Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 52: Line 52:


This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: [http://www.economist.com/node/18386151 Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent] [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: [http://www.economist.com/node/18386151 Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent] [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Though the introduction to this session states that "nstead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech...", we've reached a point where intermediaries--Facebook, Google, etc--are essentially controlling online speech.  Our networks have landed in private, corporate, centralized locations. I hope that we'll be adding intermediary censorship to the discussion :) [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


== Links from Class ==
== Links from Class ==

Revision as of 19:02, 21 March 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.

Assignments

Assignment 3 due


Readings

Optional Readings


Class Discussion

This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent Smithbc 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Though the introduction to this session states that "nstead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech...", we've reached a point where intermediaries--Facebook, Google, etc--are essentially controlling online speech. Our networks have landed in private, corporate, centralized locations. I hope that we'll be adding intermediary censorship to the discussion :) Jyork 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Links from Class