Regulating Speech Online: Difference between revisions

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ClassCalendar}}
{{ClassCalendar}}


'''February 7'''
'''February 26'''


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."  
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, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). 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, 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.
With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a 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.


'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-02-26-Regulating_Speech_Online.pdf Download slides from this week's class.]'''


'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2012_Feb7.pdf Download this week's slides] (PDF)'''
<onlyinclude>
 
== Readings ==
 
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]


* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]


* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)


==Assignments==
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey & Adam Thierer, "Dialogue:  The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks" (Ars Technica)]


[[Assignments#Assignment_1:_Wikipedia|Assignment 1]] due
* '''Case Study: The SPEECH Act'''


<onlyinclude>
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia, ''Funding Evil''] (focus on the “Libel Controversy” section)
== Readings ==


* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]
:* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2765/text 111th U.S. Congress, H.R. 2765, “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act” (“SPEECH Act”)]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 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)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [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]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia entry on ''Funding Evil''] (focus on "libel controversy" section)
* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 The SWIFT Affair]


== Optional Readings ==
== Optional 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://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+aclu&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]
* [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]
==Links==
* [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)
===Links from Adobe Connect Session===
 
US Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
 
State constitutions: http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm
 
US regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR
 
Map of the circuit courts and their jurisdictions: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf
 
The Supreme Court has been taking fewer and fewer cases: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29bar.html?_r=0
 
The International Shoe test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_v._Washington
 
A very influential case addressing websites is a district court case from Pittsburgh called Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippo_Manufacturing_Co._v._Zippo_Dot_Com,_Inc
 
A more recent case of "Libel Tourism" - this time concerning parties from Ethiopia: http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2013/02/25/london-libel-ruling-against-ethiopian-dissident-shows-urgent-need-for-reform/
 
Shaari v. Harvard: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/427/427mass129.html
 
This org has done a lot to make sure that online sites have to remove child porn: http://www.missingkids.com/home
 
The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying
 
</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>


==Class Discussion ==
==Class Discussion==
In light of the assignment due today, I thought people would enjoy some great (and surprisingly insightful) web comics:
 
[http://xkcd.com/978/ citogenesis]
 
[http://xkcd.com/903/ extended mind]
In watching last week's lecture on the topic of free speech on the Internet it only reminded me that if the United States is to become the leader, or even respected in the Internet world we must design our laws and programs more to promote collaboration with other countries and cultures than using imperialistic measures as we have done since the Monroe Doctrine was formulated. The Wiki rule that that site required collaborative efforts rather than the majority rules principal.  
[http://xkcd.com/214/ the problem with Wikipedia]
[http://xkcd.com/285/ Wikipedia Protester]


The first is especially pertinent, at least for my rule.
We need to establish our goal of what our participation on the Internet is. If we continue to insist only our way is the right way,God's way then we will never reach and be respected by other cultures. Is it not better to compromise than bully others to follow our culture, rules and principals such as free speech?
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


[[User:Rich|Rich]] 11:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/19/national/main20080685.shtml


During our last class we discussed the hacking group Anonymous.  One of the concerns raised in the class addressed ramifications for hacking and the belief that these types of attacks are not pursued by law enforcement.  As it turns out the FBI has been arresting members of this group and seizing their equipment.  In addition to the written story there is a video interview (link above) of the self-proclaimed leader of Anonymous, Commander X, where he likens this groups activity to the sit-ins during protests in the 50’s and 60’s when the nation was advocating for civil rights.




Two (conflicting) thoughts:


1. I appreciate the analogy and disagree with the announcer who dismisses the likeness out-of-hand.
TAG: Student ID#10789842


2. I would agree with the analogy if, indeed, each “request for information” were being initiated by a separate and distinct person exercising their individual right to voice their concern.
The discussion on Why, How, and Who was insightful. It made me to examine deeper into the concept of online behavioral intent on both a micro and macro level.  This specific space (Online) when examined, allows you to weigh both sides of the coin. In one argument censorship or content, which controls this behavior shapes our participation in the internet. On the other side of the coin freedom of speech. Politically more and more countries have taken the position to restrict and control the internet through designed "Nation Boundaries" as mentioned in class.


