BU460assignment: Electronic commerce
BU460assignment: Electronic commerce
PartA: Limitations of referring to relevant laws to resolve legaldisputes
Usingrelevant laws to resolve legal disputes may not succeed for two majorreasons. First, dispute cases are affected by laws that are alreadywritten, in addition to laws that judges make while in the process ofinterpreting the written laws and creating the legal proceedings(Trans Legal, 2015). This is common in nations that apply the commonlaw, including the United States. The common laws allow judges togive the literal meaning of words while interpreting differentstatutes. This process is referred to as the literal rule and it mayresult in sensible or insensible results (Trans Legal, 2015). Forexample, a judge may invoke the literal rule while resolving a legaldispute and give a literal meaning of what the law actually states,instead of what the legislature intended. This creates a perceptionthat the judge has made a law while interpreting a statute. Thisimplies that the court’s decision to limit itself to relevant lawsas they are written by the legislature may not lead to a viableconclusion during dispute resolution. The judges have to include newdimensions of the law that are discovered while interpreting thestatutes.
Secondly,technological advances achieved in the field of business haveaffected the application of relevant laws during dispute resolution.This is because most of the current laws that the judges are likelyto refer to were formulated and enacted before the digital and theinformation age, which means that such laws may be difficult to applywhen resolving disputes that involve the use of technology. Forexample, interstate laws hold that investors can be considered to beconducting business in a given state if they have establishedcontacts in that particular state, provided services or goods,provided labor, or offered construction work (Thomas Reuters, 2015).This law has been used to resolve tax disputes for many years,especially when companies claim that they do not have physicaloffices in certain states, and yet they deliver products or servicesthrough other means, such as agents. Technology has made even moredifficult because it is challenging to determine whether atransaction conducted online can result in a company being consideredto have engaged in interstate business. In addition, the judicialsystems may not have developed the suitable general standard for theapplication of relevant laws that have been made during theinformation as well as the digital ages. Due to the lack of generalstandards, the court may find it difficult to restrict the process ofdispute resolution to the relevant laws.
PartB: Children’s Internet Protection Act
TheChildren’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is among the keylegislations that have so far been enacted in the U.S. with theobjective of protecting children from accessing phonographic materialonline. The act was enacted in the year 2000 and confirmed to beconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the year 2003 (FederalCommunications Commission, 2015). Apart from protecting children fromphonographic material, the act laid a platform for protection againstany type of harmful information, authorized access to minors’private information through hacking (McClure, 2004). In addition, theact requires libraries and schools to implement measures that canprotect children from being attacked when using electronic mail,online chat, or other electronic communication.
TheCIPA evolved from a number of legislations that were enacted, butchallenged in Supreme Court on the grounds of violation of freedom ofspeech as well as the right to access information (McClure, 2004).Prior to the enactment of the CIPA in 2000, the Congress had passedseveral other acts, such as Communication Decency Act in 1996followed by Children Online Protection Act in 1998. The two acts werefound to have contravened the First Amendment. This is because thetwo acts did not give parents an opportunity to determine what typeof information that their children should access online. In addition,the Communication Decency Act failed to define Patently Offensive,which had no legal meaning. Although the Supreme Court had foundprior acts to be unconstitutional, the state could not leave childrenvulnerable to vast of harmful information that was increasing withtime. This created the need for a more effective legislation that wasconsistent with the First Amendment. This resulted in the developmentof CIPA, which was an indication of Congress’s change of strategy(FCC, 2015). Since the government had lost control over libraries andschools, the only strategy that could lead to the successfulprotection of children could be the use of incentives, such as theUniversal Service Fund.
Oneof the key factors that have contributed towards the success of CIPAis the fact that it was designed in manners that encourage theprotection of children through reinforcement, instead of applyingforce. For example, the act requires schools to apply the internetfilter measures so that they can receive the government funding,which is a positive reinforcement (FCC, 2015). This has beenaccomplished through the establishment of a special fund known asE-Rate Fund that is channeled to schools that have accepted toimplement provisions of CIPA. In addition, the government promises togive schools that adopt provisions of CIPA technology tools thatdisable phonographic and other harmful websites free of charge.
FederalCommunications Commission (2015). Children’sinternet protection Act.Washington, DC: FCC.
McClure,R. (2004). Potential legal challenges to the application of theChildren’s Internet protection Act (CIPA) in public libraries.Jaeger,9 (2), 2.
ThomasReuters (2015). Conducting business as a corporation or an LLC out ofstate. ThomasReuters.Retrieved December 26, 2015, fromhttp://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/conducting-business-as-a-corporation-or-an-llc-out-of-state.html
TransLegal(2015). The rules of statutory interpretation. TransLegal.Retrieved December 26, 2015, fromhttps://www.translegal.com/lesson/statutory-interpretation-2