Class 2 - Revision history

140.247.47.53: /* Group One: */

2010-10-04T19:35:13Z

Group One:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 4 October 2010
Line 26:		Line 26:
	*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.		*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.
	*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?		*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?
			****** This might fall under the traditional reasonable person standard. If a reasonable person would have known it was satire, then that would be enough. Still, one can imagine a scenario where, despite knowing that it is satirical, the "bullying" conduct still causes the harms sought to be avoided.
	***On the other hand, '''"masked" bullying''' occurs when bullies are anonymous posters who usually hide behind pseudonyms not connected to their legal names.		***On the other hand, '''"masked" bullying''' occurs when bullies are anonymous posters who usually hide behind pseudonyms not connected to their legal names.
	****E.g. JuicyCampus and CollegeACB (see http://www.collegeacb.com/ and a corresponding article: http://ksusentinel.com/arts-living/students-become-source-of-anonymous-bullying/ ), or message boards like World of Warcraft and LambdaMOO.		****E.g. JuicyCampus and CollegeACB (see http://www.collegeacb.com/ and a corresponding article: http://ksusentinel.com/arts-living/students-become-source-of-anonymous-bullying/ ), or message boards like World of Warcraft and LambdaMOO.

AustinRandazzo at 13:21, 4 October 2010

2010-10-04T13:21:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 4 October 2010
Line 252:		Line 252:
	The process of purchasing something online has almost become too easy for users and is a process that is generally irreversible especially for a website like Ebay. Amazon introduced one-click purchasing where, with the input of a single word, your credit card is charge and the item is shipped. There is no human contact on the receiving end of a transaction, leading to a significant amount of error and non-intended expenditure. More human contact is needed and the process needs to be slowed down to ensure privacy and accuracy.		The process of purchasing something online has almost become too easy for users and is a process that is generally irreversible especially for a website like Ebay. Amazon introduced one-click purchasing where, with the input of a single word, your credit card is charge and the item is shipped. There is no human contact on the receiving end of a transaction, leading to a significant amount of error and non-intended expenditure. More human contact is needed and the process needs to be slowed down to ensure privacy and accuracy.

	-online transaction speed: feature or bug?		*online transaction speed: feature or bug?
	-lack of humans in online transactions: feature or bug?		*lack of humans in online transactions: feature or bug?
	- Computers and people gone wild! (please don’t google this)		** We seem to be moving in a direction where the ability to engage with a human who works at a commercial business significantly decreases but the ability to communicate with other customers has significantly increases. This is a dramatic shift from how relationships with businesses previously existed -- one would easily be able to find the proprietor of a business but would never be able to interact with the customers that came before and after. What does this mean for the way we make purchases? Does this change the nature of "the customer" as viewed by employers?
			** There are websites dedicated to helping users get access to human support.[http://gethuman.com/]
			* Computers and people gone wild! (please don’t google this)

	- Should everything be open-source?		- Should everything be open-source?
	* A closed platform means that things can be innovative only within a predetermined limit; that is, we can only work within the realm of the expected (e.g., apps for the iPhone). But some of the greatest innovations have changed the paradigm for innovation completely, the obvious example being the Internet. The cost of closed platforms is that we do not even know what we're missing -- are security and cool apps worth it?		* A closed platform means that things can be innovative only within a predetermined limit; that is, we can only work within the realm of the expected (e.g., apps for the iPhone). But some of the greatest innovations have changed the paradigm for innovation completely, the obvious example being the Internet. The cost of closed platforms is that we do not even know what we're missing -- are security and cool apps worth it?
	** Alternatively, if everything ''were'' open-source, would we face some variant of the tragedy of the commons? (''Tragedy of the commons'' -- In ye olde England, there was a public commons where everyone could let their cattle graze. But because it was a public space, no one took responsibility for it, so all the grass ran out and the place was a mess. Then the commons was privatized, and lo and behold, private ownership meant that the owner now had an investment and interest in the land, so the land became nice and green again. Even if the owner now charged people to let their cattle graze there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]) Or is there something different about the ethos of the Internet, or about cyberspace as a ''space'', that makes the tragedy of the commons a non-issue?		** Alternatively, if everything ''were'' open-source, would we face some variant of the tragedy of the commons? (''Tragedy of the commons'' -- In ye olde England, there was a public commons where everyone could let their cattle graze. But because it was a public space, no one took responsibility for it, so all the grass ran out and the place was a mess. Then the commons was privatized, and lo and behold, private ownership meant that the owner now had an investment and interest in the land, so the land became nice and green again. Even if the owner now charged people to let their cattle graze there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]) Or is there something different about the ethos of the Internet, or about cyberspace as a ''space'', that makes the tragedy of the commons a non-issue?

