FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W782174816> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W782174816 startingPage "389" @default.
• W782174816 abstract "INTRODUCTIONOn Tuesday, June 25, 2013, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis led a nearly thirteen-hour filibuster. In the special session of the Texas Senate, Davis's filibuster halted the passage of a bill that would make abortions after twenty weeks illegal and would impose other restrictions on abortion administration in Texas.1 Davis's goal was to prevent the Texas Senate from passing the bill by running out the clock on the Senate session in which voting on Senate Bill 5 needed to occur.2 Using the filibuster in the state and federal Senate to block passage of a bill may be a long-used tactic,3 but Davis's filibuster went beyond the normal vote-blocking practice because of her use of social media to garner public attention in the process.4Following Davis's filibuster, Texas Governor Rick Perry called a second special session where the legislature passed the bill5 and Governor Perry signed the bill into law.6 After the filibuster, Davis used the momentum to compete in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial election. 7 Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services filed a lawsuit against the bill, and the Fifth Circuit held the bill constitutional, allowing the bill to go into effect on October 29, 2013.8 As of this writing, the parties are still litigating various issues of the lawsuit.9 The passage of the bill, the ensuing lawsuit (which some have speculated will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court),10 and Davis continue to receive mainstream media coverage.11 Had Davis not incorporated a social media campaign alongside her filibuster, the Act, although extremely controversial in its own right because of the anti-abortion measures it contains, may not have entered the public's consciousness as significantly.12Davis's filibuster and coordinated social media campaign serve as an interesting model for examining the use of social media in the legislative process and the modern application of the Speech or Debate Clause of Article One of the United States Constitution.13 The U.S. Supreme Court has not considered the Speech or Debate Clause since the 1970s, 14 other than when denying certiorari to cases concerning the same.15 However, the addition of social media to the legislative process may allow the Court to reconsider the meaning of speech, as applicable in the Speech or Debate Clause, and the availability of immunity to members of Congress when they use social media to express opinions about topics related to their legislative role.16Although Davis did not post any social media messages herself while filibustering, this social media campaign raises the question of what limitations exist on legislators' social media usage when on or offthe house or senate floor. Since social media, cell phones, and constant internet access were concepts certainly not in the minds of the drafters of the Constitution, interpreting the Constitution to accommodate these societal developments is a necessity. The goal of this Comment is to explore how social media usage by legislators interacts with the Speech or Debate Clause, the Westfall Act, and the First Amendment concepts of legislative immunity and free speech. This Comment contemplates whether actions could be brought against legislators for their social media speech from fellow legislators and the general public for claims including defamation, libel, or related torts, such as infliction of emotional distress.This Comment will examine the possible interpretations of the Speech or Debate Clause as it applies to the use of social media by state legislators and members of Congress. Part I gives background on the importance of social media in today's world, a general overview of popular sites, and data on legislators' use of these platforms. Part II provides a brief history of the Speech or Debate Clause and Supreme Court interpretations and applications of its language. Part III examines how states have incorporated the federal Speech or Debate Clause into their constitutions and applied the privilege to state legislators. …" @default.
• W782174816 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W782174816 creator A5040516613 @default.
• W782174816 date "2015-07-01" @default.
• W782174816 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W782174816 title "The Impact Of Social Media on the Legislative Process: How the Speech or Debate Clause Could be Interpreted" @default.
• W782174816 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W782174816 type Work @default.
• W782174816 sameAs 782174816 @default.
• W782174816 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W782174816 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W782174816 hasAuthorship W782174816A5040516613 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C2777134139 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C2780849931 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W782174816 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C11413529 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C17744445 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C199539241 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C2777134139 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C2778272461 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C2780849931 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C41008148 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C48103436 @default.
• W782174816 hasConceptScore W782174816C83009810 @default.
• W782174816 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W782174816 hasLocation W7821748161 @default.
• W782174816 hasOpenAccess W782174816 @default.
• W782174816 hasPrimaryLocation W7821748161 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W130582565 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W1481027608 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W1487093477 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W1495992856 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W1827918119 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W1954398516 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W2012558018 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W2023640370 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W205874964 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W2293958025 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W273381367 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W2906201656 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W2935769717 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3121251336 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3123569483 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3125546439 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3125867276 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3126143819 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W31844576 @default.
• W782174816 hasRelatedWork W3125341654 @default.
• W782174816 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W782174816 isParatext "false" @default.
• W782174816 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W782174816 magId "782174816" @default.
• W782174816 workType "article" @default.