Legal Commentary: Julie Hilden Archive

AN ECONOMY OF INFORMATION IN THIS INFORMATION ECONOMY: THE STRANGE PARADOXES BEHIND THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF SECRET INFORMATION
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the Supreme Court's recent Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, which allowed media disclosure of cell phone conversations illegally recorded by a third party, because the conversations addressed a topic of intense public interest. Hilden uses Bartnicki to discuss how the law regulates situations where only partial disclosure of information is optimal.
Thursday, Jun. 28, 2001

AN INTERVIEW WITH AUSTIN SARAT, AUTHOR OF "WHEN THE STATE KILLS," ON THE MCVEIGH EXECUTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY IN AMERICA
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden interviews author Austin Sarat, death penalty expert and Amherst College professor of law and political science. Professor Sarat discusses, among other topics, Timothy McVeigh's trial and execution, the late-produced FBI documents, and capital punishment issues nationwide. Read the introductory chapter from When the State Kills on Timothy McVeigh and the politics of Capital Punishment.
Monday, Jun. 11, 2001

USER POLICING ON WEBSITES: SHOULD EBAY, NAPSTER AND OTHER SITES USE THEIR USERS?
FindLaw columnist, attorney and author Julie Hilden discusses the phenomenon of user policing on websites -- a strategy already used by e-Bay -- and why sites might, and might not, want to deputize their users as informants or even private attorneys general.
Monday, Jun. 04, 2001

HOW THE INTERNET CAN HELP CRIME VICTIMS AND HOW TOO MUCH PRIVACY CAN HURT THEM
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden argues that a recent Vanity Fair article targeting the Internet as an accomplice to a serial killer is off base. In fact, she argues, the Internet has much more potential to solve serial crimes than to create them.
Monday, May. 28, 2001

TRADE SECRETS: NOT SO SECRET ON THE INTERNET
FindLaw columnist,attorney and author Julie Hilden explains why trade secret law offers companies less protection on the Internet than in the offline business world. By way of example, she contrasts the risks taken by CBS when in 1995 it debated whether to run an interview with ex-tobacco company employee Jeffrey Wigand, and those taken now by the website Fuckedcompany.com when it posts confidential corporate information procured by other companies' employees.
Monday, May. 14, 2001

"GONE WITH THE WIND" VERSUS "THE WIND DONE GONE:" PARODY, COPYRIGHT, AFRICAN- AMERICANS, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
FindLaw Columnist, author, and attorney Julie Hilden discusses the First Amendment issues raised by the recent injunction against the publication of Alice Randall's "The Wind Done Gone," which re-tells the story of Margaret Mitchell's Southern saga "Gone with the Wind" from the perspective of an African-American slave. The Mitchell Trust and the judge claim Randall is infringing copyright by pirating scenes and characters. Randall, with novelist Toni Morrison behind her, argues she has a First Amendment right to parody. Hilden discusses the question of who is right.
Monday, Apr. 30, 2001

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: THE FALLACIOUS SUPREME COURT REASONING THAT PUTS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD IN JEOPARDY
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses why, if the McCain-Feingold bill becomes law, the Supreme Court will probably uphold its "hard money" ceiling but strike down its "soft money" limitations as violating the First Amendment. Hilden argues, however, that the Court's likely contrasting treatment of "soft money" and "hard money" is illogical, given that we've seen recently how the two can easily substitute for one another. Hilden also contends that in other respects, the basic Court precedent that will probably be used to assess the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, Buckley v. Valeo, is full of fallacies.
Monday, Apr. 16, 2001

THE PROBLEM WITH SETTING SPECIAL RULES FOR "COMMERCIAL SPEECH"
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden explores two aspects of our First Amendment tradition that are raised in the United Foods Supreme Court case to be argued this month: the imposition of separate constitutional standards for political and "commercial" speech, such as advertisements, and the right not to be forced to express or sponsor statements that one does not believe. In United Foods, a lower court upheld a mushroom producer's First Amendment right not to be forced by a statute to fund an industry-wide advertising campaign with which it did not agree. If the Supreme Court affirms the decision -- as, Hilden argues, it should -- it will have taken another step towards destroying the distinction between commercial speech and political speech.
Monday, Apr. 02, 2001

WHY AN UPCOMING SUPREME COURT CASE MAY PUSH "ADULT" SPEECH OUT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND ONTO THE INTERNET
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses the Alameda Books case, which the Supreme Court recently announced that it would hear. Alameda Books raises the issue of the constitutionality of Los Angeles's regulation of businesses that combine adult stores with adult video arcades. Hilden argues that the Los Angeles regulation -- and the case, in which the Court will likely give the regulation its blessing -- are part of a growing legal trend by which adult businesses are strictly regulated in the real world, but little-regulated online. The logical consequence of the difference between the online and offline legal regimes, Hilden contends,will be to drive more adult businesses online -- a development that may dismay protective parents and civil libertarians alike.
Monday, Mar. 19, 2001

WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE KU KLUX KLAN ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY CASE
FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden argues that the Supreme Court should have granted review of the case as to whether Missouri can exclude the Ku Klux Klan from its Adopt-A-Highway program -- rather than denying review, as the Court did this week. Hilden contends that the case is not really about the question of whether the Klan can be penalized for its views, and exclusionary membership practices, by being denied an opportunity for volunteerism; under prior Court precedent, it cannot. What makes the case new, different, and worthy of the Court's review, Hilden argues, is the "government speech" argument it raises: the argument that highway signs honoring the Klan's volunteerism would convey a hostile message that Missouri can rightfully decide not to send.
Thursday, Mar. 08, 2001