Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;"> | |||
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big> | |||
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;" | |||
| | |||
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]] | |||
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]] | |||
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]] | |||
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]] | |||
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]] | |||
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]] | |||
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]] | |||
* Mar 15 - ''No class'' | |||
| | |||
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]] | |||
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]] | |||
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]] | |||
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]] | |||
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]] | |||
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]] | |||
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]] | |||
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class'' | |||
|} | |||
<br clear="right" /> | |||
</div> | |||
'''March 22''' | |||
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." | 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." | ||
Revision as of 18:40, 24 January 2011
March 22
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.
Readings
Optional Readings
- Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU.
- ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
- Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech