Welcome to third issue of The Richmond Journal of Law & Technology's 1999-2000 publication period. In its fifth year of operation, the Journal is experiencing growth and exposure that many never believed possible. As the fifth Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, I have had the unique opportunity to observe an exponential growth pattern for our review that spans the globe - from Switzerland to Malaysia.
We are pleased that our publication continues to lead the pack of online reviews and periodicals, as the best compliment we could ever receive as pioneers in this field is the continued emulation of our online peers. The Library of Congress, Index to Legal Periodicals, Richmond Times-Dispatch, H.W. Wilson Company, StudyWeb, Legal Online, Westlaw, and LexisNexis have also taken notice of this progress and continue to recognize the educational value of our website and its features to the academic and practitioner communities alike.
From the recent Microsoft legal developments to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc panel's rehearing of the Urofsky v. Gilmore matter in late October, the weeks since our publication of Issue Two on October 13, 1999, have proven noteworthy for observers of technology law. Now, complex antitrust disputes and constitutional concerns over censorship are ever-present in the online environment. This publication, Issue 3, is an interim publication dedicated to bringing our readership these latest developments in our backyard at the Fourth Circuit, as well as to showcasing other federal concerns surrounding the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA"), and even global problems like Y2K.
Please browse Julie Roscoe's "Report from the Court" - a first-ever reporting feature for the Journal - highlighting the evolution of the Urofsky matter through the October 25, 1999 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. We also encourage you to read Michael Hancock's postscript on the Urofsky case after reviewing his case note on the matter of regulating the speech of governmental employees from Issue Two. William Horgan's comment proposes a timely statutory solution to the challenging assignment of negligence in Y2K disputes, particularly as we head into the final weeks of 1999. Finally, Dharmesh Vashee and Abbigale Bricker examine in their case notes, Congress' recent attempts to regulate sexually-explicit online material in tandem with the federal judiciary's attempts to preserve the enduring traditions of First Amendment freedoms on the Internet.
We hope this issue will prove to be both informative and educational. As always, we welcome your feedback in the form of suggestions, submissions, and yes, even constructive criticism. Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you for your continued support and readership of our Journal. Best wishes for a safe, healthy, and happy holiday season and a prosperous, smooth transition into the new year and new millennium.
Lisa Taylor Hudson
November 30, 1999