Politics and Digital Business: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Freedom of Speech== | ==Freedom of Speech== | ||
* Two factions | |||
** It's toothless | |||
** It would send a strong message to the world | |||
* Why one might consider GOFA to be toothless/useless w/r/t freedom of speech | |||
** If enforced to the outside bounds of its language, it would seem to require companies to stop operations in repressive regimes like China. | |||
** Furthermore, the censorship we're trying to avoid is not impossible without corporate participation, so it would be the worst of both worlds | |||
** There may be better alternatives | |||
*** Especially given solutions like the Principles, it seems like it might be better to have companies stay involved in the local governments, and open the societies however slightly, which is at least a net benefit. | |||
** Anyway, all the Act really seems to require is that ''if'' a company gets something in writing (e.g. a list of URLs to block), it must be turned over to the US State Department. | |||
*** In fact, the very passage of this law would discourage governments from making written requests. | |||
* GOFA sends a strong message / is a positive moral step | |||
** Some actions are so morally repulsive that we just don't want corporations involved in them (like turning in a Chinese journalist who will certainly be jailed for his reporting) | |||
==Privacy== | ==Privacy== | ||
Revision as of 18:14, 10 April 2007
Class 9 focuses on an extension of the Class 8 debate: what are the responsibilities of multi-national corporations that operate (in part) in the world's less democratic nations? Is government regulation appropriate? Would corporate self-regulation suffice? Two case studies were featured: The Global Online Freedom Act (H.R. 4780, 109th Congress), and the current draft of the Principles on Free Expression and Privacy
Global Online Freedom Act
The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (GOFA), whose purpose is "To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments," can be found online at GovTrack.us. We discussed GOFA's potential impact on freedom of speech and privacy.
More GOFA Commentary from RMack: an introduction and a detailed critique.
Freedom of Speech
- Two factions
- It's toothless
- It would send a strong message to the world
- Why one might consider GOFA to be toothless/useless w/r/t freedom of speech
- If enforced to the outside bounds of its language, it would seem to require companies to stop operations in repressive regimes like China.
- Furthermore, the censorship we're trying to avoid is not impossible without corporate participation, so it would be the worst of both worlds
- There may be better alternatives
- Especially given solutions like the Principles, it seems like it might be better to have companies stay involved in the local governments, and open the societies however slightly, which is at least a net benefit.
- Anyway, all the Act really seems to require is that if a company gets something in writing (e.g. a list of URLs to block), it must be turned over to the US State Department.
- In fact, the very passage of this law would discourage governments from making written requests.
- GOFA sends a strong message / is a positive moral step
- Some actions are so morally repulsive that we just don't want corporations involved in them (like turning in a Chinese journalist who will certainly be jailed for his reporting)
Privacy
Principles on Free Expression and Privacy
As the Principles are currently engaged in a confidential drafting process, we will not be posting notes on the public wiki at this time. An introduction to the project is available on Professor Palfrey's blog.
Freedom of Speech
Forthcoming
Privacy
Forthcoming