LGST 222 EXAM QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS 100% PASS
Challenges for cyberspace law - ANS Power: Governments cannot realistically control/stop
the flow of digital communications across borders. Attempts at local regulation create conflicts
(e.g., one state regulating activities of foreign companies online).
Effects: Online activities don't radiate from a single physical point—websites or forums exist
everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. A site in Brazil has the same effect on users in Norway
as one in Belize.
Legitimacy & Notice: No local population has a stronger claim to regulate cyberspace; physical
signposts don't exist to warn users of jurisdictional shifts.
Four features of cyberspace that make harassment worse - ANS - Anonymity
- Amplification: wide audience
- Permanence: difficult to erase personal information from the web
- Virtual Captivity/publicity
State V. Decker - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
In 2014, Daniel Decker (34) befriended 14-year-old M.J. on Facebook. One night, after a short
chat via Messenger, Decker sent her a picture of his erect penis.
Convictions: Fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct & Indecent Exposure
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does sending an image of one's genitals via electronic communication satisfy the statutory
requirement of a lewd exhibition "in the presence of a minor under the age of 16"
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
Yes. The Minnesota Court agreed that sending lewd images via electronic communication to a
minor can constitute exposure "in the presence of a minor" under the statutes.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Majority reasoning: The goal of these statutes is to protect minors from adults lewdly exposing
themselves. Allowing an exception for online exposure would undermine legislative intent,
effectively permitting adults to exploit minors digitally without consequence. Technology allows
adults to "enter" a child's private space virtually, and Decker's conduct met the statutory
elements.
Dissent (Justice Anderson): The plain meaning of "in the presence of" requires physical
proximity. Decker and M.J. were in separate homes; thus, the statutory language was not
satisfied.
Robles v. Domino's Pizza - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
Guillermo Robles, a blind man who uses screen-reading software to access the internet, and
Domino's Pizza
Background: Robles attempted multiple times to order a pizza from Domino's website and
mobile app but couldn't because they were not designed to work with his screen-reader. He
filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(UCRA).
b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does Title III of the ADA apply to Domino's website and mobile application, which connect to
but are not themselves physical places of public accommodation? Does Domino's need to make
their site accessible under UCRA?
c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,Yes. The ADA applies to Domino's website and app because their inaccessibility impedes access
to the goods and services of Domino's physical restaurants, which are places of public
accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B). Thus, Domino's is required to provide auxiliary
aids and services.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Statutory Language: Title III prohibits discrimination in the "full and equal enjoyment of the
goods and services ... of any place of public accommodation." It applies to services "of" a public
accommodation, not just services "in" one. The website and app help order food from physical
locations, impeding access to those goods.
DOJ Regulations: Covered entities must provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective
communication, which includes accessible electronic technology.
DOW JONES & CO. V. GUTNICK - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
Background: Dow Jones published an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in Barron's Online linking
Gutnick with convicted tax evader Nachum Goldberg. Gutnick alleged the article defamed him,
implying he was Goldberg's biggest customer, a tax evader, a money launderer, and someone
who paid for silence. He brought suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), where he
lived, conducted business, and had his reputation. Dow Jones argued that publication occurred
in the United States (where its servers were located), and therefore U.S. law—more favorable to
publishers under the First Amendment—should govern.
(b) Issues (what is in dispute
Where is publication of allegedly defamatory material on the internet deemed to occur: at the
location of the web servers (United States) or where the material is downloaded and
comprehended (Australia)?
Should Australian courts exercise jurisdiction over a defamation case concerning material
posted online by a foreign publisher?
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
The High Court of Australia held that publication in defamation occurs where the material is
downloaded and comprehended by readers, and where reputational harm is suffered. Because
Gutnick lived and had his reputation in Victoria, Australian law applied.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, Defamation law protects reputation, and damage occurs where the defamatory material is read
and understood, not merely where it is uploaded.
Balance of Interests: While Dow Jones argued it should only follow U.S. law where its servers
are, the Court stressed that publishers know their online content is globally accessible and must
account for the laws where reputations are harmed.
LICRA & UEJF v. Yahoo! - ANS a) facts
Two French anti-racism groups (LICRA and UEJF) vs. Yahoo!, an American internet portal
Background: Yahoo!'s U.S.-based website hosted auctions selling Nazi memorabilia. French law
criminalizes trafficking in Nazi goods. French organizations sued Yahoo! in a Paris court, arguing
that the auctions violated French law. Yahoo! claimed French courts lacked authority over U.S.-
based servers and that filtering users by geography was impossible.
b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does a French court have jurisdiction over Yahoo!'s U.S. websites accessible in France?
Can Yahoo! be required to block French users from accessing Nazi auction content?
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
Yes. The French court held that Yahoo! violated French law by allowing Nazi goods to be sold via
pages accessible in France. The court ordered Yahoo! to make its "best efforts" to block French
users from accessing the auctions.
d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Even though Yahoo!'s servers were outside France, its content
reached and harmed French public order. Jurisdiction was proper because French citizens could
view the auctions.
Yahoo was able to already pinpoint user locations via IP tracing
Enforcement Pressure: Yahoo! faced potential seizure of French assets if it ignored the ruling. By
January 2001, it removed Nazi materials worldwide, citing public backlash but effectively
complying with the French order.
