Media & Communications Technology

Click link to view PDF (opens in new window)


January Turner, Tinkering with Tinker:  Applying a New Test to Peer on Peer Bullying in Social Media, 8 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 59 (2012)

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."


Riley A. Williams, Videoconfrencing:  Not a Foreign Language to International Courts, 7 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 54 (2011)

"In an ever expanding world filled with rapidly advancing technology, certain innovations can modify and facilitate some of the world’s oldest traditions. The conventional practice of presenting in-person witnesses at trial has become increasingly more difficult due to the introduction and expansion of international crimes. New crimes and clever criminals have resulted in the implementation of new technologies in criminal trials in the United States. While a witness’s presence at trial may be hindered by geographical impediments, fears associated with testifying in person, or even lack of security at the trial site, there nevertheless remains a viable method to obtain testimony. Through videoconferencing, unavailable witnesses can be transmitted into courtrooms, thus eradicating the limitations on testimonies of encumbered individuals as well as individuals located worldwide. Videoconferencing appears to be an unassailable solution; however, as a seemingly new technology, it presents a number of practical and legal issues for courts."


Kristin Decker, Looking for Lagniappe:  Publicity as a Culprit to Social Networking Websites, 6 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 51 (2010)

"Yath v. Fairview Clinics exemplifies a situation of concern for both a MySpace user who posted another’s private information on the internet and Minnesota courts, which are in debate over the proper way to apply the publicity element in an invasion of privacy claim.  Courts routinely analyze publicity by first designating a medium of communication as either private or public.  Though suitable for earlier approaches to mass communication, this approach is much too broad for assessment of the internet, and more specifically, networking sites. In the past, mass communication was essentially an exclusive monopoly dominated by professional news sources, like the New Yorker and the Times-Picayune.  However, networking sites are allowing the general public to effortlessly access an infinite amount of people without possessing the awareness of possible legal consequences, a quality alternatively inherent in specialty news sources.  To designate all networking sites as strictly public mediums of communication would be to ignore the intrinsic features of a networking site availing to its users the ability to determine the extent of information released into cyberspace. Moreover, a purely private characterization of networking sites would overlook the immeasurable impact of a website void of restrictive safeguards."


Amanda Higgins, Not So Fast:  Quon v. Arch Wireless Is Not Employees' License to Text the Workday Away, 6 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 48 (2010)

"Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Quon v. Arch Wireless,  a case that had privacy advocates jumping for joy, but only because they were jumping the gun.  Many thought it was the beginning of a new level of privacy for employees in the workplace.  One CNET blogger insisted that the Quon decision meant that “employees’ text messages are now safe from their bosses’ prying eyes.”   Similarly, a newspaper headline shouted “Prying Bosses Get the Message,” going on to claim that the ruling would affect “all employers who contract with an outside provider for messages.”   “Bosses Can’t Read Employees’ Messages, Court Says” proclaimed a headline from Entrepreneur Information Management Journal in the Fall of 2008.    The same article goes on to quote from Newsweek in its conclusion that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “means that Quon’s texts—and by proxy, millions of other messages from millions of other users—are protected from ‘employers prying eyes.’”   So many were eager to report that every employee was now free to message away at any time, without their boss reading those messages.  But these articles, in general, overstate the effect of the Quon decision, with some reactions in those early days being just plain wrong."


Aaron Jackson, Cyberspace...The Final Frontier:  How the Communications Decency Act Allows Entrepreneurs to Boldly Go Where No Blog Has Gone Before, 5 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 45 (2009)

"Not long ago, the internet was a massless void – a cyberspace of untapped potential. At a time when innovators were creating the “lunar modules” of internet exploration, Congress established the Communications Decency Act (CDA) with the hope of encouraging the growth and development of this budding technology. A mere thirteen years later, we are now comfortably living in the deepest realms of cyberspace. No longer is this idea the core of our wildest dreams; it is the center of our lives. The only aspect yet unchanged are our laws, namely the CDA, which, despite its innocent beginnings, has developed into a rogue law, safeguarding the very entrepreneurs that threaten the health and prosperity of our brave, new, blogging world. It is time for a change."


Sarah C. Boyer, Can Schools Use Nanotechnology to Prevent Cell Phones from Ringing?, 5 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 43 (2009)

"School administrators and other members of the public are thinking about utilizing jamming devices and new developments in nanotechnology to prevent cell phone signals from entering the building. However, school administrators should exercise caution before implementing some of these control mechanisms. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifically regulates some of these devices, while it is unclear if nanotechnology is regulated. A battle over FCC regulations of nanotechnology is being waged between nanotechnology developers and the cell phone industry. This article will explore the application of nanotechnology to FCC regulations."


Chris Kannady, The Do-Not-Call List:  Will It Survive?, 1 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 9 (2004)

Chris Kannady gives this overview of the do-not-call list dilemma. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) was enacted in order to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid telephone solicitations. However, in 2002, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) began the process of creating the current nationwide do-not-call list that the FTC, not individual telemarketing organizations, would maintain. Within one year, the do-not-call list was finalized and ready to open for public registration. It did not take long before telemarketers filed suit to block the list. This article provides a detailed discussion of the litigation initiated by telemarketers in an attempt to invalidate the do-not-call list. Since the telemarketing industry stands to lose billions of dollars if the list continues to operate, litigation concerning this matter is likely to continue.


Joe Zopolsky, Censorship on the Internet:  Who Should Make the Rules, 1 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 1 (2003)

Joe Zopolsky, an attorney in Dallas, Texas, has been published several times before in prestigious law reviews nationwide. He has studied in Mexico, Spain, and Argentina and served as the assistant managing editor of the International Trade Law Journal. Thus, Mr. Zopolsky has in depth knowledge of global issues concerning our world today. Mr. Zopolsky provides insight into the current status of censorship on the Internet, globally and domestically. Ultimately, Mr. Zopolsky calls for individual and familial responsibility and makes the argument against censoring the Internet on both the international and domestic levels.