Zara Lockshin at 00:27, 4 October 2010

2010-10-04T00:27:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 4 October 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:
	****E.g. sites like Facebook and MySpace (the Meier case notwithstanding) and instant messaging systems (AIM, gchat). Bullying on these sites is often highly concentrated among adolescents who have migrated traditional bullying onto the Internet.		****E.g. sites like Facebook and MySpace (the Meier case notwithstanding) and instant messaging systems (AIM, gchat). Bullying on these sites is often highly concentrated among adolescents who have migrated traditional bullying onto the Internet.
	****Because the real world identities of these bullies are often easily identifiable, some mode of authoritative supervision could calm this type of bullying.		****Because the real world identities of these bullies are often easily identifiable, some mode of authoritative supervision could calm this type of bullying.
	***** (Zara) The recent suicide of Tyler Clementi illustrates that online harassment can also occur when someone's personal information is publicized to the world against their knowledge or consent, not just through private, individually targeted chats. Public humiliation also has its real-world bullying counterpart, but the opportunities for bullies to broadcast humiliating information to millions of a victim's peers magnifies the problem. Someone pointed out that many issues in cyberlaw are centered around issues of access. Although issues of access and control are present in any discussion of the bundle of rights in real property, like issues in crowdsourcing, these issues are particularly salient in the internet domain. It has been argued that the crimes of harassment and invasion of privacy are adequate to protect against cyber-bullying, but it seems to me that statutes specifically tailored to punish cyber-bullying help reinforce the message that this kind of conduct is morally and legally unacceptable, which in turn helps bolster educational campaigns against it. The bully's level of culpability for unintended effects is also an issue, as the public demands criminal punishment in these horrific cases. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03schwartz.html?scp=1&sq=suicide%20gay&st=cse]		****(Zara) The recent suicide of Tyler Clementi illustrates that online harassment can also occur when someone's personal information is publicized to the world against their knowledge or consent, not just through private, individually targeted chats. Public humiliation also has its real-world bullying counterpart, but the opportunities for bullies to broadcast humiliating information to millions of a victim's peers magnifies the problem. Someone pointed out that many issues in cyberlaw are centered around issues of access. Although issues of access and control are present in any discussion of the bundle of rights in real property, like issues in crowdsourcing, these issues are particularly salient in the internet domain. It has been argued that the crimes of harassment and invasion of privacy are adequate to protect against cyber-bullying, but it seems to me that statutes specifically tailored to punish cyber-bullying help reinforce the message that this kind of conduct is morally and legally unacceptable, which in turn helps bolster educational campaigns against it. The bully's level of culpability for unintended effects is also an issue, as the public demands criminal punishment in these horrific cases. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03schwartz.html?scp=1&sq=suicide%20gay&st=cse]
	*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.		*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.
	*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?		*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?

