MITIGATING MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: TREATING SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AS A QUID PRO QUO BENEFIT BY MEGHAN E. MCDERMOTT
The rise of misinformation on social media has prompted governments worldwide to enact legislation that may affect every person’s right to freedom of opinion and expression. In the United States, combatting misinformation shares surprising bipartisan support in an ever-divided political landscape. While several proposals have emerged that would strip social media companies of the twenty-five- year-old law that shields them from lawsuits over content, it is unlikely that they would survive the seemingly insurmountable First Amendment scrutiny. Thus, an alternative to combatting misinformation is needed.
In an attempt to provide an alternative, this Note presents a model for mitigating misinformation. By dissecting the concept of misinformation, exploring the ways in which social media platforms can mitigate misinformation, and proposing the use of misinformation labels, this Note suggests using Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a quid pro quo benefit to incentivize social media platforms to mitigate misinformation.
THE LANGUAGE OF RECORD: FINDING AND REMEDYING PREJUDICIAL VIOLATIONS OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT INDIVIDUALS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS BY ANNA C. EVERETT
In immigration court proceedings, court interpreters interpret only those statements made directly to and by the limited English proficient (“LEP”) party. Thus, LEP individuals can only understand what is being spoken to them, not what is being asserted about them. In asylum interviews, applicants must provide their own interpreter, and failure to do so may result in an applicant-caused delay and, ultimately, a denial of work authorization. In immigration proceedings, the LEP party’s livelihood, family unity, and freedom from persecution and death are at stake. The message that the U.S. legal system makes clear is that it does not value clear communication with LEP noncitizens. Instead, LEP noncitizens’ fates will be decided without their informed input.
This Note argues that procedural due process is insufficient if LEP noncitizens, in removal proceedings and asylum interviews, do not have a right to speak and be spoken to via capable interpretation. Procedural due process in immigration proceedings should be expanded to guarantee competent, clear, and complete interpretation for LEP noncitizens. Further, when such interpretation is incomplete, unclear, or incompetent, noncitizens must have access to judicial review by asserting that they were prejudiced by this violation of procedural due process. Congress should shift the burden of proving that the noncitizen’s right to procedural due process was upheld to the government.