The answers to such questions can be murky in developing countries. And as internet use expands around the globe, so does the potential liability for the owners of websites, search engines, social media sites and other online platforms, who are subject to laws in each country where their websites and services are accessible.

“As sites such as Instagram and Snapchat have exploded in the number of photos and videos and other information posted, this problem has exponentially increased,” said , director of the 91̽��’s (CASRIP).

“Each of those platforms has this potential liability hanging out there, with the firehose of content that’s being posted every day.”

To advance understanding of the issue, CASRIP recently commissioned and released a series of on the liability facing these kinds of online service providers as “internet intermediaries,” or entities that facilitate online use. Many of these intermediaries provide platforms where content can be posted by users; the most well-known include Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram.

But the problem also affects search engines, blogs, network operators and even comments sections on websites and blogs. The 16 reports focus on laws concerning hate speech, privacy, child protection and defamation in five countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China and Thailand — that have research ties to the 91̽��and are becoming increasingly important players in the internet liability landscape.

The reports detail differences in laws and social norms among the countries. Penalties can range from fines to suspension of business activities, criminal charges and even imprisonment.

In Russia, for example, internet service providers are required to block websites containing information about mass riots or extremist activities; a government “blacklist” of those sites totaled more than 17,500 in November 2015.

The report on India cites a study which found that more than three-quarters of Indian parents were unaware of software available to protect children online, and half of parents in Delhi allowed their children to spend more than 10 hours a day online.

The project, which received funding from Google, was carried out over a few years and involved authors, scholars and students in the five countries. , CASRIP’s program manager, said the reports show that all the countries studied — despite the sometimes strict penalties their laws carry — are striving for a balance between control over internet content and the free flow of information.

“All of the countries want to protect freedom of speech. They want to protect social media and the dissemination of information, but at the same time impose some limitations to protect people’s rights,” said Bakhmetyeva.

“But the question is, can they achieve this balance or not?”

Among the reports’ most positive findings, Bakhmetyeva said, is that the five countries generally do not hold internet intermediaries liable for unlawful content posted by users unless they knew about the content and failed to remove it. Most countries usually grant online service providers immunity, referred to as “safe harbor,” provided they comply with certain rules and remove problematic content quickly.

The reports cite a case in Brazil which concluded that holding an online provider liable “would be the same as holding the post offices liable for written crimes on letters, which would be unreasonable.” At the same time, Bakhmetyeva said, some websites have become known havens for criminal or offensive material. Governments must be careful to balance protections for intermediaries with enforcement against sites that ignore or even encourage hateful and other problematic content, she said.

has become an issue of heightened focused in recent years, as governments worldwide increasingly expect internet companies to police illegal and other problematic content, and in some cases are holding them legally accountable for doing so. Consequently, O’Connor said, internet companies — particular those with large numbers of users posting content — have a tremendous amount at stake in determining their potential liability.

“Penalties in some countries are quite severe,” said O’Connor, the Boeing International Professor in the 91̽��law school. “Individuals could potentially go to jail. So this is of great concern to anyone operating in the online space.

“If people understand the stakes, they should be keenly interested in what’s going on in these reports.”

, a faculty director for CASRIP and a 91̽��assistant professor of law, was also involved in the project. 91̽��law students Tyler R. Quillin, Jayme Staten, Christian Kaiser, Harrison Owens, Zachary Parsons and Jason E. Parfet conducted research and helped edit the reports.

For more information, contact O’Connor at soconnor@uw.edu or 206-543-7491, or Bakhmetyeva at annab@uw.edu or 206-221-7110.

The state Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) tasked the UW-based Cannabis Law and Policy Project (CLPP) with calculating the “grow canopy,” or square footage, required to supply the state’s medical marijuana market as it becomes folded into the state’s retail system, as required by the . The group’s report estimates that between 1.7 and 2 million square feet — or the equivalent of 30 to 34 football fields — of plants is needed to satisfy the medical marijuana market, and concludes that the 12.3 million square feet of canopy currently approved by the LCB is enough to supply the state’s total marijuana market.

Medical marijuana dispensaries must either obtain a state license or close by July 1, 2016. Of the 343 retail stores licensed by the LCB, approximately 81 percent have sought endorsements to their license to sell marijuana to authorized medical patients.

“It was important to design this study the right way and engage in careful empirical research reaching out directly to medical dispensaries and growers across the state,” said , principal investigator for the report, CLPP faculty director and Boeing International Professor at 91̽��Law.

