Regulating Speech Online - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

2013-01-17T21:59:03Z

UTurn to 1303516799

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 17 January 2013
Line 95:		Line 95:
	Recently during the height of confusion about the disasters in Japan there was a case involving the posting of a highly offensive Youtube video by a UCLA student that at best insensitively mocked Asian peers. While the school chose not to take disciplinary action claiming that her video did not violate school policy, the community at large took action by shunning and harassing her to the point she withdrew from the school. UCLA is also being criticized by academics of race and gender stating that the objectification of Asians in the video is harmful and displays a deep rooted often overlooked racism that falls outside of the black/white paradigm. It has been recommended that UCLA should promote a more multicultural understanding and sensitivity by introducing mandatory courses and/or workshops. I understand how this video and the girl's views are protected as free speech regardless of how repugnant her words are, but I also find it deeply disturbing that the video went viral mainly due to morbid curiosity. A good analysis of the deeper harmful racist views and effeccts can be read here [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/22/ucla_student_s_youtube_video_illustrates_many_asian_racial_stereotypes?loc=interstitialskip UCLA Student's Youtube Video Illustrates Many Asain Racial Stereotypes]. While there may be no legal action that can be taken toward a video of this nature, we as a culture unwittingly make it popular and far reaching through multiple views and backlash videos which is something I think we should all think about before we click on that next "shocking" link. With such ease of access to such content on the internet I think that there comes a personal responsibility as to what goes viral for the wrong reasons, and what just gets lost in the far corners of the internet. [[User:Deinous\|Deinous]] 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)		Recently during the height of confusion about the disasters in Japan there was a case involving the posting of a highly offensive Youtube video by a UCLA student that at best insensitively mocked Asian peers. While the school chose not to take disciplinary action claiming that her video did not violate school policy, the community at large took action by shunning and harassing her to the point she withdrew from the school. UCLA is also being criticized by academics of race and gender stating that the objectification of Asians in the video is harmful and displays a deep rooted often overlooked racism that falls outside of the black/white paradigm. It has been recommended that UCLA should promote a more multicultural understanding and sensitivity by introducing mandatory courses and/or workshops. I understand how this video and the girl's views are protected as free speech regardless of how repugnant her words are, but I also find it deeply disturbing that the video went viral mainly due to morbid curiosity. A good analysis of the deeper harmful racist views and effeccts can be read here [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/22/ucla_student_s_youtube_video_illustrates_many_asian_racial_stereotypes?loc=interstitialskip UCLA Student's Youtube Video Illustrates Many Asain Racial Stereotypes]. While there may be no legal action that can be taken toward a video of this nature, we as a culture unwittingly make it popular and far reaching through multiple views and backlash videos which is something I think we should all think about before we click on that next "shocking" link. With such ease of access to such content on the internet I think that there comes a personal responsibility as to what goes viral for the wrong reasons, and what just gets lost in the far corners of the internet. [[User:Deinous\|Deinous]] 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


	I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. It's just like watching the news or reading the paper. Hopefully our curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces our understanding of how sharing hateful speech send us backwards. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


	I know what I am about to say does not agree with everyone else's comment, but I think there should be very little regulation on the internet. I believe the government should step in when children are exploited (pornography, verbal abuse, etc.) and that is pretty much it. I am concerned if the government begins to regulate the internet, it could prove hazardous to our freedoms. I believe the web should remain in the private sector, regulated by users and the people/organizations who run there respective websites. Gradually the government will regulate more over time, and censor things they deem dangerous. Where do we draw the line? It is a very slippery slope. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


	This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html		This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
	--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


	One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)



	Concerning the Rebekah Black video, is there not an option to shut off the comments on youtube videos? If the comments offend her she is in 100% control to stop it. As I previously mentioned, I believe control should be in our hands and not anyone else's. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

	~~They actually did disable commenting on her video [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 13:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)~~

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

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Lewtak: /* Class Discussion */

2011-08-23T17:48:22Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 23 August 2011
Line 108:		Line 108:
	One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)		One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


	On that topic of Rebbecca Black, I disagree with you. While she may have not been of an age where any kind of her consent would not legally stand up in US courts, she does have the same rights to free speech as those individuals who posted under the video. I feel that there is a huge difference between a persons right to free speech versus how things are moderated on a for-profit website such as YouTube. Take for instance Charlie Sheen's YouTube channel. We all have our opinions on the guy, but thats beyond the point. An individual can very easily disable those comments and regulate speech on their own - if not, they will (like it or not) deal with user comments. Even the most succesful of YouTube accounts continue to have negative comments. Not all types of media are for everyone! [[User:Lewtak\|Lewtak]] 01:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Joshuasurillo: update on the rebekah black video

2011-05-16T13:19:33Z

update on the rebekah black video

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 16 May 2011
Line 113:		Line 113:

	Concerning the Rebekah Black video, is there not an option to shut off the comments on youtube videos? If the comments offend her she is in 100% control to stop it. As I previously mentioned, I believe control should be in our hands and not anyone else's. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)		Concerning the Rebekah Black video, is there not an option to shut off the comments on youtube videos? If the comments offend her she is in 100% control to stop it. As I previously mentioned, I believe control should be in our hands and not anyone else's. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

			They actually did disable commenting on her video [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 13:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Joshuasurillo: /* Class Discussion */