ESAFETY COMMISSIONER V. X CORP. - ANS a) Facts
X Corp. (operator of the social media platform X)
4 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
ANSWERS 100% PASS
Challenges for cyberspace law - ANS Power: Governments cannot realistically control/stop
the flow of digital communications across borders. Attempts at local regulation create conflicts
(e.g., one state regulating activities of foreign companies online).
Effects: Online activities don't radiate from a single physical point—websites or forums exist
everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. A site in Brazil has the same effect on users in Norway
as one in Belize.
Legitimacy & Notice: No local population has a stronger claim to regulate cyberspace; physical
signposts don't exist to warn users of jurisdictional shifts.
Four features of cyberspace that make harassment worse - ANS - Anonymity
- Amplification: wide audience
- Permanence: difficult to erase personal information from the web
- Virtual Captivity/publicity
State V. Decker - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
In 2014, Daniel Decker (34) befriended 14-year-old M.J. on Facebook. One night, after a short
chat via Messenger, Decker sent her a picture of his erect penis.
Convictions: Fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct & Indecent Exposure
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does sending an image of one's genitals via electronic communication satisfy the statutory
requirement of a lewd exhibition "in the presence of a minor under the age of 16"
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
Yes. The Minnesota Court agreed that sending lewd images via electronic communication to a
minor can constitute exposure "in the presence of a minor" under the statutes.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Majority reasoning: The goal of these statutes is to protect minors from adults lewdly exposing
themselves. Allowing an exception for online exposure would undermine legislative intent,
effectively permitting adults to exploit minors digitally without consequence. Technology allows
adults to "enter" a child's private space virtually, and Decker's conduct met the statutory
elements.
Dissent (Justice Anderson): The plain meaning of "in the presence of" requires physical
proximity. Decker and M.J. were in separate homes; thus, the statutory language was not
satisfied.
Robles v. Domino's Pizza - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
Guillermo Robles, a blind man who uses screen-reading software to access the internet, and
Domino's Pizza
Background: Robles attempted multiple times to order a pizza from Domino's website and
mobile app but couldn't because they were not designed to work with his screen-reader. He
filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(UCRA).
b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does Title III of the ADA apply to Domino's website and mobile application, which connect to
but are not themselves physical places of public accommodation? Does Domino's need to make
their site accessible under UCRA?
c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,Yes. The ADA applies to Domino's website and app because their inaccessibility impedes access
to the goods and services of Domino's physical restaurants, which are places of public
accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B). Thus, Domino's is required to provide auxiliary
aids and services.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Statutory Language: Title III prohibits discrimination in the "full and equal enjoyment of the
goods and services ... of any place of public accommodation." It applies to services "of" a public
accommodation, not just services "in" one. The website and app help order food from physical
locations, impeding access to those goods.
DOJ Regulations: Covered entities must provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective
communication, which includes accessible electronic technology.
DOW JONES & CO. V. GUTNICK - ANS (a) Facts (background, case name, parties)
Background: Dow Jones published an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in Barron's Online linking
Gutnick with convicted tax evader Nachum Goldberg. Gutnick alleged the article defamed him,
implying he was Goldberg's biggest customer, a tax evader, a money launderer, and someone
who paid for silence. He brought suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), where he
lived, conducted business, and had his reputation. Dow Jones argued that publication occurred
in the United States (where its servers were located), and therefore U.S. law—more favorable to
publishers under the First Amendment—should govern.
(b) Issues (what is in dispute
Where is publication of allegedly defamatory material on the internet deemed to occur: at the
location of the web servers (United States) or where the material is downloaded and
comprehended (Australia)?
Should Australian courts exercise jurisdiction over a defamation case concerning material
posted online by a foreign publisher?
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
The High Court of Australia held that publication in defamation occurs where the material is
downloaded and comprehended by readers, and where reputational harm is suffered. Because
Gutnick lived and had his reputation in Victoria, Australian law applied.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, Defamation law protects reputation, and damage occurs where the defamatory material is read
and understood, not merely where it is uploaded.
Balance of Interests: While Dow Jones argued it should only follow U.S. law where its servers
are, the Court stressed that publishers know their online content is globally accessible and must
account for the laws where reputations are harmed.
LICRA & UEJF v. Yahoo! - ANS a) facts
Two French anti-racism groups (LICRA and UEJF) vs. Yahoo!, an American internet portal
Background: Yahoo!'s U.S.-based website hosted auctions selling Nazi memorabilia. French law
criminalizes trafficking in Nazi goods. French organizations sued Yahoo! in a Paris court, arguing
that the auctions violated French law. Yahoo! claimed French courts lacked authority over U.S.-
based servers and that filtering users by geography was impossible.
b) Issues (what is in dispute)
Does a French court have jurisdiction over Yahoo!'s U.S. websites accessible in France?
Can Yahoo! be required to block French users from accessing Nazi auction content?
(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)
Yes. The French court held that Yahoo! violated French law by allowing Nazi goods to be sold via
pages accessible in France. The court ordered Yahoo! to make its "best efforts" to block French
users from accessing the auctions.
d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Even though Yahoo!'s servers were outside France, its content
reached and harmed French public order. Jurisdiction was proper because French citizens could
view the auctions.
Yahoo was able to already pinpoint user locations via IP tracing
Enforcement Pressure: Yahoo! faced potential seizure of French assets if it ignored the ruling. By
January 2001, it removed Nazi materials worldwide, citing public backlash but effectively
complying with the French order.
ESAFETY COMMISSIONER V. X CORP. - ANS a) Facts
X Corp. (operator of the social media platform X)
4 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
