John and Jane Doe: the epidemiology of unidentified decedents

Abstract:  The number of people who cannot be identified at the time of death, sometimes referred to as John or Jane Does, is unknown, and little is known about them as a group. The study's objectives were to estimate the number of annual unidentified deaths, to identify demographic characteristics associated with dying unidentified, to determine whether the rates of such deaths vary geographically or over time, and to better characterize the causes of death. This was a population-based surveillance study of data collected from death certificates from 1979 to 2004 in the U.S. Subjects were selected by the absence of name, date of birth, and Social Security Number on their certificates. Main outcome measures were distributions by age, sex, and underlying cause of death and rates by sex, race, year, and state of death. An average of 413 unidentified persons died each year. The peak year was 1987 with 691 deaths, a rate of 28.5 per 10 million people. The rate declined to 9.7 per 10 million in 2004. Most unidentified decedents were male (80.6%). Unidentified death rates were highest among black people and in the Southwest. Among deaths for which the cause was known, 82.7% were due to injuries. Among injury deaths, 31.8% were homicides. Improvement in identification technology may have reduced rates of unidentified death since the 1980s. In addition, variations in rates of unidentified decedents may reflect changes in risk factors such as homelessness and substance abuse.     

Baby Jane Doe in the media

A review of national television, magazine, and newspaper coverage of the case of Baby Jane Doe indicates that most of it lacked perspective and context; stories were generally incomplete and often imprecise; reporting was sometimes inaccurate; and overall, inadequate attention was paid to the medical, legal, philosophical, and social implications of the case. Human-interest and political elements of the story were generally well covered. Even after taking account of the pressures and constraints of daily and weekly news reporting, we conclude that the print press and television could have done a better job without devoting more space or time to the story. This could have been done by assigning reporters with greater expertise and by paying more attention to the needs of a hypothetical "reasonable reader."     

First Amendment Protection for Online Platforms

The United States is home to some of the largest online platforms in the world, in part due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides platforms with extraordinarily broad immunity from lawsuits arising from user content. The statute is under unprecedented scrutiny, and Congress already has amended the statute to weaken its protections. This Article examines the First Amendment protections that would remain for online platforms if Congress were to entirely eliminate Section 230. After reviewing pre-Internet cases involving offline distributors such as bookstores and newsstands, this Article concludes that although the First Amendment would offer some protections to platforms, these protections would be limited and likely would require platforms to significantly alter their operations and business models.     

Introduction to the Baby Jane Doe papers

A conference was held at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in October 1984 to discuss the controversy concerning treatment of a newborn with severe congenital defects that became known as the Baby Jane Doe case. Fox provides some background information on the case to introduce a set of of six articles consisting of papers delivered at the conference. These articles deal with historical aspects of the treatment debate (Stanley J. Reiser), problems of clinical decision making (John M. Freeman), the legal issues involved (John A. Robertson), coverage of the case by the media (Stephen Klaidman and Tom L. Beauchamp), federal efforts to regulate the treatment of handicapped newborns (Lawrence D. Brown), and the alliance that arose between opponents of abortion and advocates of the rights of the handicapped (Constance Paige and Elisa B. Karnofsky).     

The antiabortion movement and Baby Jane Doe

In the early 1980s, the leadership of the antiabortion movement became involved in a campaign to establish legal rights to extraordinary medical care for seriously handicapped newborns. Armed with political contacts in the Reagan administration and Congress, and allied with advocates for the disabled, the antiabortion movement searched for a test case to guide through the courts. Antiabortion advocate Lawrence Washburn found such a case in Baby Jane Doe, who was being treated at Stony Brook Medical Center. The movement went on to amend the Child Abuse Act to include protections for handicapped newborns. Activists in the movement chose the issue of Baby Jane Doe because they believed it would attract welcome publicity, give them the appearance of supporting civil rights, and enhance their argument as to the legal rights of the fetus and thus strengthen the case against abortion. The movement was partially successful in obtaining its goals.     

The First Amendment Right to Receive Online Information in Public Libraries

A decade after the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, which mandated Internet filters in public libraries, filtering problems have not been resolved, and the disabling of Internet filters upon the requests of adults does not seem to be as easy or automatic as the justices had presumed. In upholding CIPA, the Supreme Court seemed to misunderstand the parameters of the disabling provision, ignored the right-to-receive doctrine, and missed the opportunity to update public forum doctrine to include the Internet. This article concludes that the Court needs to reevaluate public forum doctrine in the context of twenty-first century technology and designate Internet access in public libraries as a metaphysical public forum.     

Lawyer Advertising and the First Amendment

A current Supreme Court case concerning lawyer advertising, In re R.M.J., is analyzed in the context of a discussion of the diverse state regulations governing lawyer advertising and solicitation. The article considers the regulations in terms of their constitutionality, their tendency to impede effective advertising, and the effect they have on the legal profession's provision of information to potential clients about the nature, availability, and cost of legal services. Analysis of the major commercial speech cases, from Virginia State Board of Pharmacy to Central Hudson, indicates that many state rules infringe on attorneys' First Amendment rights.     

Violence as Obscenity: Offensiveness and the First Amendment

Many efforts have been made to restrict minors' access to violent media content basing the definition of the content to be restricted on the legal definition of obscenity, which requires the content to be offensive. Without exception, such restrictions have been found to violate the First Amendment, partly because the laws have defined the violence to be restricted with reference to its offensiveness, while the purpose of the laws has been to protect children from the harms believed to be caused by exposure to such content. This has created a problematic lack of fit between the content to be restricted and the purpose of restrictions. This article examines whether restricting minors' access to offensive violent media content to protect them from its offensiveness makes it any more likely such restrictions will survive First Amendment scrutiny.     

Protecting Childhood: Rights,Social Goals and the First Amendment in the Context of the Child Online Protection Act

In Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, the Supreme Court of the United States reintroduced a subject matter test into libel law, holding that private figures defamed in the discussion of matters of private concern did not need to prove actual malice to collect punitive or presumed damages. The sweeping language of some of opinions, coupled with the Supreme Court's references to subject matter in subsequent cases, led to confusion over whether and how constitutional protections apply in private plaintiff-private issue cases. This article explores how lower federal and state appellate courts have interpreted Dun & Bradstreet and offers three alternate solutions to appropriately balance the First Amendment rights of defendants with the reputational interests of private plaintiffs in cases arising from the discussion of matters of private concern.     

Taking Liberties with the First Amendment

Law and Philosophy -     

First Amendment Showdown: Intellectual Diversity Mandates and the Academic Marketplace

Once described as a quintessential marketplace of ideas by the Supreme Court of the United States, the academic marketplace has been criticized recently for institutionalizing a left-leaning ideology within its curriculum and academic discourse. As a result, national activists and organizations have been calling on state legislatures and university administrators to adopt policies and report on steps taken to encourage intellectual diversity and protect political and cultural minorities from faculty bias and academic retribution in the classroom and other university settings. But who would win a constitutional showdown between the academy and those seeking to infuse academic discourse with alternative viewpoints? Based on an analysis of the First Amendment concerns at stake in this ongoing controversy, this article concludes that university administrators should have the upper hand in such a constitutional challenge given the specific characteristics and selective nature of the academic marketplace.