Zara Lockshin at 00:26, 4 October 2010

2010-10-04T00:26:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 4 October 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:
	***'''"Real name" bullying''' usually takes place on sites that encourage users to associate their online and real world identities.		***'''"Real name" bullying''' usually takes place on sites that encourage users to associate their online and real world identities.
	****E.g. sites like Facebook and MySpace (the Meier case notwithstanding) and instant messaging systems (AIM, gchat). Bullying on these sites is often highly concentrated among adolescents who have migrated traditional bullying onto the Internet.		****E.g. sites like Facebook and MySpace (the Meier case notwithstanding) and instant messaging systems (AIM, gchat). Bullying on these sites is often highly concentrated among adolescents who have migrated traditional bullying onto the Internet.
	****Because the real world identities of these bullies are often easily identifiable, some mode of authoritative supervision could calm this type of bullying.		****Because the real world identities of these bullies are often easily identifiable, some mode of authoritative supervision could calm this type of bullying.
			***** (Zara) The recent suicide of Tyler Clementi illustrates that online harassment can also occur when someone's personal information is publicized to the world against their knowledge or consent, not just through private, individually targeted chats. Public humiliation also has its real-world bullying counterpart, but the opportunities for bullies to broadcast humiliating information to millions of a victim's peers magnifies the problem. Someone pointed out that many issues in cyberlaw are centered around issues of access. Although issues of access and control are present in any discussion of the bundle of rights in real property, like issues in crowdsourcing, these issues are particularly salient in the internet domain. It has been argued that the crimes of harassment and invasion of privacy are adequate to protect against cyber-bullying, but it seems to me that statutes specifically tailored to punish cyber-bullying help reinforce the message that this kind of conduct is morally and legally unacceptable, which in turn helps bolster educational campaigns against it. The bully's level of culpability for unintended effects is also an issue, as the public demands criminal punishment in these horrific cases. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03schwartz.html?scp=1&sq=suicide%20gay&st=cse]
	*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.		*****In some cases, however, such as the highly publicized Megan Meier case, the cyberbully was unknown. In fact, in that case, the "real world" bully was unknown in large part because the profile was of a fictitious person to mask the real identity of the bullies.
	*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?		*****What if someone has an online persona that looks like it may be real-world, but is really an elaborate satire? (e.g. Stephen Colbert’s Twitter account) If one of those accounts was to satirically “bully” someone, and they didn’t get the joke, how would that fit in here?

Casteel: /* Group Two: */

2010-09-27T20:24:31Z

Group Two:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 27 September 2010
Line 168:		Line 168:

	'''2. Other disconnected thoughts on digital property and avatars'''		'''2. Other disconnected thoughts on digital property and avatars'''
	* Related to the above discussion of Martha S., can a user license the use/image of their account/avatar to third parties? Does the website own the avatar? Do users have a right to publicity for the use of their account or avatar? I.e. can Second Life take John Doe's avatar and use it to sell virtual Sham-Wows without Doe's consent~~? Do or should users have some sort of recourse for avatar defamation~~?		* Nature of Property Rights
	* Can you have a copyright in your avatar? In many instances they could count as pictorial, graphic or sculptural works. Is/should the copyright be shared with the owner of the software that creates the virtual world? How should these rights be balanced?		** Related to the above discussion of Martha S., can a user license the use/image of their account/avatar to third parties? Does the website own the avatar? Do users have a right to publicity for the use of their account or avatar? I.e. can Second Life take John Doe's avatar and use it to sell virtual Sham-Wows without Doe's consent?
	** But could they be seen as fundamentally useful articles and thus not protected? This would obviously require a case by case analysis ("No, Bob's character is not protectable simply because he carries an ornate giant broadsword; that sword is necessary for killing orcs").		**Can you have a copyright in your avatar? In many instances they could count as pictorial, graphic or sculptural works. Is/should the copyright be shared with the owner of the software that creates the virtual world? How should these rights be balanced?
	** One objection to copyrighting an avatar might be that the user is simply recombining various elements which are each already part of a copyrighted work (the software) created by the company. However, at best this merely makes the avatar a derivative work. Think of a mobile made from random junk, or a scrapbook/collage created from photos and magazine clippings. Just because a user's medium and materials are limited by the confines of the software does not mean that the user's avatar has insufficient originality of expression.		** One objection to copyrighting an avatar might be that the user is simply recombining various elements which are each already part of a copyrighted work (the software) created by the company. However, at best this merely makes the avatar a derivative work. Think of a mobile made from random junk, or a scrapbook/collage created from photos and magazine clippings. Just because a user's medium and materials are limited by the confines of the software does not mean that the user's avatar has insufficient originality of expression.
	* When affording property rights, intellectual or otherwise, to users, we must not forget to account for the economic incentives this will create for the companies that create the software that enables the users in the first place. If every user has copyrights and other rights relating to their accounts and avatars, there could potentially be a negative impact on the innovation and creativity of the software companies. Is it worth it to Blizzard to deal with all the legal headaches associated with such rights? Maybe. Is it worth it to some capital-poor start-up company with the Next Big Thing? Maybe not.		** When affording property rights, intellectual or otherwise, to users, we must not forget to account for the economic incentives this will create for the companies that create the software that enables the users in the first place. If every user has copyrights and other rights relating to their accounts and avatars, there could potentially be a negative impact on the innovation and creativity of the software companies. Is it worth it to Blizzard to deal with all the legal headaches associated with such rights? Maybe. Is it worth it to some capital-poor start-up company with the Next Big Thing? Maybe not.
	** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?		*** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?
	* How do we measure the value of virtual property across multiple platforms? Are there enforcement rights for invasion of my Second Life property if that invasion takes place on Facebook?		* Enforcement Issues
			** Do or should users have some sort of recourse for avatar defamation?
			** If they fall under copyright law, could avatars be seen as fundamentally useful articles and thus not protected? This would obviously require a case by case analysis ("No, Bob's character is not protectable simply because he carries an ornate giant broadsword; that sword is necessary for killing orcs").
			** How do we measure the value of virtual property across multiple platforms? Are there enforcement rights for invasion of my Second Life property if that invasion takes place on Facebook?
	** in a broader sense, how is virtual property tracked, and how does it evolve? at least one company has had the idea of creating some kind of central registrar: [http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/ the rather unimpressive Digital Property Registry].		** in a broader sense, how is virtual property tracked, and how does it evolve? at least one company has had the idea of creating some kind of central registrar: [http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/ the rather unimpressive Digital Property Registry].

