUSTICES’ VIEWS REALLY POLITICAL \n\n AND NOT PRINCIPLED?
A RECENT SUPREME COURT OPINION \n\n ON STATES’ ABILITY TO REGULATE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES’ SPEECH \n\n MAY PROVE THE CYNICS WRONG<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the recent case of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, in which the Supreme Court struck down Minnesota regulations limiting what candidates for elected judgeships could say about disputed legal and political issues. Hilden draws a parallel between White and Bush v. Gore, noting that the majority and minority Justices lined up in the same way — and took very similar positions — in the two cases. Hilden concludes that the Justices’ positions on intervention in state election systems may be much more consistent and principled than critics of Bush v. Gore have claimed.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jul. 09, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE TOP SEVEN ARGUMENTS OF THE FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL, \n\n AND THEIR COUNTERARGUMENTS <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden argues that the first \n\nyear of law school should not be as daunting as “The Paper Chase” and “One L” \n\nmade it appear — for the basic arguments that are taught during that year, \n\nshe contends, are few and simple. Hilden provides a list of the top seven \n\narguments a One L will encounter — from the “slippery slope” to the \n\n“cheapest cost-avoider” — and explains why they aren’t always quite as \n\npersuasive as they may seem.
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 21, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN A LIBEL DEFENDANT BE SUED IN ANY AND EVERY STATE \n\n FOR MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON A WEBSITE?:
A NEW CASE TESTS WHAT ROLE INTERNET PRESENCE PLAYS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses a series of \n\nquestions suggested by a recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case: Can a \n\nlocal newspaper — and its reporters and editors — be sued for libel in a \n\nstate in which the paper has little or no circulation, simply because its \n\nwebsite is accessible in that state? What if the website includes an article \n\nabout a resident of that state? The questions have possible repercussions, \n\nas Hilden explains, not only for local but also for national newspapers like \n\nthe New York Times and Washington Post — who have filed friend-of-the-court \n\nbriefs in the case.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jun. 04, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE TRAGIC MIS-INVESTIGATION OF CHANDRA LEVY’S DISAPPEARANCE:
HOW THE DISCOVERY OF HER REMAINS UNDERLINES POLICE \n\nINCOMPETENCE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden offer a point-by-point \n\nargument suggesting that the D.C. police’s excuses for why prior searches did \n\nnot uncover Chandra Levy’s remains do not hold water. Hilden also explains \n\nwhy the delay in discovering Levy’s remains means the police have lost \n\ncrucial advantages in their investigation — not only forensic, but \n\nstrategic. Finally, she explains why, in this age of terrorism, it is time \n\nfor a new police chief for D.C.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May. 27, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHIPPED:
WHAT LEGAL QUESTIONS ARE THE NEW CHIP IMPLANTS \n\n FOR HUMANS LIKELY TO RAISE?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden considers the potential \n\nlegal implications of a recent technological development: \n\ncommercially-available chips containing information to be accessed in medical \n\nemergencies. The chips were implanted for the first time in humans late last \n\nweek. Hilden explains how the law may, and may not, constrain potential uses \n\nof information chips — and also potential uses of chips and pagers using \n\nGlobal Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology, which may soon be on \n\nthe way.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, May. 14, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ROBERT BLAKE MURDER CASE:
WHY IT MATTERS, AND IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF HIS CELEBRITY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses the Robert \n\nBlake indictment — and in particular, the defense’s potential use of murder \n\nvictim Bonny Bakley’s sordid background to help raise reasonable doubt if the \n\ncase against Blake goes to trial. Hilden contends that the case may end up \n\nbeing notable because of its sexual politics, not because of Blake’s faded \n\ncelebrity.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 30, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE INTERNET:
WHY TRADITIONAL LEGAL DOCTRINES APPLY DIFFERENTLY IN CYBERSPACE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses three First \n\nAmendment doctrines that she argues are no longer accurate or effective when \n\nit comes to the Internet. The “marketplace of ideas,” Hilden argues, no \n\nlonger selects truth alone; “counterspeech” no longer effectively rebuts \n\nfalse speech; and defamation law is toothless when anonymity is available. \n\nHilden suggests that another force, however, is replacing these three to help \n\nensure truth on the Internet. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 16, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW TO SUCCEED AT HARVARD AND STANFORD LAW SCHOOLS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING:
A REVIEW OF ROBERT EBERT BYRNES & JAIME MARQUART’S BRUSH WITH THE LAW<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden reviews a recent memoir \n\nby two former law students determined to counteract the portraits of law \n\nschool drawn by One L and The Paper Chase. For Robert Ebert Byrnes and Jaime \n\nMarquart, law school had more to do with “class-ditching, orgies, hookers, \n\nhard drugs, and card-counting” than with the Socractic method. Hilden \n\nassesses their Harvard-meets-Hunter-S.-Thompson account of law school life. \n\nAn interview with the authors can be found here.<\/a>\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Apr. 12, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 6<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n