In the readings concerning the laws of defamation and the restriction of content on the internet, it appears to be flawed. Depending on your country of jurisdiction the interpretation of the laws of defamation or control are interpreted differently. In a global information world which we are all a part of, restrictions are becoming tighter and tighter. An example is France restricted Yahoo to having Nazi memorabilia online. Another way to review this precedent set by the French government, is what if a corporation made tremendous acquisitions? If fundamental islamic fanatic group was to acquire Google, Bing, or both, it could become a paradigm shift in controlling the internet from an acquisition stand point.  The article "Funding Evil" extends this point by exam terrorist groups that may try to use these resources to distribute their messages of hate. 


The CDA Section 230 is a very crucial starting point of discussion for nowadays legal online processes. As John Palfrey exposed, time has passed and different situations have happened since the creation of it, and it's likely that those who created it didn't anticipate the immunity provided by this document. Although I agree with Adam that Section 230 has been crucial to the success of the Internet, I feel inclined to support John Palfrey in his ideas of re-examine it. He provides strong arguments to support his ideas, saying for example that although it would be less speech and innovation opportunities, it is a trade-off that has to be made. Since in some cases it is relatively easy to change from an online distributor to a online publisher, shielding intermediaries, I think Section 230 has to be changed. Also, I like John Plalfrey's idea that the great innovation would be present, in terms of technical safety measures to protect kids. Although in the article he referred to kid's safety, I believe this idea can be extended to the other online legal discussions. [[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)   
The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it.  


@Fabiancelisj:  I have to disagree with you on that point about Section 230 being the major reason for the success of the internet.  BBSes and the minitel were extremely successful.  Back in 1994, when I got my 1400 baud modem, I would love to call up AOL, or CompuServe. And I think that the world was just waiting for the internet to really explode on to the scene -- it really wanted it to happen.  I remember AOL allowing users to go on to the internet, what a trip that was.  At that time you had to connect through a University, or through a service like AOL or eWorld.  So, I don't think that Section 230 had much to do with the success of the internet.  I see it as more of something that was waiting to happen regardless.  Now, in terms of timing, and the new world order 9/11 fits directly in place -- particularly when it comes to sidestepping protocol and established laws. I see Section 230 changing with that trend.  Call it the Wal-Mart, Subway, McDonals, etc. trend, like so fifteen minutes ago.  So, we went from a controlled environment like AOL which was in your home town with your local provider to the internet, to be given total freedom, only to go back to control with sites like Facebook and Google.  Go figure. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 06:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Have a nice week. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)


These computers, servers, and platforms are designed to accommodate millions of simultaneous, legitimate, requests.  I don’t believe that there are millions of Anonymous members initiating these requests, rather a handful of protesters mimicking multiple users.  So in this case the analogy fails as “the people” are not adequately represented through a First Amendment protection to assemble.  A more accurate analogy would be that two or three individuals went to Woolworths lunch counter to “sit-in” but each brought with them 150 manikins with made-up names, claiming that these were their friends in support.  Lastly, I’m not sure that I completely buy the idea that their hacking methods are simply an overwhelming volume of requests for information.  I believe that the method by which these attacks were initiated were a bit more technically complicated than that.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
*****


@Louiscelli: "I believe that the method by which these attacks were initiated were a bit more technically complicated than that." Interesting point. I tend to think that it is human nature to assume things automatically, and not always true. Who is to say who these hackers are?  For instance, antivirus software distros regularly put out viruses to perpetuate the need to buy antivirus software.  They could be anyone, and really used for any reason. I just have to laugh at the people who simply believe what they are told through the media. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 06:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This week there were fabulous document that discussed internet security. Programs such as our adobe can at times be considered to indexed. Here the issue is whether hyperbole or preposition is defined or at least contextualized. Bearing with the notion that "more is better" I shall continue typing: Here the reader shall notice that a program as it may be quoted is merely a type of application that is for sanitary use. Therefore, the internet decidedly is not the same as a program and the program is not necessarily reliant on the internet per se. In conclusion to this stream of logic the type of compartmentalized information is not the actual understanding that something can be a mobile storehouse of information without affirmative action. Since computers are only affirmative in their position there leaves the possibil;ity for autocorrecting such documents and this very notion is the idea here of internet security. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:51, 26 February 2013 (EST)


