posted by Richard Storrow
Anxiety arises from technological advances in the life sciences, and there is often uncertainty about what societal response is appropriate. Are we more likely to condone euthanasia as technology for prolonging life improves? Should we support the cloning of human embryos for research purposes even if we reject reproductive cloning? It is a common sentiment that legal regulation is a useful tool for fashioning rules about scientific activities and medical interventions. But in legal circles, we are not shy about questioning the limits of our discipline. The bulk of the literature examining law’s limitations explains that these limitations are most salient in times of crisis or upheaval, e.g., war, terrorism, or epidemic disease. All of these are phenomena with a significant public dimension. Although less theorized, law’s limitations are also evident in the more quotidian realms of human experience that have a significant private dimension—sexuality, substance abuse, prejudice, just to name a few. Fantasies of thought control aside, some scholars have theorized that law is uniquely unsuited to channelling attitudinal and libidinal expression, e.g., prostitution, and invidious discrimination. We know from vast experience that attempts to regulate these activities out of existence only drive them further underground, often with troubling consequences.
In the context of biotechnology, assisted reproduction is perhaps the area that inspires the widest range of voices calling for regulation and thus provides the most suitable subject matter for an exploration of the limits of the law in the regulation of technological advancement in the life sciences. Unlike the clashing interests of doctors and their patients or scientists and their research subjects, the creation of children through technological means triggers a wider range of responses by social groups and the political actors who serve them than do other applications of biotechnology. This may explain the wide range of regulatory responses to assisted reproduction around the world, from the “hands-off” approach of the United States to the prohibitive approach of countries in Europe, Asia and South America. What makes regulating reproductive technology difficult is that it exists somewhere between the extremes of public and private. On the one hand, it is dramatic and transformative in a public way, demanding the expenditure of public health and judicial resources; on the other hand, it transforms within a realm considered deeply private—the creation of families. The resulting tension is one that counsels some form of response but that simultaneously shies from intruding in a realm deemed sacrosanct—the choice whether to have a child. Thus, the question is not whether to regulate reproductive technology, but how.
posted by Deven Desai
In light of the events in Iran, many may laud the power of tools such as Twitter and Facebook as they allow information to reach the world. Here in the United States, however, a few stories highlight how social networking tools and blogs run into ideas of fairness, honesty, and even justice. First, the FTC is planning on investigating bloggers who are paid for their posts but who do not disclose their affiliation. The article claims “The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.” Second, the Ninth Circuit has just ruled that a woman’s blog posts about her co-workers and job environment were not protected speech. As such, her demotion was lawful. Third, a recent Law.com article makes a strong argument that tweeting while on a jury should not be allowed and jeopardizes the fairness of a trial.
The FTC action seems too aggressive, yet it shows that the idea of blogs having some sort of purity is not always the case. But if it prompts bloggers to be more forthcoming about their affiliations and to develop some best practices (as the article suggests), that could be a good outcome. It also seems to embrace the idea of more information is better which may keep many online happy. Those who think tweeting is some sort of anointed right err. The trial context shows that rather well. As for the blog and speech case, I need to find the decision. The article claims that the court “concluded that [the plaintiff's] speech was not a ‘public concern’ but rather was ‘racist, sexist, and bordered on vulgar,’ and it characterized her behavior, in part, as ‘salacious’ and ‘mean spirited.’” I leave it to the First Amendment folks to unravel that one, but I wonder whether this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
In any event, these three events show that while we can say that tools that enhance free speech are wonderful in the extreme cases such as the situation in Iran, the more subtle cases raise on-going questions about the contours of speech. As always the issues are familiar. Now, however, simply saying keep your hands off the Internet or keep it free is an insufficient guideline. Too many people are online and too much online behavior tracks offline experiences and problems. In other words, although the technologies seem to make the questions different and requiring special treatment, they may only make the old questions and responses more salient.