“Intellectual property owners often face difficulty enforcing their rights against entities engaged in infringing activities on the Internet, in particular where concerted efforts are made to remain anonymous or the entities reside in foreign jurisdictions where enforcement may prove difficult.”

“In the recent decision Bell Media Inc. v Goldtv.biz, 2019 FC 1432, the Federal Court has, for the first time in Canada, issued a “Blocking Order” compelling non-party Internet service providers (“ISPs”) to block access to websites and Internet services that distribute infringing content.”

Read the full article here:

https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/canadian-technology-ip-law/Website-Blocking-Orders-Now-Available-in-Canada

According to this BBC news article, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51184323, Facebook intends to create 1,000 new jobs in the UK with the aim of policing Facebook’s platforms (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp).

Although I think it is noble that Facebook wants to remove problematic content for the safety of its users, it also makes me weary at the thought of a private company dictating what is “problematic” and what information users may and may not view. Can we really trust a private company to act in our best interest or are they unnecessarily suppressing the market place of ideas?

Tying into our no cameras in the courtroom discussion this week…”all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment.” Mandatory silence and the banning of electronic devices for the impeachment trial should be interesting in an age of Twitter and in a proceeding where simultaneous online updates has become the norm. #allardcomm

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/18/politics/impeachment-trial-rules-no-talking-no-phones/index.html

Citation: Danielle K Citron, “Cyber Mobs, Disinformation, and Death Videos: The Internet As It Is (And As It Should Be)”, Book Review of *Sabrina* by Nick Drnaso, (2019) 118 Mich LR, online: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1645&context=faculty_scholarship

Danielle Citron (https://www.daniellecitron.com/, https://twitter.com/daniellecitron) reviews this graphic novel and relates its themes to her research on the psychology of virality, online communication, and conspiracy theories. She describes the harms suffered by victims of online mobs, the incentives for social-media platforms, and potential legal remedies (focused on s. 230 of the US Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The book itself, *Sabrina*, was a quick and interesting read with a nice and simple art style. But, I wonder about the choice to convey the experience from the viewpoint of someone who I think of as an atypical victim.