	'''3. Speech and Censorship'''		'''3. Speech and Censorship'''
	* ''Speech, Censorship, Statistics.'' Should we be concerned with an ISPs' and website owners' ability to aggregate and control information and speech. It seems that at least Google thinks that Internet users may be concerned with this topic. Google recently announced the "Transparency Report," which (incompletely) tracks usage statistics by country, as well as Google's removal of online material at the Government's request.[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Google] How should corporations manage such governmental requests. What rules should it apply? How should it decide on a set of rules and whether they are catholic or case specific? What benefits are realized by providing publicly this information--particularly the tracking information? How can users or other entities use this information?		* ''Speech, Censorship, Statistics.'' Should we be concerned with an ISPs' and website owners' ability to aggregate and control information and speech? It seems that at least Google thinks that Internet users may be concerned with this topic. Google recently announced the "Transparency Report," which (incompletely) tracks usage statistics by country, as well as Google's removal of online material at the Government's request.[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Google] How should corporations manage such governmental requests. What rules should it apply? How should it decide on a set of rules and whether they are catholic or case specific? What benefits are realized by providing publicly this information--particularly the tracking information? How can users or other entities use this information?
	**Should Google be required to censor search results when they are manipulated for harm by users? The Superior Court of Paris thought so [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8027967/Google-convicted-of-defaming-French-user-by-linking-his-name-to-rape-in-searches.html in this ruling].		**Should Google be required to censor search results when they are manipulated for harm by users? The Superior Court of Paris thought so [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8027967/Google-convicted-of-defaming-French-user-by-linking-his-name-to-rape-in-searches.html in this ruling].
	* When using a digital soapbox created and hosted by a private party, what First Amendment speech rights does a user have? There may be a necessity to publicize a message using privately owned infrastructure. Does the owner of this infrastructure have a right to regulate the content of the messages being sent or discriminate between users on the basis of their messages' content? If the Internet is the new town square, then shouldn't everyone have the right to yell whatever nonsense they want?		* When using a digital soapbox created and hosted by a private party, what First Amendment speech rights does a user have? There may be a necessity to publicize a message using privately owned infrastructure. Does the owner of this infrastructure have a right to regulate the content of the messages being sent or discriminate between users on the basis of their messages' content? If the Internet is the new town square, then shouldn't everyone have the right to yell whatever nonsense they want?