RE Louiscelli on Anonymous Article: As far as I know, the basic idea behind the attacks is no different than when any page receives a surge in traffic that crashes their servers. It's coordinated, yes, but so is any form of protest. If that is the case, then I see no problem with the basic idea. How it is carried out however, is much more likely to be troublesome. Again, so far as I know, a botnet attack would be the most likely form of attack. This involves basically conscripting other users computers for the attack. I'm sure there are many other ways to accomplish a similar effect, but I doubt any of them are anything I could approve of, short of installing massive server banks in your basement. Of course, I could be wrong on all counts here.
*****


That leads me to a more general point, which is that whenever it comes to regulating speech online (or even in the real world, much of the time), I on one hand see why some want to tighten the restrictions around speech, at least on the extremes. On the other hand, I don't see any practical (or non-arbitrary) way of drawing a line, or any practical ways of enforcing it that aren't worse than what the restrictions would be seeking to stop. And then I also see the positives, even from information that supposedly "clearly" should not be available.
Reading the Wikipedia article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prompted me to think about cyber-security and where liability should fall if private information was hacked and released and later deemed as defamatory. Earlier in the course I posted a Gizmodo article on Apple’s iMessage server being hacked and I am beginning to wonder if, as online hubs of information grow to become more institutional, individuals who are targets of cyber attacks will start blaming the companies that have their private information stored on their servers. I foresee that as the internet and cloud take on greater roles in the institutionalization of business and everyday life, that issues like these will start arising. As to the Ars Technica interview, I think that scaling back protection for service providers in order to protect children presents a weak claim. I think doing so would severely alter the costs of operating a site like Myspace or Facebook. Also, it is my personal belief that a parent should be responsible for teaching their children how to correctly use the web and exercise safe practices online. I feel that extending liability and limiting free speech poses a great danger at a minor benefit of altering section 230 for a very specific purpose. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)


Take Wikileaks, for example. I can see why the Pentagon wanted to keep the data secret (especially in its raw form). I understand taking legal action against the person who illegally leaked the documents, since it is military law acting on military personnel, in marshal courts. On the other hand, I think that the availability of information on Wikileaks has been a great thing, especially in terms of the very real threat to government of ordinary people learning what is happening out of the public eye. Then, in a practical note, I don't see any way of censoring any part of the network without trampling on what makes it so important. First off, you have so many content generators (even down to tweets) that there's no possible way to get human eyes on every bit, or even any significant amount of, information that would be potentially censored under even the mildest restrictions. Machines don't do a great job at judgement. A computer can't tell the difference between a plot to blow up a government building and a discussion on how overblown fears of terrorism are causing us to lose our civil rights. Then on a more ethical line, there's always the question of who decides what the thresholds are.
*****


On one hand, I see why the government would want to keep information secret; on the other, I don't think they can without stopping valuable whistle blowers. On one hand I realize that copyright holders want to protect their work; On the other, I see how even now, even the little bit of enforcement that is happening hinders fair use and legitimate access. On one hand, I agree that people should be able to sue malicious bloggers; on the other, I don't think bloggers should enjoy any less protection than any other publication. In the end, I just end up seeing the less restricted flow of information as far more beneficial than harmful, and the harms from less restriction as the least evil option. That was the conclusion I came to once again with this week's reading.
I was very interested to read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I very much support the idea that the internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service, where the company itself does not exersize creative control over the content (i.e. deleting a post is not a basis for liability). Although I am not an expert, this regime would seem to be different from Canada where we have witnessed very prominent internet communities being brought to their knees by posts made by one or two offenders. My proposed research article, on lawbuzz.ca, will be very much concerned with ideas contained in the s. 230 of the CDA and I looking forward to comparing your legal regime with Canada's.  
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 21:35, 25 February 2013 (EST)


