Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
jcil.orgSpam Legislation in the United States, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 3 (2003).
David E. Sorkin, www.spamlaws.comTechnical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 35 U.S.F.L. Rev. 325 (2001).
David E. Sorkin, www.spamlaws.comUnsolicited Commercial E-Mail and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 45 Buffalo L. Rev. 1001 (1997).
David E. Sorkin, Revocation of an Internet Domain Name for Violations of "Netiquette": Contractual and Constitutional Implications, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 587 (1997).
Dominique-Chantale Alepin, Note, "Opting-Out": A Technical, Legal and Practical Look at the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 28 Colum. J.L. & Arts 41 (2004).
Elizabeth A. Alongi, Note, www.law.arizona.eduHas the U.S. Canned Spam?, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 263 (2004).
Kenneth C. Amaditz, in Virginia: Model Legislation to Control Junk E-mail, 4 Va. J.L. & Tech. 4 (1999).
Michelle Armond, www.law.berkeley.eduCyberlaw: State Internet Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 379 (2002).
Stephanie Austria, Note, Forgery in Cyberspace: The Spoof Could be on You!, 5 Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 2 (2004).
Ian Ayres & Matthew Funk, Marketing Privacy, 20 Yale J. On Reg. 77 (2003).
Susan M. Ballantine, Note, Computer Network Trespasses: Solving New Problems with Old Solutions, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 209 (2000).
Richard C. Balough, www.jcil.orgThe Do-Not-Call Registry Model Is Not the Answer to Spam, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 79 (2003).
David T. Bartels, Note, Canning Spam: California Bans Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 30 McGeorge L. Rev. 420 (1999).
W. Parker Baxter, Recent Development, Has Spam Been Canned? Consumers, Marketers, and the Making of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 8 N.Y.U.J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 163 (2004).
J. Brian Beckham, Casenote, www.jcil.orgIntel v. Hamidi: Spam as a Trespass to Chattels -- Deconstruction of a Private Right of Action in California, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 205 (2003).
Yochai Benkler, Net Regulation: Taking Stock and Looking Forward, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1203 (2000).
Steven E. Bennett, Note, Canning Spam: CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 545 (1998).
Arminda B. Bepko, Note, A State-by-State Comparison of Spam Laws, 13 Media L. & Pol'y 20 (2004).
Jordan M. Blanke, www.smu.eduCanned Spam: New State and Federal Legislation Attempts to Put a Lid on It, 7 Comp. L. Rev. & Tech. J. 305 (2004).
John E. Brockhoeft, Evaluating The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 4 Loy. Law & Tech. Ann. 1 (2004).
Dan L. Burk, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf-abstract_id=223513" The Trouble with Trespass, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 27 (2000).
Michael W. Carroll, www.law.berkeley.eduGarbage In: Emerging Media and Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial Solicitations, 11 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 233 (1996).
Dannielle Cisneros, Issue Brief, www.law.duke.eduDo Not Advertise: The Current Fight Against Unsolicited Advertisements, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 10.
Shelley Cobos, Note, www.lawtechjournal.comA Two-Tiered Registry System to Regulate Spam, 2003 UCLA J.L. Tech. 5.
Evan Cramer, Issue Brief, www.law.duke.eduThe Future of Wireless Spam, 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 21.
Ben Dahl, www.jcil.orgA Further Darkside to Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail? An Assessment of Potential Employer Liability for Spam E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 179 (2003).
Joseph D'Ambrosio, Should "Junk" E-Mail Be Legally Protected?, 17 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 231 (2001).
Patty M. DeGaetano, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Private Property, Keep Out -- The Unworkable Definition of Injury for a Trespass to Chattels Claim in Cyberspace, 40 Cal W.L. Rev. 355 (2004).
David Dickinson, Note, An Architecture for Spam Regulation, 57 Fed. Comm. L.J. 129 (2004).
Michael B. Edwards, Recent Development, www.jolt.unc.eduA Call to Arms: Marching Orders for the North Carolina Anti-Spam Statute, 4 N.C.J.L. & Tech. 93 (2002).
