The Individual and the State I: Regulating Speech Online

From Technologies and Politics of Control

Jump to: navigation, search

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

Contents

Readings

Additional Resources

Class Discussion

The contrast between online speech and online conduct is shaping commotion in the world. In the fashion of conserving the public, regulators across the world have been debating for complete domination over speech on the web. Short of shutting down the Internet, there is not a possiblity of speech control. The best regulator of online speech is self control. Any moves to regulate or ration online speech will destroy our liberty. Our war with the World Wide Web is almost like the opposition between the North and the South. Who is going to win? Until then, if you want to use the Internet, you are going to have to deal with it's freedom.

Nashville, TN --Hillrockyw 23:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I agree that the most effective regulator of online speech would be self control, but it can not the best regulator, at least in the United States, because it would be unconstitutional. Where would self control come from? Fear of prosecution - and to legislate prosecution for speech would violate the 1st amendment.

--Mfregosi 17:03, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Could you elaborate on why self control would be unconstitutional? Self control, by its definition, would not require fear of prosecution. It is government regulation which is attempting to create a deterrent with the fear of prosecution.

--Luke 09:11, 6 February 2008 (EST)

For some time now the Internet has been regarded as a sort of “Commons”, where the assets and utterances are under the tutelage and property of the group of cyber-citizens. They alone are responsible for the management and rational use of the assets. Here the prevailing assumption is: given the fact that the vast majority of cyber-citizens are not motivated by money or personal gain, the online market will regulate itself for the common good (i.e. the preservation of the assets of the Commons). But there are also a group of “modalities” that come to force constrains/protection on the Commons, not just the quest for the common good. The Commons doesn't seem like one anymore. A first step should be the definition of cyber-citizenship. What constrains should be enforced, real world and web-world? Should there be a clear separation of a “commercial web” and a parallel underground Commons-like web with different conditions of citizenship?

On another issue, I think that regulation of speech should be shifted to the outer ends of the net. The user should be able to select the filtering methods. These would seem to come under attack from the development of the “semantic web”, which could make possible filtering very high up-stream.

México City, Oscar Howell, 5 February 2008

Oscar, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that there has been a singular "Commons" on the Internet. A more accurate theory may be that there are millions of smaller self-regulating communities, some of which are motivated by profit, some of which are motivated by "common good". Often these distinctions overlap, as do the communities themselves. Part of the draw that the internet has is its lack of definition. One can exist in many parallel and even contradictory communities, and be a model citizen in all of them.

I do agree that regulation of speech should be shifted to the extremities of the net. At the governmental level, the concern should be with the protection of speech, and it should be the responsibility of individuals or communities to solve the problems of regulating speech. The "semantic web" will not necessarily force filtering to a more centralized level of architecture. The choice is still ours to determine where along the network filters will be placed, if at all.

--Luke 09:26, 6 February 2008 (EST)

As stated by Lawrence Lessig, ´The right to free speech is not the right to speak for free´. The idea of a free speech Internet does not necessary mean that anyone can publish anything and not been responsible for it.

The First Amendment means that the government cannot ´exercise the power of prior restraint´. But, due to the architecture of the Internet, authentication is not enforced, which makes it difficult to tie people to their words, and, if the case, punish them later.

So, it seems that a natural trend, would be for the technology to catch up, and fill these gaps relating to identification.

São Paulo, --A. Monteiro 17:17, 5 February 2008 (EST)

A recent legislative attempt at limiting minors' access to free wi-fi networks in Utah has stalled. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, HB139 Requires that publicly accessed wireless computer networks try to restrict use by minors and provides for penalties for failing to do so. It also would require that any device, such as a handheld electronic game, be labeled specifically if it can access the Internet. via arstechnica

--Luke 08:58, 6 February 2008 (EST)

The Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology has created a catalog of Online Child Protection & Online Content Regulation Bills from the 110th U.S. Congress. via Technology Liberation Front

--Luke 17:09, 7 February 2008 (EST)


The Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology has created a catalog of Online Child Protection & Online Content Regulation Bills from the 110th U.S. Congress. via Technology Liberation Front

--Luke 17:09, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Here are a couple of links to articles on this subject http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/12/7018/ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/12/7004/

--Whall 18:36, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Links from Class

Retrieved from "http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc2008/The_Individual_and_the_State_I:_Regulating_Speech_Online"
Personal tools