@BlakeGeno:  Interesting point about regulating speech online.  I think what we are getting at is targeting dissidents. Primarily, with sites like WikiLeaks, there is a bit of a double standard at work.  [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
*****


@Louiscelli, nice find on that article. I agree with you that it seems a bit disingenuous for hackers like Anonymous to claim that they have very broad protest-type support when in fact most of their major actions are committed by a small and central group. As a devil's advocate thought experiment though, is this simply a difference of opportunity?  That is, it's physically easy for almost any person to walk into a diner and conduct a "sit-in" to support their views.  It is physically (in terms of technical skill) much much harder to have the hacking skills necessary to do the things Anonymous has been doing. It seems possible that their protests are conducted by such a small group of people simply because those are all of the people who possess those skills, and not because those are all of the people who support the protest. From a purely social protest perspective, their point is no less theoretically valid simply because it is one that is hard to physically make.
In was quite an interesting read about Section 230 for this class, however in my view, suing diverse websites for such defamatory content is virtually impossible. Since the information is distributed, diverse websites seem to be immune from liability and responsibility to screen or remove the offending content. Who is responsible then? While a clear understanding of Section 230 is present, its critics are more valuable and portray a completely new approach when dealing with Internet content facilitators. In my view, interpretation of Section 230, can grant an immense immunity to companies or website that provide service or content (inappropriate) to realm the defamation factor altogether. What about speech? In my view, defamation is not only the single area of law, but it could be found as a refuge under Section 230 immunity. A section 230 has been interpreted so broadly in my view, that it has protected diverse types of speech, which was intended to prevent from precise inappropriate behavior. [[User:User777|user777]] 11:12, 26 February 2013 (EST)


From the readings, I really enjoyed the dialogue on online obscenity/CDA230/possible increased liability for online service providers; I found myself agreeing largely with Thierer that increased liability would be a bad Pandora's Box to open.  Palfrey says that he agrees many cases would be brought from every conceivable direction if liability for providers was opened up wider, but he counters that most providers would be fully protected from liability even with the practices they follow now and extensive litigation could also have some positive effects as a motivator.  My concern with this argument is that cases can be (and sometimes are) brought for bad reasons, knowing they will fail, but a plaintiff with massive wealth can still keep them alive almost indefinitely, at great expense (in time, money, and bad press)to the defendant.  Especially in a clash between the wide-open individual innovation possible on the internet and various wealthy real world entities that have agendas to pursue, this sort of legal bullying could stifle all but the most established and wealthy internet innovators, seriously harming the most positive aspect of the internet.
**


Funding Evil's various details provided an interesting look at how the problem of different geography and law systems can become tangled up and sometimes abused when internet content is at issue. I'm very troubled by the idea that a wealthy individual or group could always create themselves some business interests in a country with very harsh libel standards and then use that as a basis to go after people online through that favorable court system.  On a related international-type note, I'm amazed that I've never heard of SWIFT before or realized how thoroughly it controls information about the vast majority of global finance.  Well done them for so successfully pursuing their goal of staying out of the headlines, and amazing that it was possible in this internet age. Don't want to turn this too political, but it amused me that American conservatives/Republicans were outraged at the NY Times publication of info about this network and how the U.S. was using it to track terrorist financing but not at all about SWIFT itself... Isn't a massive, monolithic, European entity that almost fully controls an entire aspect of life even for Americans the exact thing every Republican presidential candidate has been railing against when the subject is changed from "global finance" to "health care"? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The readings on Section 230 reminded me of Zittrain's argument that it was not inevitable that the internet world would turn out the way it is today. I think Section 230 and the way the courts have broadly interpreted it to protect internet service providers and social website companies has been, and still is, key to the success of the internet and maintaining that spirit of freedom the internet is known for. I agree with AaronEttl that Section 230's protections shouldn't be narrowed, especially if the reason is to increase online safety for young users. In addition to traditional education ("don't talk to strangers" adjusted and applied online), there are also plenty of parental filtering tools that can be used by individuals themselves. ISPs and websites that are not content publishers should not be held responsible for the actions of internet users, although they certainly can act according to their own company policies, which in turn would be determined by the company's principles, values, and target audience/market. It is not the shopping mall owner's fault if a person walks in and suddenly strips naked or does something worse. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:43, 26 February 2013 (EST)