2011-05-11T14:55:07Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 11 May 2011
Line 110:		Line 110:

	On that topic of Rebbecca Black, I disagree with you. While she may have not been of an age where any kind of her consent would not legally stand up in US courts, she does have the same rights to free speech as those individuals who posted under the video. I feel that there is a huge difference between a persons right to free speech versus how things are moderated on a for-profit website such as YouTube. Take for instance Charlie Sheen's YouTube channel. We all have our opinions on the guy, but thats beyond the point. An individual can very easily disable those comments and regulate speech on their own - if not, they will (like it or not) deal with user comments. Even the most succesful of YouTube accounts continue to have negative comments. Not all types of media are for everyone! [[User:Lewtak\|Lewtak]] 01:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)		On that topic of Rebbecca Black, I disagree with you. While she may have not been of an age where any kind of her consent would not legally stand up in US courts, she does have the same rights to free speech as those individuals who posted under the video. I feel that there is a huge difference between a persons right to free speech versus how things are moderated on a for-profit website such as YouTube. Take for instance Charlie Sheen's YouTube channel. We all have our opinions on the guy, but thats beyond the point. An individual can very easily disable those comments and regulate speech on their own - if not, they will (like it or not) deal with user comments. Even the most succesful of YouTube accounts continue to have negative comments. Not all types of media are for everyone! [[User:Lewtak\|Lewtak]] 01:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


			Concerning the Rebekah Black video, is there not an option to shut off the comments on youtube videos? If the comments offend her she is in 100% control to stop it. As I previously mentioned, I believe control should be in our hands and not anyone else's. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 14:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Lewtak: /* Class Discussion */

2011-05-11T01:36:05Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 11 May 2011
Line 106:		Line 106:


	One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)		One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


			On that topic of Rebbecca Black, I disagree with you. While she may have not been of an age where any kind of her consent would not legally stand up in US courts, she does have the same rights to free speech as those individuals who posted under the video. I feel that there is a huge difference between a persons right to free speech versus how things are moderated on a for-profit website such as YouTube. Take for instance Charlie Sheen's YouTube channel. We all have our opinions on the guy, but thats beyond the point. An individual can very easily disable those comments and regulate speech on their own - if not, they will (like it or not) deal with user comments. Even the most succesful of YouTube accounts continue to have negative comments. Not all types of media are for everyone! [[User:Lewtak\|Lewtak]] 01:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Joshuasurillo: added my comment

2011-05-11T01:24:50Z

added my comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:24, 11 May 2011
Line 98:		Line 98:
	I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. It's just like watching the news or reading the paper. Hopefully our curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces our understanding of how sharing hateful speech send us backwards. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)		I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. It's just like watching the news or reading the paper. Hopefully our curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces our understanding of how sharing hateful speech send us backwards. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


			I know what I am about to say does not agree with everyone else's comment, but I think there should be very little regulation on the internet. I believe the government should step in when children are exploited (pornography, verbal abuse, etc.) and that is pretty much it. I am concerned if the government begins to regulate the internet, it could prove hazardous to our freedoms. I believe the web should remain in the private sector, regulated by users and the people/organizations who run there respective websites. Gradually the government will regulate more over time, and censor things they deem dangerous. Where do we draw the line? It is a very slippery slope. [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


	This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html		This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
	--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Myra at 21:04, 10 May 2011

2011-05-10T21:04:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 10 May 2011
Line 96:		Line 96:


	I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. ~~However, and I~~'~~ll speak for myself, my~~ curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces my understanding how hateful speech ~~gets one no where. It's just like watching the news~~. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)		I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. It's just like watching the news or reading the paper. Hopefully our curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces our understanding of how sharing hateful speech send us backwards. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Myra at 20:58, 10 May 2011

2011-05-10T20:58:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 10 May 2011
Line 96:		Line 96:


			I look at the popularity of the offensive Youtube video mentioned above from this standpoint: I understand that if the school is not really doing anything about it, we as curious onlookers are making it worse by even giving this girl the time of day. However, and I'll speak for myself, my curiosity and subsequent viewing of this video reinforces my understanding how hateful speech gets one no where. It's just like watching the news. The school's punishment could have been worse, but she was ostracized by her peers and eventually withdrew. She is facing large consequences because her peers, not the school's law, mobilized and took a stand. Talk about power, all in the name to stop racists rants that prevent students from studying and enriching their minds. [[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


	This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html		This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
	--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Elishasurillo at 21:23, 8 May 2011

2011-05-08T21:23:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 8 May 2011
Line 100:		Line 100:


	One name for this- Rebbecca Black.She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. ~~the~~ are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You ~~cant~~ post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)		One name for this- Rebbecca Black. She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. There are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You can't post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Links from Class ==		== Links from Class ==

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Elishasurillo at 21:22, 8 May 2011

2011-05-08T21:22:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 8 May 2011
Line 99:		Line 99:
	--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


			One name for this- Rebbecca Black.She is a 13 year old with possibly the worst song ever on youtube. After amassing 100 million hits, she has been torn apart in the comments. the are over 2 million comments and almost all worse than the one before. The government cannot do anything, citing free speech, but the site can. The responsibility to govern such behavior falls on the shoulders of the websites. You cant post explicit videos, why not ban explicit comments? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Links from Class ==		== Links from Class ==

	Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]		Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]