This Chapter first presents a minimal set of basic concepts about “dislocations.” After giving a brief overview of the dislocation theory, specific notions such as “Lomer-Cottrell sessile junction” and “stacking fault energy” are detailed, which are exceptionally important for a comprehensive understanding of many of the characteristics, particularly, dislocation-dislocation interactions and their strengths. The second part provides a simple introduction to metallurgy, especially regarding crystallographic structures, placing a special emphasis on the substantial distinction between face-centered cubic (FCC) and body-centered cubic (BCC) structures, which is expected to greatly facilitate further understanding of the associated contrasting features between the two.

Floyd Abrams’ Foreword sets forth the premise of the book: that America has faced recurring episodes of censorship and that censors may be admired in their time, but that freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment, has flourished. For that reason, censors try to avoid being called censors.

Chapter 7 examines the mindset of Newton Minow, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman who summed up the regulator’s view of television by calling it a “vast wasteland.” Minow championed public interest regulation of the broadcast medium based on the theory that the electromagnetic spectrum is scarce and that the government must allocate broadcast licenses and regulate the content of programming.But the spectrum is no more scarce than any other economic good, and the events that led to federal control over broadcasting were contrived to extend government control over the medium. Minow and other like-minded regulators deny that this type of control is censorship, but their efforts caused diminished diversity in programming and dampened innovation. Further, the tenets of broadcast regulation were undermined as new technologies emerged, although that fact did not deter Minow and other like-minded regulators from advocating more government control. Since then, the law and the culture have moved on, rendering the positions that Minow espoused obsolete.

Chapter 8 explores the rise and fall of the FCC’s policy against broadcast indecency by following the exploits of anti-indecency crusader Brent Bozell, founder of the Parents Television Council (PTC).It traces the beginnings of the FCC’s policy in the early days of radio, and how it was transformed as courts began to develop First Amendment doctrine. It explains the birth of the FCC’s current indecency policy with its action against George Carlin’s “seven dirty words,” and how it was driven by political demands to get tough on broadcasters. This reached a crescendo because of the efforts of Bozell’s PTC and similar groups, who bombarded the FCC with spam email campaigns. Politicians responded by imposing skyrocketing fines based on an increasingly incoherent and confusing policy. The widespread chilling effect on broadcasters led courts to rein in the FCC’s authority in this area. Bozell and his fellow crusaders managed only to discredit themselves, to diminish the influence of their organizations, and to undermine FCC authority over broadcast content.

Most of the existing privacy and security legal frameworks at both the federal and state level provide incomplete safeguards against many of the privacy and information security harms highlighted in earlier chapters. Many of these frameworks have long been critiqued by privacy law experts for their lack of effectiveness. The IoT amplifies these inadequacies as it compounds existing privacy and security challenges.

At the state level, the patchwork of privacy and security legislation creates varying obligations for businesses without consistently ensuring that individuals receive adequate privacy and cybersecurity protection. State legislation also suffers from several shortcomings and is often replete with gaping privacy and security holes. Even the CCPA, the first privacy statute of its kind in the United States, has several limitations. Further, varying state privacy and security legislation also enables unequal access to privacy and security between citizens of different states.