The articles we were asked to read for this week’s class were extremely interesting and got me thinking on several matters. As a student with a legal background and pursuing a Master’s degree in the field of law, the articles I read were very relevant to my field of study. I enjoyed reading about defamation and free speech in general but what really got me interested were the last three articles. The dialogue between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer regarding the regulation of online obscenity and protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act raised some very valid points on both sides. After reading the whole article I do however feel more close to the points raised by John Palfrey. I personally feel that even though Social Networks and other ISP are not responsible for what other people do in their sites, I feel that obscenity and other issues regarding minors especially would be limited if not eliminate if the site creators were not protected by the CDA. If they felt as if they could possibly be charged with a crime, I am sure that they would make their websites more secure and try to filter the usage of these websites by wrongdoers. For what concerns the Funding Evil article, I feel that the author should have been more careful in regards to her statements since nowadays even though a book, object or any other product is not sold outside a given country, thanks to the internet it is still possible to gain access to it. Her book wasn’t meant to be sold or published in the United Kingdom but somehow people did buy the book and in my opinion she should have thought of that earlier before writing defamatory statements about Mr. Mahfouz. By doing some research on the author I did find out that she is quite an expert on the matter and therefore I am sure there were valid reasons to back up her statements even though they were never proved. Writing something which doesn’t break the law in one country but does in another reminds me of the series of Danish cartoons designed a few years ago where Islam was made fun of, and the reactions that occurred from the middle east where such offense was a violation of their law. The Swift affair however was the most interesting article in my opinion because I was able to learn more about such system but also to learn about what was done by the CIA to fight terror. This summer while I was in a middle eastern country I had the pleasure to meet and spend a week with people from the Canadian Special Forces and some U.S. Government employees and we often talked about ways of fighting terrorism, especially in modern times. What we all agreed on was to eliminate the funds for terrorism by hitting the funders, therefore this article was really fascinating to me in order to understand how the CIA has been working on SWIFT databases in order to do so. What I don’t agree on, however is the fact that the US Government were only allowed to search terrorism cases. I don’t agree because I am confident that much funding is done through drug trafficking and arms dealing, especially since these limits have been publicized thanks to the media. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*****
For Commander X liken his group’s activities to the “sit-ins” advocating for civil rights is a slap in our faces. There’s absolutely no connection between hacking no matter the cause and civil rights; If the deeds of Anonymous contained a shred of nobility, they would put their faces on media outlets, and their peers would cheer them on.
It is my opinion that Anonymous has other ulterior motives in what they do. I am happy to see that the FBI is up to speed with technology, where people and groups like Anonymous are arrested and hopefully prosecuted. Sophia February 6, 2012 10:30 (UTC)


I concur with Joshywonder’s statement above:  ''I support the idea that the Internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service.''  However, in some circumstances, I think the Internet provider should play a mitigation role.  While reading about defamation this week, online bullying emerged in my mind.  Social networking has changed the landscape with bullying, especially for children and adolescents.  Mass media presents a series of legal issues, as outlined on the Citizen Media Law site, but defamation via media has always been present.  Online confrontation among elementary and high school students highlights a distinct reality.  An adult may take action if one’s name is tarnished, but youth will rarely take bullying to the legal arena.  That said, it would be interesting to read more case studies surrounding the actions service providers have taken, when youth defamation scenarios have surfaced.  In our readings this week, the examples were excellent, but I’d also be interested in learning about specific cases against Facebook, or Twitter, or Orkut.  Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate reactions from other countries.  For example, do other governments/courts of law acknowledge online youth bullying, and if so, is action taken?  Or, is online bullying more prevalent in the U.S. due to cultural/environmental factors?


