Articles for category: USA

Tackling Discrimination in Targeted Advertising

On 21 June Meta and the US Department for Housing and Urban Development released a legal settlement that will restrict Meta’s ability to offer those clients some of its core ad-targeting products. It resolves (for now) a long-running case over discriminatory targeting of housing adverts. Meta is now prohibited from using certain targeting tools in this context, and has promised new tools to ensure more representative targeting. This US lawsuit should be a wake-up call for European regulators, reminding them that taking systemic discrimination seriously requires proactive regulatory reform and enforcement. The relevant provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA) are largely symbolic.

What Culture Wars Hide

The American Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC) is meeting in Budapest on 19-20 May. The meeting signals that US conservatives have chosen Hungary as proof of concept for the politics they want. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is proudly illiberal and proudly politically incorrect. Having won his fourth consecutive election in April with his largest parliamentary majority yet, Orbán demonstrates to American conservatives that his brand of politics can triumph.

Law’s Fate under the US »War on Terror«

More than 20 years after the US declared “war on terror” we must assess the damage it inflicted on the core values embodied in the rule of law and the success of efforts to defend them. The fate of the rule of law — whose raison d’être is to restrain the state from abusing its power — itself depends on politics. Party control of the executive and legislature (which in turn shapes the appointment of judges) was the single most powerful determinant of responses to the numerous abuses under all four administrations since 9/11.

Frauen ohne Privatsphäre

Das Recht auf einen Schwangerschaftsabbruch grundrechtlich zu verankern ist eine der größten Errungenschaften US-amerikanischer Verfassungsrechtsprechung. Bereits 1973 stellte der Supreme Court fest, dass das Recht auf Privatsphäre das Recht einer Frau umfasst, frei zu entscheiden, ob sie ein Kind bekommen will oder nicht. Damit erkannte das Gericht die fundamentale Verknüpfung zwischen der Identität als Frau und der Entscheidung über Reproduktion als höchstpersönliche und grundrechtsrelevante Entscheidung an. Diese Verknüpfung schickt sich der Supreme Court jetzt an zu kappen.

Das Ende von Roe v. Wade

Das Magazin Politico hat einen geleakten Entscheidungsentwurf des Supreme Courts veröffentlicht, der die Abkehr vom geltenden Recht auf Abtreibungen in den USA bedeuten würde. Der mit einer konservativen Mehrheit besetzte Supreme Court würde damit die Wahlversprechen Donald Trumps und die Hoffnungen einer großen Anzahl an Republikaner*innen umsetzen und Bundesstaaten die Möglichkeit geben, Abtreibungen komplett zu verbieten.

Elon Musk Wants to Buy Twitter to Create a Free Speech Utopia: Now What?

The enigmatic Tesla founder Elon Musk has made a public offer to buy 100% of Twitter’s shares at approximately 138% of each share’s value. In his letter of intention submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Musk describes that free speech is necessary in a democratic society, and he wishes to unlock its full potential by bringing Twitter under (his) private ownership. Constitutionally this raises an interesting point: if indeed a billionaire wants to change the rules of speech on the ‘new public squares’ by acquiring a social media platform, can he – and should he be able to?

Justice Thomas Will Not Recuse. But Should He?

There is a growing elite and scholarly consensus (at least on the American left) that Justice Clarence Thomas “must immediately recuse himself from any cases relating to the 2020 election and its aftermath.” The demand is extraordinary, and as such, it has captured global attention. The dispute highlights some notable things about the Court, but it is the scandal that really captures attention. So far, calls for recusal have come almost exclusively from the left. Conservatives have dismissed the idea. What to make of it all?

On the Internet, No One Knows You’re a Cop

As long as police can continue to exploit the legal fiction of user “consent” to access our private communications, our privacy rights will remain just as fictional. While we’re hopeful that the courts will one-day strike this practice down as violating the Fourth Amendment, more urgent statutory protections are needed. The legislation needn’t be lengthy or complex, it’s not a nuanced question. To the contrary, what we need is a complete and categorical ban on the use of fake accounts by police, letting those who’ve been surveilled sue, and suppressing the evidence that’s obtained at trial.

Rechtfertigt die Bedrohung durch den Terrorismus Migrationsbeschränkungen?

Migranten auszusperren, um das ohnehin schon sehr niedrige Terrorismusrisiko geringfügig zu senken, könnte gerechtfertigt sein, wenn die Beschränkungen nur wenige oder gar keine moralisch bedeutsamen Kosten verursachen würden. Tatsächlich aber ist es ein großes Unrecht, Migranten, die vor Unterdrückung und Krieg fliehen, auszusperren. Die Ausgrenzung fügt enormen Schaden zu, verletzt die Menschenrechte gegen ungerechte Diskriminierung und steht auch im Widerspruch zu den Konzepten der Würde, die in der modernen europäischen und internationalen Rechtsprechung eine wichtige Rolle spielen.

Unmatched Levels of Sanctions Coordination

In early 2022, the European Union (EU) was quick and decisive in imposing an unprecedented set of measures against Russia. Among other things, the EU targeted the Russian Central Bank, which is an extraordinary move, given that central banks are rarely on sanctions lists. Reconciling the interests of 27 Member States is an art itself, especially in a highly sensitive policy area which continues to be dominated by individual Member State interests. Overall, the swiftness of EU measures went beyond most of our expectations.