Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

it law cases > it law cases > Flashcards

it law cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Calder v. Jones, effect test

A

The test refers to those cases where there is reasonable expectation for the defendants to be sued in the forum state, where effects are felt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo dot com

A

The defendants are susceptible to jurisdiction in those places they deliberately affected
The zippo test followed a one-size-fits-all approach, for all Internet disputes: but Internet disputes come in many different sizes and shapes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dow Jones & Company v Gutnik

A

Existing principles of defamation law are that legal proceedings should be undertaken in the place where the communication is received, not where the communication is sent from. This applies to Internet communications as well

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Lewis v. King

A

Both US citizens and residents, case in Britain as the hosting websites could be viewed in GB, forum shopping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Case C-68/93 Shevill

A

Mosaic approach
Defamation lawsuit can be brought in one MS for all, or in all for themselves

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

eDate Advertising

A

same as Shevill just for personality rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Boldsupplysningen

A

eDate applicable in cases where the action is brought by legal persons, centre of interests MS can do rectification of incorrect information, failure to remove comment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Yahoo! v. Licra

A

A website hosted auctions for the sale of Nazi memorabilia, prohibited under French criminal law, the Paris Tribunal de Grande /instance ordered Yahoo! to prevent access to the website for people within the French territory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Abrams v. United States

A

Court upheld the prosecution of an anarchist for his anti war views under the Espionage Act 1917

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Police dept. of Chicago v. Mosley

A

the essence of this forbidden censorship is content control, reinforced first amendment rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Handyside v. UK

A

Information or ideas that are favourably or infavourably regarded are subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Jersild v. Denmark

A

press freedom, also applies to audiovisual media

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Reno v. ACLU

A

Communication Decency Act criminalised the distribution of indecent materials to anyone underage US Supreme Court held that restrictions were too vague and limited free speech without precision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ashcroft v. ACLU

A

The Child Online Protection Act, unconstitutional because it failed to meet the standards required to circumscribe free speech limitations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

A

The Child pornography Act was deemed unconstitutional, disproportionate and over broad restrictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Elonis v. United States

A

convicted for posting threats, “true threats”, importance of social networks, direct vs indirect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

K.U. v. finland

A

minor fake dating website profile, Finland had no law to disclose that information, ECtHR Finland failed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Delfi v. Estonia

A

abusive comments by users “hate speech”, Delfi did not remove, damages were correct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Scarlet & Netlog

A

Belgian courts ISP copyright filters, Privacy and data protection, freedom to carry out business

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Glawischnig-Pieszek v. Facebook

A

defamatory abuse, member states’ courts can order an ISP to remove at global level

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

MTE and Index.hu zrt

A

critiquing two real-estate websites, vulgar comments, content, efforts made to promptly remove, no hate speech

22
Q

Packingham v. North Carolina

A

Sex offender, convicted for complaining about traduce ticket on Facebook, Supreme Court unconstitutional

23
Q

Knight first Amendment institute v. Trump

A

public official social media accounts count as forum to exclude people (blocking)

24
Q

Casapound ITALIA

A

A private subject will not be able to exercise the freedom of expression of thought and association

25
Q

Forza Nuova

A

Facebook subject to obligation to remove illegal content

26
Q

Brandenburg v. Ohio

A

KKK, hate speech protected, unless imminent lawless action

27
Q

Virginia v. Black

A

true threats serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence, fear of violence

28
Q

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

A

Exclusion of fighting words from first Amendment, progressive narrowing

29
Q

R.A.V. v. city of St. Paul

A

viewpoint discrimination because it addressed specifically fighting words expressing a specific position

30
Q

Metal v. Tam

A

The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hat

31
Q

Erbakan v. Turkeu

A

he applicant, a politician had been charged with incitement to violence and hatred as a result of a pre-election speech where he made disparaging remarks about other religions, races and regions

32
Q

Poland v. EP & Council

A

best effort basis, wording of eu law is open to more than one interpretation, interpretation consistent with primary law

33
Q

Sabam v. Scarlet

A

active interference, which would be general monitoring, undermining of freedom of information

34
Q

Tolerabel Wien v. Constantin Film

A

measures must not impeded on freedom information, discouraging internet users to get unlawful content

35
Q

Youtube and Cyando

A

operator of VSP, blocking access to it fast, appropriate technological measures, is not counted as sharing

36
Q

The queen v. Smith

A

Restriction on Internet connection must be proportionate, reasonable, and in accordance with purposes

37
Q

Olmstead 1928

A

Fourth Amendment only covers searches of material things, the person, the house, his papers or his effects

38
Q

Katz

A

Fourth Amendment protects people not places, reasonable expectation for privacy

39
Q

Carpenter

A

mosaic theory, government cannot use cell site records without warrant,

40
Q

S and Harper v. United Kingdom

A

DNA Database violation of right to privacy, if individuals acquitted or charges dropped

41
Q

SIACCA v. Italy

A

interference with right for private life

42
Q

Big Brother Watcher v. UK

A

Null interception violation of Article 8,communications data violation but sharing not

43
Q

Lindqvist

A

act of referring . identifying a person a website constitutes to a processing of personal data,

44
Q

Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04

A

processing of personal data in question is out of scope, no competence for the EC to conclude the agreement with the US Article 25 of Directive 95/46 does not constitute a legal basis

45
Q

Promusicae, C-275/06

A

EU Member States are not obliged to require disclosure in the context of civil proceeding for the purpose of copyright protection

46
Q

Google Spain

A

Google data processor, bears obligations provided by Directive 95/46, right to deindex

47
Q

GLAWISCHNIG-PIESCZEK V. FACEBOOK

A

worldwide orders to remove or block content with lawful information

48
Q

Joint Cases C-293/12 & C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland

A

Directive of data retention exceeds the limits imposed by proportionality, mass surveillance

49
Q

Joined Cases C-203/15 & C-698/15: Tele 2 Sverige

A

read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 must be interpreted as preculiding national legislation which provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of subscribers

50
Q

Prokuratuur

A

Estonian data rentention law does not comply with article 15(1) of the e-Privacy Directive

51
Q

Schrems I

A

Decision 2000/520, not adequate protection, generalised basis of access against fundamental right to respect for private life, not enough legal protections

52
Q

Schrems II

A

SCCs as a data transfer mechanism, declared privacy shield invalid

it law cases (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions