Menu Close

Tag: Internet

Washington and Lee Law Review - Internet


by Bryan T. Camp

At a doctrinal level, the subject of this Article is timely. During this time of the coronavirus pandemic, casinos have been closed and large populations have been subject to stay-home orders from local and state authorities. One can reasonably expect a large increase in electronic gaming and thus an increased need for proper consideration of its taxation. This Article argues for a cash-out rule of taxation.

At a deeper level, the subject of this Article is timeless. Tax law is wickedly complex for a reason. This Article explores that complexity using the example of electronic gaming. It grapples with the source of that complexity: an inherent and unresolvable tension between economic theories of income and the practical needs of administering a system of taxation to a large population in a democracy. That tension led some scholars to argue for a standards-based approach to taxation. This Article considers and rejects that argument. Legal rules are necessary to mediate between theory and practice. Hence, this Article demonstrates the continued relevance and importance of doctrinal analysis in legal scholarship.


by Natalia Homchick

Imagine you have decided to run for office, to speak out publicly against an injustice, to enter the job market, or even to join a new online forum. Now, imagine after starting your chosen endeavor, you go online to discover that someone who disagrees with your position posted your personal information on the internet and called for others to harass you. To make matters worse, you realize that you cannot determine who posted your personal data. You have been doxed. Because you cannot identify the person who posted your information, where can you turn for recourse? The next logical party is the website where your personal information was posted. Unfortunately, under current laws online intermediaries are typically immunized from liability in these situations. This Note argues that this lack of legal recourse is no longer acceptable in the internet-dominated modern world.

Despite growing awareness of doxing’s pernicious consequences, existing laws do not adequately address either the underlying behavior or its consequences. Some signs of progress, however, are emerging. Proposed legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives — the Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017 (Online Safety Act) — would provide for federal criminal and civil liability for doxing. This bill is a step forward, but it does not address the lack of legal recourse for a victim if the person posting the information cannot be identified. This Note aims to explain why it is appropriate, and necessary, to hold online intermediaries secondarily liable when the doxer cannot be identified.