Casteel: /* Group Two: */

2010-09-27T20:21:03Z

Group Two:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 27 September 2010
Line 175:		Line 175:
	** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?		** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?
	* How do we measure the value of virtual property across multiple platforms? Are there enforcement rights for invasion of my Second Life property if that invasion takes place on Facebook?		* How do we measure the value of virtual property across multiple platforms? Are there enforcement rights for invasion of my Second Life property if that invasion takes place on Facebook?
	** in a broader sense, how is virtual property tracked, and how does it evolve? at least one company has had the idea of creating some kind of central registrar: [http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/].		** in a broader sense, how is virtual property tracked, and how does it evolve? at least one company has had the idea of creating some kind of central registrar: [http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/ the rather unimpressive Digital Property Registry].

	'''3. Speech and Censorship'''		'''3. Speech and Censorship'''

Casteel: /* Group Two: */

2010-09-27T20:19:50Z

Group Two:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 27 September 2010
Line 174:		Line 174:
	* When affording property rights, intellectual or otherwise, to users, we must not forget to account for the economic incentives this will create for the companies that create the software that enables the users in the first place. If every user has copyrights and other rights relating to their accounts and avatars, there could potentially be a negative impact on the innovation and creativity of the software companies. Is it worth it to Blizzard to deal with all the legal headaches associated with such rights? Maybe. Is it worth it to some capital-poor start-up company with the Next Big Thing? Maybe not.		* When affording property rights, intellectual or otherwise, to users, we must not forget to account for the economic incentives this will create for the companies that create the software that enables the users in the first place. If every user has copyrights and other rights relating to their accounts and avatars, there could potentially be a negative impact on the innovation and creativity of the software companies. Is it worth it to Blizzard to deal with all the legal headaches associated with such rights? Maybe. Is it worth it to some capital-poor start-up company with the Next Big Thing? Maybe not.
	** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?		** Could this all be side-stepped with ToS and EULAs that assign rights to the company? Could this assignment be later revoked by the user? Is any of it enforceable?
			* How do we measure the value of virtual property across multiple platforms? Are there enforcement rights for invasion of my Second Life property if that invasion takes place on Facebook?
			** in a broader sense, how is virtual property tracked, and how does it evolve? at least one company has had the idea of creating some kind of central registrar: [http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/].

	'''3. Speech and Censorship'''		'''3. Speech and Censorship'''

ChristineEzzell: /* Group One: */

2010-09-27T20:00:58Z

Group One:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 27 September 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	****Here, it may be harder to have any notion of supervision, because the sites themselves facilitate and '''promote anonymity and likely will invoke free speech claims''' to avoid working with regulators. -- JPaul (Jenny)		****Here, it may be harder to have any notion of supervision, because the sites themselves facilitate and '''promote anonymity and likely will invoke free speech claims''' to avoid working with regulators. -- JPaul (Jenny)
	*** Can we distinguish sites that encourage anonymous posting because they want a wide variety of opinions and want to promote general speech from sites like Juicy Campus that used and assured anonymity to its users to elicit defamatory speech. The Communications Decency Act protects ISPs from suits for the content posted by third parties on their sites, but if they are eliciting a certain type of speech, shouldn't they lose their immunity? --[[User:Alissa.d.R.\|Alissa.d.R.]] 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)		*** Can we distinguish sites that encourage anonymous posting because they want a wide variety of opinions and want to promote general speech from sites like Juicy Campus that used and assured anonymity to its users to elicit defamatory speech. The Communications Decency Act protects ISPs from suits for the content posted by third parties on their sites, but if they are eliciting a certain type of speech, shouldn't they lose their immunity? --[[User:Alissa.d.R.\|Alissa.d.R.]] 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	* Concerning cyber-rape, there are already video games ~~on the market~~ such as Japan's controversial [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/world/japan.video.game.rape_1_game-teenage-girl-japanese-government?_s=PM:WORLD Rape-Lay], where the object of the game is to sexually assault women in various ways. While the game does not ~~currently~~ have an online component, increasingly video games are being sold with such online interactivity. Moreover, cyber-rape has apparently [http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504 occurred] in online community games such as Second Life.		* Concerning cyber-rape, there are already video games that have been sold such as Japan's controversial [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/world/japan.video.game.rape_1_game-teenage-girl-japanese-government?_s=PM:WORLD Rape-Lay], where the object of the game is to sexually assault women in various ways. While the game does not have an online component, increasingly video games are being sold with such online interactivity. Moreover, cyber-rape has apparently [http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504 occurred] in online community games such as Second Life.

