Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 32: Line 32:
== Readings ==
== Readings ==


* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
 
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
 
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue:  The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning:  explicit and disturbing language]
 
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue:  The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]  


== Optional Readings ==
== Optional Readings ==

Revision as of 18:28, 10 February 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


Class Discussion

Links from Class