Talk:Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions
(New page: =Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion=) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion= | =Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion= | ||
Regulating freedom of speech on the Internet is no doubt a difficult task. While I certainly believe in the constitutional right to freedom of expression, I think it is clear, based on the case of the Yale law students, that this right should be limited in certain circumstances. Thierer notes that the sites might take a hands-off approach to regulating content and may, “encourage a vibrant exchange of views and expression”. He further notes that altering CDA 230 might have a chilling effect on a great deal of “legitimate online speech.” I think Palfrey is right when he notes there is a trade-off involved; we might have to sacrifice some freedom of expression to ensure greater safety. I am no legislator, but it seems that productive, innovative, and “legitimate” online speech could be distinguished from destructive, vulgar, and libelous content in a way that would not negatively hinder freedom of expression. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 18:51, 6 March 2010
Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion
Regulating freedom of speech on the Internet is no doubt a difficult task. While I certainly believe in the constitutional right to freedom of expression, I think it is clear, based on the case of the Yale law students, that this right should be limited in certain circumstances. Thierer notes that the sites might take a hands-off approach to regulating content and may, “encourage a vibrant exchange of views and expression”. He further notes that altering CDA 230 might have a chilling effect on a great deal of “legitimate online speech.” I think Palfrey is right when he notes there is a trade-off involved; we might have to sacrifice some freedom of expression to ensure greater safety. I am no legislator, but it seems that productive, innovative, and “legitimate” online speech could be distinguished from destructive, vulgar, and libelous content in a way that would not negatively hinder freedom of expression. (Kaurigem 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC))