Our Online Journal features original pieces written and edited by our Online staff at Columbia. They are not representative of any views held by the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review Editorial Board.
Over the past decade, companies such as Uber, Grubhub, and TaskRabbit have disrupted pre-existing markets and transformed the dynamics of the U.S. economy. By developing Internet-based platforms, they have matched the skills of workers with the customers in demand for certain services, enabled workers to partake in short-term engagements, and established hands-off relationships between employers and workers. Changing the structure of the economy as we know it, these companies have given rise to the emerging “gig” economy, a labor market with over 600,000 U.S. workers that has flourished and only shows promising future growth.[1]
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was created by Congress in 1925 in order to validate the enforceability of arbitration agreements. These agreements are informal, streamlined adjudications that were intended to resolve disputes by replacing the cumbersome trial process.[1] While this concept appears relatively clear-cut, there have been numerous instances of litigation surrounding the validity and enforceability of mandatory arbitration. What seems to be a simplified resolution process has instead become a dangerous obstacle wherein the rights of consumers to take companies to court via lawsuits are limited.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.”[1] The Supreme Court has typically interpreted the term “speech” to incorporate a broad range of expressions, including the use of Internet.[2] However, the increasing use of the Internet and social media sites has led to debate as to what constitutes free speech in the digital age and if digital platforms should be made accessible to the entire public. Currently, Facebook’s accessibility to the public has been contested in relation to the right of sex offenders to use the site, as limiting their access conflicts with freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment.
Private Danny Chen was only 19 when he committed suicide nine months after joining the Army. From the beginning of his training, Chen experienced hazing as the only Chinese-American in his unit. He was forced to do excessive physical punishment, called “chink,” “dragon lady,” and other racial slurs, physically abused, and ordered to shout commands in Chinese. Days before his death, Sergeant Adam Holcomb dragged Chen out of bed and across the outpost, an instance of maltreatment that left Chen contemplating suicide.
In 1942, Fred Korematsu was arrested on a street corner in California. His crime was refusing to evacuate to an internment camp and comply with President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. Under the executive order, over 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese descent were forced to relocate from their homes on the coasts to remote camps inland; they had been deemed a “national security threat” after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. [1] Korematsu was the first man to legally challenge the order in Korematsu v. United States.
The New California coalition does not feel represented by the “liberal elite” of San Francisco and L.A. that make up most of California’s population but just a small portion of its geography. This isn’t the first time a new state has been proposed using California’s territory. Since 1941, “Jeffersonians” have been attempting to form the state of Jefferson from the northernmost counties of California and the southernmost counties of Oregon. Largely attributed to “rural discontent,” the proposed State of Jefferson has been gaining momentum since the election of President Donald Trump.
Companies in Silicon Valley are concerned with maintaining the legitimacy of the CDA 230 because otherwise, they will be unable to maintain their apps and websites. People opposed to CDA 230 worry that illicit and harmful activity will continue online with no resources to stop them. Though third parties supply false and harmful information on certain websites, some argue that those host websites should not be held liable for third party decisions, as monitoring each post will not stop illegal activity and discourages the existence of social media.
Thiel’s successful vendetta against Gawker Media demonstrates, at best, that wealthy public figures can legally sanction journalists when they uncover damaging information. At the worst, it sets a precedent that may be used to intimidate investigative journalists from releasing any sensitive information to the public, should it not be in a wealthy public figure’s interest.
Though some of this spending can be attributed to the large number of drugs on the market, there is a hidden reason here as well: the rise of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (DTCPA). Defined as efforts made by companies to promote prescription drugs directly to consumers through popular media, DTCPA has proved to be an exponentially profitable business, costing insurance companies and taxpayers ever more money and, more significantly, potentially endangering patients’ health. Though some may argue that there exists evidence in its favor, DTCPA, significantly adding to taxpayers’ expenses, should be banned.
