Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech: Difference between revisions

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|  
|  
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 24]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Jan 31]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 7]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 14]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 21]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Feb 28]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 6]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
* Mar 13 - ''No class''
|  
|  
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 20]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 27]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 3]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]  
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 10]]  
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 17]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 24]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 1]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
* [[Final Project|May 8]] - ''No class''
|}
|}
<br clear="right" />
<br clear="right" />
</div>
</div>
'''March 8'''
'''March 6'''


What is law's role in regulating online conduct and speech?  At this point in the course you should be ready to tackle this question from a number of different perspectives. In this class we will begin to explore what role law is ''capable'' of playing as well as what role it ''should'' play.  Remember John Perry Barlow's [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] which you read earlier in the course?  Has his view of law's limited role been borne out?  The sources of law impacting online conduct and speech are many, from intellectual property to tort to the First Amendment.  Throughout today's class, we’ll tie the legal doctrines together with three themes:
What is law's role in regulating online conduct and speech?  At this point in the course you should be ready to tackle this question from a number of different perspectives. In this class we will begin to explore what role law is ''capable'' of playing as well as what role it ''should'' play.  Remember John Perry Barlow's [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] which you read earlier in the course?  Has his view of law's limited role been borne out?  The sources of law impacting online conduct and speech are many, from intellectual property to tort to the First Amendment.  Throughout today's class, we’ll tie the legal doctrines together with three themes:
Line 31: Line 31:
* The new kinds of power possessed by online intermediaries.
* The new kinds of power possessed by online intermediaries.


[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011slides_2011-03-08.pdf Slides: Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]
 




Line 57: Line 57:


== Class Discussion ==
== Class Discussion ==
I have received another derogatory grade for my second assignment and need a feedback of my classmates on that. For those who read my prospectus, what grade do you think it deserves? For those who did not read it, I encourage you to take a look at my prospectus and make your comment below on this page whether the project of this magnitude worth 3, 4, or 5 points on the 5 points scale. If your grade is below 5, please explain in what instances other projects supersede mine. When you read "sources sharing common domains" do you raise any questions, what are they? To be objective, consider the motive behind the grade of (3) for this type of prospectus submitted at this type of the course. Note that I do realize that this project, in order to be completed, requires a series of surveys that must be funded. Without surveys I have to rely on someone else's data or on "pickpocketing" which is unethical and therefore is not my goal. Nevertheless, I believe that the project could have produced revealing results without significant changes. I think, along with dozens of my colleagues who are majoring in various disciplines, that if the prospectus such as I did deserves the grade of 3, no other project should gain more than that because there is no alternative prospectus has been submitted in this course or replicated based on my prospectus. Do you agree, disagree, and why? Thank you everyone for the survey!!
As per today's lecture, I found many aspects such as long-arm statute, interstate commerce law, interpol networking, and stock trading/investing accounts outsourcing that could have illustrated the problem with jurisdiction over the electronic source. I am not sure if it has been said, but the principle of cloud computing is also important for many amateurs who wish to hide the hosts of their web pages. I am also encouraging you to read the J.Gilies and R. Cailliau "How the web was born" so that you can understand better the notion of policy that has originally been imposed in various countries. The authors have a diverse perspective on ideological and legal concepts related to the internet. I have much deeper concepts in mind which I do not mind to share with people who signed up for this course but to share them on the web page of the course in which my work is unfairly graded is senseless. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing some of the complex nuances of the arguments, but to me the resolution seems straightforward.  Laws exist to govern people not machines.  The legal entities are citizens, companies and governments, not routers and servers.  Every Internet web service is a transaction between two legal entities at each endpoint with subcontractors facilitating the transport.  The Internet or, more precisely, the collection of independent service providers that comprise the Internet, should be regulated in the same manner that all domestic and foreign commerce is managed today.  Germany, for example, requires every German web site to include an "impressum" page listing the legal owner of the site and contact information.  Just as it is more complex to import and export goods across national boundaries, we should expect similar complexities with transnational web services.  Whether or not we agree with the laws of a particular sovereign nation, it seems prudent that international law should preside in cyberspace as surely as anywhere else on the planet. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to encourage anyone who hasn't yet read the optional reading by Grimmelmann on the fate of HavenCo to do so; it's a terrific read. I find the central irony of the piece - essentially that HavenCo, ostensibly an organization devoted avoidance of the law, was actually heavily dependent on the rule of law to operate, and that lack of law, not the opposite, is what ultimately destroyed HavenCo - to be fascinating. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Like any good reader of mystery novels who once hooked into the plot flips to the back of the book to discover the ending, my curiosity forced me to google what happened to HavenCo and Sealand.  Found http://www.theconstitutional.org/2011/02/15/sealand-and-havenco-part-ii-the-rise-and-fall-of-havenco/.  Will take Brandon's suggestion and read the optional reading on the subject, but for the quick answer here it is.  [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)]]
I was truly inspired by Orin Kerr's The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law. Someone who is deeply curious about Internet Law has to read this review! The basic legal principle of application of law based on fact raises a fundamental question within Internet Law. The most critical issue of current digital law is not how to list all the newly created technologies but on which perspective we are going to observe the case and apply laws. The view points of users and outsiders can be very tricky but need to be clarified for more accurate legal judgment. I would love to read the rest of this review and other related topics so that I develop better insights in analyzing Internet controversies. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Brandon and Sjennings for the tips - I was also curious about the fate of HavenCo, and found it particularly interesting to learn that they were originally founded and registered in the UK. So yes, much more dependent on law than they led the public to believe. It also seems shortsighted that, in an effort to stretch the boundaries of the Internet, they saw the creation of a new physical space with its own set of lax regulations as the ultimate design. Other rebellious projects (i.e., torrent services, wikileaks, etc) were able to accomplish as much by operating entirely within the virtual space and defying territorial boundaries. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In reading “The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law” it brought up some interesting thoughts about the blurring between the “physical” and “virtual” worlds. How will law govern these types of scenarios in the future?  In November, there was a sale of virtual property for $335K in the Virtual Entropia Universe. This was the largest virtual real estate deal to date and creates a whole new set of challenges with Internet law.  What laws do you apply/enforce to a property that technically does not exist in the true sense of the physical definition?  [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


== Links ==
== Links ==
[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/geohot-site-unmasking/ Judge Lets Sony Unmask Visitors to PS3-Jailbreak Site] desscribes an interesting jurisdictional question to a copyright infringement case. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:24, 17 November 2011

Syllabus


March 6

What is law's role in regulating online conduct and speech? At this point in the course you should be ready to tackle this question from a number of different perspectives. In this class we will begin to explore what role law is capable of playing as well as what role it should play. Remember John Perry Barlow's Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace which you read earlier in the course? Has his view of law's limited role been borne out? The sources of law impacting online conduct and speech are many, from intellectual property to tort to the First Amendment. Throughout today's class, we’ll tie the legal doctrines together with three themes:

  • How regulation changes when it’s carried out by computers, rather than by people.
  • Whether going online increases or decreases government control.
  • The new kinds of power possessed by online intermediaries.




Readings

Optional Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Class Discussion

Links

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Law%27s_Role_in_Regulating_Online_Conduct_and_Speech&oldid=7021"