Whose Values

February 19

The Internet is often thought of as one place, as in Barlow’s framing of “our world” in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. But we have already seen that this framing does not play out quite so cleanly. And nor should it, necessarily, because the Internet’s global clientele represent a wide mix of values, both in abstract principles and practical solutions for when those principles collide. This class looks at that issue through the lens of a few specific examples, and starts us toward a larger question: Can we fit all of our different values onto the same Internet?

Readings

• The Economist, The Future of the Internet: A Virtual Counter-Revolution

• Hal Roberts et al., The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control

• Biz Stone and Alex Macgillivary, The Tweets Must Flow and The Tweets Still Must Flow

• Rachel Whetstone, Free Expression and Controversial Content on the Web

• Eliza Krigman, Next Battle over Net Ramps Up Worldwide (Politico)

• Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims

• Wikipedia, The Innocence of Muslims

• Jillian York, Should Google Censor an Anti-Islam Video?

• Ryan Budish, Little “i” Internet: The “Innocence of Muslims” Video’s Impact on Free Speech

• Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech

Optional Readings

• Anne-Marie Slaughter, Adapting U.S. Policy in a Changing International System

• Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet (from Access Denied)

• Nate Anderson, Explainer: How Can the US Seize a “Hong Kong site” like Megaupload?

Class Discussion

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Asellars 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I found Andy Sellars, 'The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech', article to contain an interesting analysis on the role that the US legal regime governing free speech should play in censorship of the internet. While I agreed with a number of his concerns, I disagree with his proposition that it is 'very' hard to change the constitutional law in the US governing free speech (in particular hate speech). While he, and many other Americans, take the position that the US constitution protects hate speech and that it would be 'very, very hard' to change the law, I do not agree with this. I concede that the wording of the first amendment would appear to place strict limits on the governments interference with speech in general, however, this has not stopped the government from restricting numerous forms of speech such as commercial expression, libel, pornography, child pornography, fraud, intellectual property theft, national security, and incitement to violence. If SCOTUS was inclined to change the laws on hate speech they would be able to do so without resort to formal constitutional amendment.

I also appreciate his point that we now have behemoth corporations making the decisions about whether to censor a citizens opinions. Youtube can remove videos at will and Google can rank pages it disagrees with down into the netherworlds of irrelevance on its search results. Google has done this in the past, leaving up derogatory pages about Rick Santorum, while downgraded pages it disagrees with for whatever reason. Joshywonder 15:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks for the comment, Josh. (And yes, Andy Sellars from here is me, just as the article by Ryan Budish is the same Ryan.) I would argue that it is still difficult to change the US Constitution, even if we have majority support for a particular position (e.g. hate speech, where I think there is a growing consensus though certainly not unanimous support). Amending the constitution requires both massive turnout and very-high-percentage (66-75%) support. See this article for more. Where the Supreme Court has allowed exceptions has been places where the First Amendment has always been considered to be inapplicable - obscenity, defamation, "fighting words," and a few other places - and these are clearly defined with specific definitions that have evolved form the doctrine. In the words of the Supreme Court, "[o]ur Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it," and doesn't add categories to the list as a general rule. While they could change their mind, they have entrenched in this position for all of their history, and would face all sorts of collateral challenges should they start to arbitrarily decide what is an is not constitutional.

I am also not sure that we have seen a proven example where Google had down-ranked a page to serve its own interest, but that's beside the point of my article. My concern is that they could, and there's not much we could do about it. asellars 18:34, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Student Initials: TAG Student ID# 10789842

Mr. Robert Faris guest lecture was very interesting and inspired me to examine the intended democratic forum of the Internet. As mobility and being connected to the Internet becomes more affordable, accessible digital participation and digital representation has come to the forefront of the global debate. The article in The Economist the article on the future of the Internet, they reference Mr. Barlow when stating the declaration, “You have no sovereignty where we gather.” This topic should be viewed as a sub area of what freedoms the United States was built on. Challenging or infringing upon these freedoms should and never should be acceptable within the US. In a different view I do not feel that we (The United States) should impose other countries to allow the same freedoms to their citizens when using the Internet. It is not our job to be the freedom of Internet police around the world. The article “The Tweets Must Flow” challenges my view that states the

Mr. Ferris gave a detailed explanation of the evolution of the communication industry and the effects of regulations and monopolies have had on the industry, which was quite comprehensive and I enjoyed it thoroughly. In the article “The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control” it was clear that other countries who establish restrictive parameters for their citizens to access the internet spend more time on ethnocentric innovation, instead of blocking the outside sites. I find this remarkable, that they believe more in their own citizens to produce a better product that they do not spend a proportionate amount of time in blocking the external access sites. Interestingcomments 09:15, 14 February 2013 (EST)

I thought this weeks twitter postings on the new filter by country feature added to the original belief on non filtering was very interesting. While the posting made it clear that this feature, if employed, would be merely reactive, I am still unconvinced as to whether or not it serves to protect freedom of speech or is leading more to a geographically dominated net space. While it is one step above globally censoring content, I still don't believe that it aims to bolster true net neutrality. But when dealing with global internet usage and consumption, I guess this reactive filtering option would be the lesser of two evils. I thought the Google blog posting did a good job on expounding upon the issue of regional filtering vs. free expression. It seems to be an extremely non divisive issue and one that is ever-changing. I guess in a globalized world, it's impossible to satisfy every critic and country. While currently regional law seems to have the biggest impact on the institutionalization of a globalized internet, I wonder if one day the net legislation will override regional considerations on freedom of expression in places like China. AaronEttl 14:46, 17 February 2013 (EST)

The short, low budget video that became associated with the September 11, 2012 demonstrations at the American Embassy in Cairo is a case in point. York, Budish and Sellers all make valid points on this subject. I have to wonder, though, does the censorship that was exercised by blocking the video from being accessed in particular countries actually hinder those countries from having the free flow of conversation that might change the need to have the video blocked in the first place? I have read that the video initially depicts the mistreatment of Copts (a historic Orthodox Christian group) in Egypt. This is a valid conversation to have. Copts are a dwindling population in Egypt, not because they are converting to other religions, but because they are leaving Egypt seeking to live in countries where they will receive equal treatment in practice and under the law. Unfortunately, the video apparently goes on to depict the Egyptian majority religion in a demeaning light. That distraction, and the focus on it, has led to the censorship. Unfortunately, this also means that the more important theme of the video has been lost to the controversy. Egyptian society does need to have the conversation about religion as a basis for biased treatment. Some are having the conversation, but not all Egyptians are ready for that conversation. So here is something to consider: As Egyptians reach out to the world through the Internet, they know that they will encounter issues that do not align with their culture and values. As Westerners learn that world cultures need not westernize to get along in the world, Egyptians have opportunity to see that not all in the world will Islamize either. Additionally, because the West allows freedom for individuals to express themselves does not mean that the individual doing the expressing speaks on our behalf. Tessa May 00:46, 19 February 2013 (EST)