Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== Optional Readings == | == Optional Readings == | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU] | * [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.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT] | |||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU] | |||
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech] | * [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech] | ||
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III) | * [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III) | ||
Revision as of 16:25, 31 January 2012
February 7
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 1 due
Readings
- Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation
- David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Parts I & II)
- Communications Decency Act § 230
- John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all
- Wikipedia entry on Funding Evil (focus on "libel controversy" section)
- The SWIFT Affair
Optional Readings
- David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all
- Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT
- Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU
- Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech
- David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law (Part III)