In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Saturday March 18, 2023

First, from www.icc-cpi.int: Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova
Today, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for two individuals in relation to the situation in Ukraine. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of the Russian Federation, is charged with war crimes of unlawful deportation of population and unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, is charged with the same war crimes. The arrest warrants were issued after an application from the Prosecution. The existence of the warrants has been authorised for public disclosure.

Next, from www.techdirt.com: Yes, Section 230 Should Protect ChatGPT And Other Generative AI Tools
In a new article discussing the application of Section 230 to generative AI products like ChatGPT, technology policy scholar and expert Matt Perault argues that, due to the nature of generative AI, ChatGPT operates as a co-creator and should not be eligible for protection under Section 230. However, Jess Miers presents a counter argument, suggesting that Section 230 should and does protect products like ChatGPT. Miers notes that existing precedent suggests that websites retain immunity when they provide neutral tools to facilitate user expression, citing the Court's ruling in the Roommates case. Miers concludes that a website must do more than simply augmenting, curating, and displaying content (algorithmically or otherwise) to transform into the creator or developer of third-party content in order for Section 230 to not apply.

Finally, from www.cnn.com: Federal appeals court leaves DeSantis' anti-'woke' law blocked in Florida public colleges
A federal appeals court denied a request from the Florida DeSantis administration to stay an injunction from US District Judge Mark Walker blocking a portion of the state's "Stop Woke Act." The law is intended to prevent teachings or mandatory workplace activities that suggest a person is privileged or oppressed based on their race, color, sex or national origin. Opponents of the law are fighting it on three fronts: the law’s effects on K-12, higher education and employers. The Legal Defense Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the decision.

---

Today's paper of the day is What Do Law Professors Believe about Law and the Legal Academy? by Eric Martínez and Kevin Tobia. This article presents the first dataset of American law professors' views about legal theory by studying over six hundred law professors. It documents expert consensus and dissensus about dozens of longstanding debates, as well as law professors' evaluation of over one hundred areas of law. The findings from this study provide insight into legal theory, education, and practice.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~