	''B. Free Speech''		''B. Free Speech''

RyanWard: /* Group Two: */ Added link to new French case

2010-09-27T19:57:45Z

Group Two:: Added link to new French case

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 27 September 2010
Line 177:		Line 177:
	'''3. Speech and Censorship'''		'''3. Speech and Censorship'''
	* ''Speech, Censorship, Statistics.'' Should we be concerned with an ISPs' and website owners' ability to aggregate and control information and speech. It seems that at least Google thinks that Internet users may be concerned with this topic. Google recently announced the "Transparency Report," which (incompletely) tracks usage statistics by country, as well as Google's removal of online material at the Government's request.[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Google] How should corporations manage such governmental requests. What rules should it apply? How should it decide on a set of rules and whether they are catholic or case specific? What benefits are realized by providing publicly this information--particularly the tracking information? How can users or other entities use this information?		* ''Speech, Censorship, Statistics.'' Should we be concerned with an ISPs' and website owners' ability to aggregate and control information and speech. It seems that at least Google thinks that Internet users may be concerned with this topic. Google recently announced the "Transparency Report," which (incompletely) tracks usage statistics by country, as well as Google's removal of online material at the Government's request.[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Google] How should corporations manage such governmental requests. What rules should it apply? How should it decide on a set of rules and whether they are catholic or case specific? What benefits are realized by providing publicly this information--particularly the tracking information? How can users or other entities use this information?
			**Should Google be required to censor search results when they are manipulated for harm by users? The Superior Court of Paris thought so [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8027967/Google-convicted-of-defaming-French-user-by-linking-his-name-to-rape-in-searches.html in this ruling].
	* When using a digital soapbox created and hosted by a private party, what First Amendment speech rights does a user have? There may be a necessity to publicize a message using privately owned infrastructure. Does the owner of this infrastructure have a right to regulate the content of the messages being sent or discriminate between users on the basis of their messages' content? If the Internet is the new town square, then shouldn't everyone have the right to yell whatever nonsense they want?		* When using a digital soapbox created and hosted by a private party, what First Amendment speech rights does a user have? There may be a necessity to publicize a message using privately owned infrastructure. Does the owner of this infrastructure have a right to regulate the content of the messages being sent or discriminate between users on the basis of their messages' content? If the Internet is the new town square, then shouldn't everyone have the right to yell whatever nonsense they want?

ChristineEzzell: /* Group One: */

2010-09-27T19:55:30Z

Group One:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 27 September 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	****Here, it may be harder to have any notion of supervision, because the sites themselves facilitate and '''promote anonymity and likely will invoke free speech claims''' to avoid working with regulators. -- JPaul (Jenny)		****Here, it may be harder to have any notion of supervision, because the sites themselves facilitate and '''promote anonymity and likely will invoke free speech claims''' to avoid working with regulators. -- JPaul (Jenny)
	*** Can we distinguish sites that encourage anonymous posting because they want a wide variety of opinions and want to promote general speech from sites like Juicy Campus that used and assured anonymity to its users to elicit defamatory speech. The Communications Decency Act protects ISPs from suits for the content posted by third parties on their sites, but if they are eliciting a certain type of speech, shouldn't they lose their immunity? --[[User:Alissa.d.R.\|Alissa.d.R.]] 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)		*** Can we distinguish sites that encourage anonymous posting because they want a wide variety of opinions and want to promote general speech from sites like Juicy Campus that used and assured anonymity to its users to elicit defamatory speech. The Communications Decency Act protects ISPs from suits for the content posted by third parties on their sites, but if they are eliciting a certain type of speech, shouldn't they lose their immunity? --[[User:Alissa.d.R.\|Alissa.d.R.]] 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
			* Concerning cyber-rape, there are already video games on the market such as Japan's controversial [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/world/japan.video.game.rape_1_game-teenage-girl-japanese-government?_s=PM:WORLD Rape-Lay], where the object of the game is to sexually assault women in various ways. While the game does not currently have an online component, increasingly video games are being sold with such online interactivity. Moreover, cyber-rape has apparently [http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504 occurred] in online community games such as Second Life.

	''B. Free Speech''		''B. Free Speech''