Clinic Attacks Zombies

Columbia Law School Clinic Joins Erie County and the Western New York Law Center to Combat Zombie Properties Students help stabilize communities, protect homeowners and create pro bono opportunities. The following guest post has been authored and contributed by Columbia Law School’s Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic. In 2016, New York State Gov. Cuomo enacted sweeping legislation known colloquially as the “Zombie Property Law.” The legislation was designed to combat the blight of vacant Continue Reading →

Podcast Episode: Moran Yemini on The New Irony of Free Speech

This episode features Jennifer Ange, STLR Staffer, talking with Dr. Moran Yemini about the freedom of speech in the new digital age. In his recent article published on STLR, Dr. Yemini argues that the digital age presents a new irony of free speech. The popular concept that the Internet promotes freedom of expression may be too simplistic. In his view, the Internet, while it strengthens our capacity of expression, also limits the liberty aspect of Continue Reading →

Link Roundup – April 17, 2019

Profanities Prohibition in the Lanham Act: A Violation of the First Amendment? On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case Iancu v. Brunetti, in which Los Angeles clothing designer Erik Brunetti is challenging the denial of his trademark application for the mark “FUCT.” The issue being argued is whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous” marks, is violative of the Continue Reading →

Letter from the Editor

Dear STLR Community, In 1999, a small group of Columbia Law students decided to embark on an endeavor that they could not possibly have predicted would fundamentally shape the way those in the law, science, and technology community think twenty years later. This year, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, affectionately known as STLR (pronounced “stellar”), celebrates the publication of its twentieth volume. We’re honored to mark the milestone with two fantastic issues and a Continue Reading →

STLR Conversations – First Episode: Julio Sharp-Wasserman on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

This episode features Sam Matthews, STLR Executive Submissions Editor, talking with Julio Sharp-Wasserman, about his recently published note on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 prevents some online intermediaries, such as operators of websites, from being sued for the actions of third parties. For example, if someone uploads a defamatory video to YouTube, the person being defamed could sue the creator of the video, but couldn’t sue YouTube itself. Although many people Continue Reading →

Celebrating 20 Volumes of STLR!

Please join the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review in celebrating our landmark 20 volumes On March 12, 2019, STLR will be holding a panel from 5:00-6:30 in Jerome Greene Hall Room 106, featuring:   Darren Schmidt, Senior Counsel, Content and Distribution, Spotify and STLR Editor-in-Chief, Volume I Makalika Naholowa’a, Senior Attorney, Head of Trademarks, Microsoft and STLR Managing Editor, Volume XI Karen Sandler, Executive Director of the Software Freedom Conservancy and STLR Submissions Editor, Continue Reading →

Disney and RFID: What it Means for Privacy

Disney has always embraced cutting-edge technology, but in their theme parks, that technology tends to be behind the scenes. In the last decade, however, Disney’s Next Generation Experience, or “NextGen,” project has aimed to integrate technology overtly into the theme park experience by capitalizing on millennials’ use of smartphones to improve the park experience. Users with a smartphones can download the My Disney Experience app, which can be used to book dining reservations, access the Continue Reading →

Blockchain in the U.S. Regulatory Setting: Evidentiary Use in Vermont, Delaware, and Elsewhere

Joanna Diane Caytas* I. Introduction In February 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery faced a conundrum: following settlement of a shareholder action after a contested merger, shareholders representing 49,164,415 shares claimed settlement proceeds, but the class contained only 36,793,758 shares.[1] By definition, holders of over 12 million of these shares must have lacked entitlement to settlement disbursements, yet all claimant shareholders presented valid evidence of ownership. Investigation by class attorneys failed to establish the “current” Continue Reading →

The Tensions of Antipsychotic Drugs with the Sixth Amendment

In Sell v. United States, the Supreme Court tackled the legal standard for determining when the government can administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill criminal detainee without permission solely to render that defendant competent to stand trial.[1] In part, the court required that involuntary medication must be necessary to further important state interests and that administering the drugs is medically appropriate.[2] The Sell requirements were a response to the incredible risks that antipsychotics present Continue Reading →