Christopher D. Fasano, Comment, www.law.syr.eduGetting Rid of Spam: Addressing Spam in Courts and in Congress, 2000 Syracuse L. & Tech. J. 3. [66K PDF]
George H. Fibbe, Screen-Scraping and Harmful Cybertrespass after Intel, 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1011 (2004).
Michael A. Fisher, Note, The Right to Spam? Regulating Electronic Junk Mail, 23 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 363 (2000).
Credence E. Fogo, www.jcil.orgThe Postman Always Rings 4,000 Times: New Approaches to Curb Spam, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 915 (2000).
R. Jonas Geissler, www.wm.eduLaws Violate the First Amendment, 2001 J. Online L. art. 8.
Brian G. Gilpin, www.jcil.orgAttorney Advertising & Solicitation on the Internet: Complying with Ethics Regulations and Netiquette, 13 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 697 (1995).
Eric Goldman, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=487162" Where's the Beef? Dissecting Spam's Purported Harms, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 13 (2003).
Jack L. Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=246100" The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 110 Yale L.J. 785 (2001).
David A. Gottardo, Comment, www.jcil.orgCommercialism and the...
Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 125 (1997).
Scot M. Graydon, Much Ado About Spam: Unsolicited Advertising, the Internet, and You, 32 St. Mary's L.J. 77 (2000).
Seth Grossman, Note, Keeping Unwanted Donkeys and Elephants Out of Your Inbox: The Case for Regulating Political Spam, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1533 (2004).
Anne E. Hawley, Comment, Taking Spam Out of Your Cyberspace Diet: Common Law Applied to Bulk Unsolicited Advertising via Electronic Mail, 66 UMKC L. Rev. 381 (1997).
William E. Hornsby, Jr., www.jcil.orgSpamming for Legal Services: A Constitutional Right within a Regulatory Quagmire, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 97 (2003).
Diane E. Horvath & John S. Jung, 1999 Technology Legislation in Virginia, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1037 (1999).
Christopher Hurld, Current Development, www.findarticles.comUntangling the Wicked Web: The Marketing of Legal Services on the Internet and the Model Rules, 17 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 827 (2004).
David R. Johnson, Susan P. Crawford & John G. Palfrey, Jr., www.vjolt.netThe Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, 9 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9 (2004).
Carol Jones, News, E-Mail Solicitation: Will Opening a "Spam-Free" Mailbox Ever Be a Reality?, 15 Loyola Consumer L. Rev. 69 (2002).
Steven Kam, Note, Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Trespass to Chattels and a Doctrine of Cyber-Nuisance, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 427 (2004).
Jennifer M. Kappel, Comment, Government Intervention on the Internet: Should the Federal Trade Commission Regulate Unsolicited E-Mail Advertising?, 51 Admin. L. Rev. 1011 (1999).
Sabra-Anne Kelin, Note, State Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 435 (2001).
Jeremiah Kelman, Note, E-Nuisance: Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail at the Boundaries of Common Law Property Rights, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 363 (2004).
Joseph P. Kendrick, Recent Development, www.lclark.edu7 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 563 (2003).
Dennis W.K. Khong, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=507942" An Economic Analysis of Spam Law, 1 Erasmus L. & Econ. Rev. 23 (2004).
Shari A. Kolnicki, The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Its Burden on Small Business: An Evaluation of the Law and Its Ramifications on Telecommunication Advances, 28 Cap U.L. Rev. 223 (1999).
Jeffrey L. Kosiba, Comment, Legal Relief from Spam-Induced Internet Indigestion, 25 Dayton L. Rev. 187 (1999).
Ari Lanin, Note, Who Controls the Internet? States' Rights and the Reawakening of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1423 (2000).
Dianne Plunkett Latham, Electronic Commerce in the 21st Century: Spam Remedies, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649 (2001).
Cathryn Le, Note, www.richmond.eduHow Have Internet Service Providers Beat Spammers?, 5 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 9 (1998).
Thomas K. Ledbetter, Comment, Stopping Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: Why the CAN-SPAM Act Is Not the Solution to Stop Spam, 34 Sw U.L. Rev. 107 (2004).
