Corporate Legal Compliance Handbook, Third Edition, provides the knowledge necessary to implement or enhance a compliance program in a specific company, or in a client's company. The book focuses not only on doing what is legal or what is right--the two are both important but not always the same--but also on how to make a compliance program actually work. The book is organized in a sequence that follows how to approach a compliance program. It gives the compliance officer, consultant, or attorney a good grounding in the basics of compliance law. This includes such things as the rules about corporate and individual liability, an understanding of the basics of the key laws that impact companies, and the workings of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Successful programs also require an understanding of educational techniques, good communication skills, and the use of computer tools. The effective compliance program also takes into account how to deliver messages using a variety of media to reach employees in different locations, of different ages or education, who speak different languages. Note: Online subscriptions are for three-month periods.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

The automotive industry appears close to substantial change engendered by “self-driving” technologies. This technology offers the possibility of significant benefits to social welfare—saving lives; reducing crashes, congestion, fuel consumption, and pollution; increasing mobility for the disabled; and ultimately improving land use. This report is intended as a guide for state and federal policymakers on the many issues that this technology raises.

Rural Call Completion (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the Rural Call Completion (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 In this document the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) improves its ability to monitor problems with completing calls to rural areas, and enforce restrictions against blocking, choking, reducing, or restricting calls. The Report and Order applies the new rules to providers of long-distance voice service that make the initial long-distance call path choice for more than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines, counting the total of all business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and aggregated over all of the providers' affiliates (referred to herein as "covered providers"). In most cases, this is the calling party's long-distance provider. Covered providers include LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, and VoIP service providers. These rules do not apply to intermediate providers. Covered providers must file quarterly reports and retain the call detail records for at least six calendar months. The Report and Order also allows qualifying providers to certify that they meet the conditions for a Safe Harbor that would reduce reporting and retention obligations. In addition, the Commission has delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau, in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau, the authority to act on requests from qualified providers for waiver of these rules. The Report and Order also adopts a rule prohibiting all originating and intermediate providers from causing audible ringing to be sent to the caller before the terminating provider has signaled that the called party is being alerted. This book contains: - The complete text of the Rural Call Completion (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section