принималось и даже превозносилось как необходимая черта успешной рыночной системы и движущая сила прогресса. Позже, успех надзорного капитализма, его агрессивная риторика и готовность его лидеров противостоять любым вызовам, как в суде, так и в «суде» общественного мнения, еще больше закрепили эти руководящие принципы в политической жизни, экономической политике и законодательной практике в США. См.: Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown (London: Verso, 2013). См. также: Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (New York: Zone Books, 2015); David M. Kotz, The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 166–175.
260
Frank A. Pasquale, “Privacy, Antitrust, and Power,” George Mason Law Review 20, no. 4 (2013): 1009–1024.
261
Существует множество разнообразных научных работ о том, как интернет-компании прибегали к Первой поправке в попытке защититься от регулирования. Вот только некоторые из многих важных исследований: Andrew Tutt, “The New Speech,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 41 (July 17, 2013): 235; Richard Hasen, “Cheap Speech and What It Has Done (to American Democracy),” First Amendment Law Review 16 (January 1, 2017), http://scholarship.law.uci.edu/faculty_scholarship/660; Dawn Nunziato, “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Proposed Principles of Digital Due Process for ICT Companies” (GWU Law School Public Law research paper, George Washington University, January 1, 2013), http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1293; Tim Wu, “Machine Speech,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161, no. 6 (2013): 1495; Dawn Nunziato, “Forget About It? Harmonizing European and American Protections for Privacy, Free Speech, and Due Process” (GWU Law School Public Law research paper, George Washington University, January 1, 2015), http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1295; Marvin Ammori, “The ‘New’ New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter,” Harvard Law Review 127 (June 20, 2014): 2259–95; Jon Hanson and Ronald Chen, “The Illusion of Law: The Legitimating Schemas of Modern Policy and Corporate Law,” Legitimating Schemas of Modern Policy and Corporate Law 103, no. 1 (2004): 1–149.
262
Steven J. Heyman, “The Third Annual C. Edwin Baker Lecture for Liberty, Equality, and Democracy: The Conservative-Libertarian Turn in First Amendment Jurisprudence” (SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, October 8, 2014), 300, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2497190.
263
Heyman, “The Third Annual C. Edwin Baker Lecture,” 277; Andrew Tutt, “The New Speech”.
264
Daniel J. H. Greenwood, “Neofederalism: The Surprising Foundations of Corporate Constitutional Rights,” University of Illinois Law Review 163 (2017): 166, 221.
265
Frank A. Pasquale, “The Automated Public Sphere” (Legal Studies research paper, University of Maryland, November 10, 2017).
266
Ammori, “The ‘New’ New York Times,” 2259–2260.
267
Adam Winkler, We the Corporations (New York: W. W. Norton, 2018), xxi.
268
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d., https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230.
269
Christopher Zara, “The Most Important Law in Tech Has a Problem,” Wired, January 3, 2017.
270
David S. Ardia, “Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” (SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, June 16, 2010), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1625820.
271
Paul Ehrlich, “Communications Decency Act 230,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 17 (2002): 404.
272
Ardia, “Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels”.
273
См.: Zara, “The Most Important Law in Tech”.
274
Ibid.
275
David Lyon, Surveillance After September 11, Themes for the 21st Century (Malden, MA: Polity, 2003), 7; Jennifer Evans, “Hijacking Civil Liberties: The USA Patriot Act of 2001,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 33, no. 4 (2002): 933; Paul T. Jaeger, John Carlo Bertot, and Charles R. McClure, “The Impact of the USA Patriot Act on Collection and Analysis of Personal Information Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Government Information Quarterly 20, no. 3 (2003): 295–314.
276
В США первая волна законодательства, закреплявшего неприкосновенность частной жизни потребителя, прошла еще в 1970-х гг., когда конгресс принял