CLPP Executive Director Sam Mendez described the survey process: “There’s no master list of these dispensaries, so we used a variety of resources to identify as many as possible. Once the survey was complete, we applied the findings to other published research regarding averages of marijuana output per square foot, outdoor and indoor growing market share and amounts used for edibles and concentrates to reach our estimates.”

The report found that:

• There were an estimated 273 medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington in January 2016
• Dispensaries sell an average of 9.55 pounds of marijuana flower monthly
• The average price of marijuana per gram sold by these dispensaries is less than $10
• Marijuana flower comprises 60 percent of sales at dispensaries, followed by concentrates (22 percent) and edibles (18 percent)
• The potential market value based on 10 million square feet of canopy is more than $8 billion

Determining the size of Washington’s medical marijuana market was no easy task for the 91̽��team, since dispensaries and collective gardens have gone mostly unregulated until recently. The 91̽��researchers, which included five law students, started by compiling a list of possible Washington dispensaries using the databases of three websites — leafly.com, weedmaps.com and headshopfinder.com — among other sources. They came up with 467 possible contacts and called them for phone surveys in January and February 2016.

Interviewees were asked whether the dispensary grows its own marijuana, how much marijuana it sells, the average price of various products and what proportion of sales are flower, edibles, tinctures and concentrates, among other questions. Some refused to participate. Others did not appear to be affiliated with a dispensary or seemed to be out of business. The researchers also posted an online survey, sending it to all applicants for recreational marijuana retail licenses and promoting it widely through social media. All told, they found 273 likely dispensaries.

A released in December 2015 by BOTEC Analysis Corp. estimated that the state’s marijuana market is divided roughly into thirds for medical, recreational and illicit use. Since February 2014, as an interim policy, the LCB has restricted marijuana producers to a single license. That decision will later be put into rule.

The Cannabis Law and Policy Project was launched in 2014 to provide thoughtful leadership on the responsible development of recreational and medical marijuana industries in Washington State and across the country. The group, which is based in the 91̽��School of Law, but draws on experts in various other departments, focuses on advising the state on regulatory issues related to marijuana.

The report’s lead authors are O’Connor and Mendez, with contributing law student authors Ada Danelo, Harry Fukano, Kyle Johnson, Chad Law and Daniel Shortt. Dr. , a professor in the 91̽��School of Medicine, was a consultant on the report.

It’s called the , and is overseen by law professor and funded by an $185,000 grant through the .

Senate Bill 5052, signed into law by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in April, merges the state’s medical cannabis market with the recreational market approved by voters in 2012 via Initiative 502.

“Right now, state agencies, the emerging cannabis industry and the public are looking for trusted, objective sources of research and information,” O’Connor said. The UW’s has already played a valuable role in such matters, he noted, especially in preventing and treating marijuana abuse.

“But there has not been a law and policy counterpart to the institute with faculty, staff, and students trained in law and regulatory systems, particularly with regard to approaching marijuana as a legal but well-regulated market similar to that for alcohol, dietary supplements or pharmaceuticals,” he said.

“The Cannabis Law and Policy Project was created to fill that gap.”

The group’s work begins this fall in tandem with the law school’s , also led by O’Connor, with , also a 91̽��law professor.

In this new seminar, students will learn about state and federal laws governing recreational marijuana use, hear from industry leaders and practitioners of cannabis law and assist in the research for the state liquor and cannabis board.

Specifically, O’Connor said, the new policy project will research and estimate the size of both medical and illicit markets for marijuana to assist the state liquor and cannabis board in wisely implementing SB 5052. The group also will summarize the science literature on marijuana for the board with input from around campus, O’Connor said, in order to suggest objective criteria to the board to use in reviewing applicants for marijuana vending licenses.

The funding will pay for faculty and staff time for the Cannabis Law and Policy Project as well as some student work, though June 2016. Students in the seminar will receive academic credit, but may also be hired by the project, under the grant, for administrative and research assistance, O’Connor said.

The policy project’s aim is to submit a preliminary report on the state’s marijuana markets to the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board by November, and a full report early in 2016, with additions and refinements though the rest of the year.

Though the group is just starting its work, O’Connor said, “We have been thrilled at the positive response we have received from the different parts of the cannabis ecosystem.”

###

For more information, contact O’Connor at 206-543-7491 or soconnor@uw.edu.