0465039146-RM

12/5/06

12:31 AM

Page 381

notes to chapter eleven

381

19. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Act of June 18, 1798, ch. 59, 1 Stat. 566 (repealed
1802), Act of June 25, 1798, ch. 63, 1 Stat. 570 (expired); Act of July 6, 1798, ch. 70, 1 Stat. 577
(expired), Act of July 14, 1798, ch. 77, 1 Stat. 596 (empowering the president to deport anyone
he deems dangerous to the countrys peace and safety) (expired). The Alien and Sedition Acts
were declared unconstitutional in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 276 (1964),
though, of course, by then their terms they had expired. See Neal Devins, Constitutional Values
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), on overruling (13); and James Morton
Smith, Freedoms Fetters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1956), on the history, enforcement, and impact of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
20. Stuntz, Substantive Origins, 395.
21. See Cass Sunstein, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (Oxford University Press,
1996), 3561.
22. Frank Main, Blogger Buys Presidential Candidates Call List, Chicago Sun-Times,
January 13, 2006, available at link #72.
23. Peter H. Lewis, Forget Big Brother, New York Times, March 19, 1998, G1.
24. Brin, The Transparent Society, 815.
25. For a good story that effectively summarizes the state of Web advertising, and for a discussion of how DoubleClick operates and the case study of 3Ms sale of projectors through the
advertising placement company, see Aquantive, available at link #73 and 24-7 Real Media,
available at link #74.
26. See Federal Trade Commission, Privacy Online: A Report to Congress, June 1998,
n.107, available at link #75.
27. See Gandy, The Panoptic Sort, 13.
28. Johnson, Interface Culture, 192205. Andrew Shapiro calls this the feedback effect but
argues that it narrows the range of choices; see Andrew Shapiro, The Control Revolution: How
the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know (New York: PublicAffairs, 1999), 113.
29. See, for example, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 US 334, 34143 (1995).
30. See Janai S. Nelson, Residential Zoning Regulations and the Perpetuation of
Apartheid, UCLA Law Review 43 (1996): 1689, 16931704.
31. Examples of laws that aim at segregation based on social or economic criteria include:
regulations requiring a minimum lot size for housing; single-family ordinances prohibiting
nontraditional families from living in certain areas; and residential classifications that exclude
apartment housing. All such restrictions significantly increase the cost of housing for lowerincome individuals; see ibid., 16991700.
32. In 1926 the Supreme Court held zoning to be a valid exercise of local governmental
power. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, 272 US 365 (1926) (holding that a state
has the right to separate incompatible uses). Not until the twentieth century were municipalities given much power to regulate areas of law such as zoning decisions; see Richard Briffault,
Our Localism: Part IThe Structure of Local Government Law, Columbia Law Review 90
(1990): 1, 811, 19.
33. In 1917 the Supreme Court outlawed racial zoning as a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment; see Buchanan v. Warley, 245 US 60 (1917). However, nonexclusionary zoning
regulation was used to preserve residential segregation; even though racially neutral and based
on economic factors (ostensibly to prevent property devaluation), various laws and regulations
have resulted in de facto segregation; see Briffault, Our Localism, 1034; Meredith Lee Bryant,
Combating School Resegregation Through Housing: A Need for a Reconceptualization of
American Democracy and the Rights It Protects, Harvard BlackLetter Journal 13 (1997): 127,
13132.