The University of Texas at Dallas Undergraduate Law Review

“In The UN Convention Against Cybercrime: Its Incompatibilities with the U.S Constitution and How the U.S Can Safely Ratify It, Abhiram Kolanu examines the state of contemporary international laws regarding cybercrime and identifies the fundamental tensions between the UN Convention Against Cybercrime and domestic United States law. Edited and supported by Catalina Bagzu, Skandha Gopinath, and Sofia Meinardus, this piece argues that current international cybercrime agreements cannot be meaningfully enforced without conflicting with Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to due process. This piece outlines a path for reconciling these incompatibilities and providing a stronger framework for international cooperation against cybercrime.” – Skandha Gopinath, Managing Editor 

“In Privacy as Property: An Antitrust Approach to Data Governance, Ela Guo examines the economy of user data and identifies the fundamental shortcomings of the consumer welfare standard as a tool against modern data monopolies. Edited and supported by Joe Su, Skandha Gopinath, and Sofia Meinardus, this piece argues that consumer privacy must be understood as a saleable commodity, and that the compelled surrender of personal information as a prerequisite to access an online service constitutes a distinct ‘price’ subject to antitrust legislation. This piece argues for expanding the consumer welfare framework to protect user privacy, positing that antitrust enforcement provides a more immediate and effective solution to data monopolization than traditional data governance policies.” – Skandha Gopinath, Managing Editor

“In An Age of Censorship and Prior Restraint in Indian Cinema: How the Constitution Has Abdicated to ‘Cultural Morality,’ Trisha Das contends that the pre-censorship of films conducted by India’s Central Board of Film Certification violates free speech protections in Article 19 of India’s constitution. Edited and supported by Staff Editor Pranav Belkale and Managing Editor Colin Hollingsead, this piece analyzes the history of relevant legal precedent regarding free speech and censorship to clearly illustrate the inconsistencies between court rulings and constitutional free speech protections caused by vagueness in the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Das argues that, as films are important forms of expression and can massively shape culture, reforms that preserve creative expression and regulate speech using the least restrictive means possible are needed to ensure films are no longer arbitrarily and unconstitutionally censored in India.” – Colin Hollingsead, Managing Editor