Richard C. Lee, Note, Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 417 (1998).
Mark A. Lemley, The Law and Economics of Internet Norms, 73 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1257 (1998).
Lawrence Lessig, www.lessig.orgThe Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 501 (1999).
Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, www.si.umich.eduZoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 395 (1999).
John Magee, The Law Regulating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail: An International Perspective, 19 Computer & High Tech. L.J. 333 (2003).
Christopher Scott Maravilla, The Feasibility of a Law to Regulate Pornographic, Unsolicited, Commercial E-Mail, 4 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 117 (2002).
Joshua A. Marcus, Note, Commercial Speech on the Internet: Spam and the First Amendment, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 245 (1998).
Erin Elizabeth Marks, Comment, Spammers Clog In-boxes Everywhere: Will the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Halt the Invasion?, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 943 (2004).
Elizabeth Phillips Marsh, Purveyors of Hate on the Internet: Are We Ready for Hate Spam?, 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 379 (2000)
Daniel L. Mayer, Note, Attacking A Windmill: Why the CAN SPAM Act Is a Futile Waste of Time and Money, 31 J. Legis. 177 (2004).
Michael D. McConathy, Comment, Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. F.C.C. And Moser v. F.C.C.: How Much Should the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Restrict Your Phone, Fax and Computer, 26 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 153 (1996).
R. Clifton Merrell, Note, Trespass to Chattels in the Age of the Internet, 80 Wash U.L.Q. 675 (2002).
Karin Mika, www.richmond.eduInformation v. Commercialization: The Internet and Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 4 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 6 (1998).
Gary Miller, www.vanderbilt.eduHow to Can Spam: Legislating Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 127 (2000). [129K PDF]
Steven Miller, Comment, Washington's "Spam Killing" Statute: Does It Slaughter Privacy in the Process?, 74 Wash. L. Rev. 453 (1999).
Anne P. Mitchell, www.jcil.orgVendor Liability for Advertising in Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 137 (2003).
Sameh I. Mobarek, Note, The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003:…
Dogberry in "Much Ado About Nothing" In "Much Ado About Nothing," Shakespeare presents a kind of drawing-room comedy, where people's efforts to demonstrate the social graces of the day create all sorts of problems. Beatrice has a sharp tongue but gets away with it because her words are formed in the style of the day. Her cousin Hero, however, is greatly harmed by other people's talk, with her character badly maligned.
Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Claudio demonstrates an immature attitude toward love and romance. Claudio's initial attraction to Hero is based mostly on physical attraction; he seems to be only slightly interested in her financial status and is not concerned with Benedick's criticism of Leonato's daughter. Unlike Beatrice and Benedick, Claudio and Hero never get to develop a relationship based on respect and friendship. The romance between Claudio and
Gender Roles in Much Ado About Nothing and Trifles Today, gender roles have become far more flexible than as recently as 50 years ago. Women today can enter management positions, have focused careers, and expect salaries on the same level as those of men. Indeed, some women have proved themselves to be as competent, or more so, in leadership positions as men. At the same time, however, women are free to
Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing" is a witty comedy. It subscribes to all the conventions of a Shakespeare comedy, being witty in language and plot. It also ends well for all who deserve it, and badly for all those who do not. In "Cressida and Troilus" however, both the plot and theme seem somewhat dark for a comedy. However, this play has been classified as one of Shakespeare's comedies.
I.16-17) the line however clearly describes the general behavior of the characters in the play, that "dare do" all kinds of things that provoke fate, without knowing what they do. Don Pedro's wooing of Hero to help Claudio is also significant, as Claudio does not actually needs his help so the offering is superfluous. Even Friar Francis who pretends Hero is dead endangers the happiness of the two, in spite of
Benedick pretended not to know who Benedick was but he was apparently unsuccessful since Beatrice insulted him by calling him 'the prince's jester' among many other insults. Benedick's conversations with Claudio and Don Pedro indicated that he had been very hurt by Beatrice's comments. This provided another clue to his real feelings for Beatrice and his reasons for trying to hide his true from her identity behind the mask.