Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Readings == | == Readings == | ||
* [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.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] | |||
== Additional Resources == | |||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU]. | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU]. | ||
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81. | * [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 19: | ||
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law] | * [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law] | ||
==Class Discussions == | ==Class Discussions == | ||
== Links from Class == | == Links from Class == | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 11 February 2010
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
Additional Resources
- Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU.
- ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
- Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech
- EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law