The group Anonymous has been followed closely by law enforcement officials around the globe. In fact, on February 3, 2012, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryq1v-cLHrk Anonymous posted a conference call between the FBI and Scotland Yard] discussing the group’s members and the response by law enforcement. It seems there is an organized global campaign to identify and arrest Anonymous members that are participating in “hacktivism”.  
It has become apparent in the first month of this course that online “freedom of speech” is a complex topic. I very much enjoyed the discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, because both arguments shed light on valid points.  Thierer: ''“What I worry about, is that a new liability standard might not leave sufficient room for flexibility or experimentation.  If Congress altered Section 230 (or the courts tipped the balance) such that negligence claims could be brought too easily, I think that could have a chilling effect on a great deal of legitimate online speech, especially for many smaller social networking sites and up-and-coming operators.”''  This argument is in-line with our readings from two weeks ago: More Confusion about Internet “Freedom.”  Suppressing freedom of speech can, in some circumstances, cause more damage than good. If inhibited, our founding principles may not be upheld; but at the same time, there is an enormous unknown gray area between right and wrong communication practices.


A DDoS attack works by overloading servers and thus forcing them to become unresponsive. It is not that Anonymous has millions of followers sending these requests to various websites, but that Anonymous is mimicking legitimate requests. Anonymous uses an open source application called Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) to accomplish DDOS attacks. Recently, a LOIC application has been written in JavaScript, allowing web browsers to run the software without any downloads. This allows Anonymous to use the resources of unsuspecting and non-committing users to accomplish their DDoS attacks.
Palfrey’s response in reference to this statement is also worth noting: ''“My proposal would be to leave the question of negligence on the part of service providers….[W]e need a range of community-based solutions that put parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, kids themselves, law enforcement, social workers, technologists and online service providers to work.”''  In other words, the battle to uphold decency cannot be done alone.  Society at-large must step up to the plate as online communication evolves. It begins with new policies and trickles-down through law enforcement officials, community leaders, and parents, ultimately impacting the instigators. Although ''“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,”'' as outlined in the Wikipedia post (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), we all play a role to protect the vulnerable. Many youth who are bullied have no options available, no protection, and no escape.  Given recent tragedies surrounding youth defamation, from my perspective, extreme circumstances should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and pursued as appropriate. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:05, 26 February 2013 (EST)


This is what I believe to be the crux of the problem. That is, as a hacktivism organization, does Anonymous have the right to use unsuspecting Internet users to accomplish their goals? Anonymous likens their actions to sit-ins during the civil rights movement but everyone who sat in made the conscious choice to participate. That is not the case today with Anonymous.
******


Even though there is more skill required for a DDoS attack than participating in a sit-in as protestors did during the civil rights movement, I don’t think that knowledge barrier is a justification to take advantage of a user’s resources that are not actively protesting with your organization.
@Zak, I agree with your general stance on ISP immunity from individual expression, but, like Adam Thierer from the reading, I’m not as clear on the extreme circumstances that would warrant an information provider to intervene. Let’s take your example of online bullying. Online bullying does not happen in a vacuum; it usually happens as an extension of real-life interactions. This creates a number of concerns. First, how will an information provider recognize bullying? The danger is that this could be broadly interpreted. It may not be bullying at all, but an inside joke or nod to some real life context. It would be impossible to understand the entirety of the context offline. Second, if content is taken down or mitigated, this could make it seem as though the victim needed to seek out help. That might make the victim feel more weak and disempowered and it might exacerbate the bullying in real life. So I guess my question is, when it comes to something like online bullying, how do we make it so that the victim still has control over the situation and not make it seem like some third party came in to resolve the issue (because the victim tattletaled) ? I agree society at large needs to protect the vulnerable, especially in public forums. And I agree that we as a society must manage online bullying, we just have to be careful that the solution is not just “this is bullying, remove the content.” [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:48, 26 February 2013 (EST)


I don’t think that Anonymous would be as successful if they did not take advantage of other users not affiliated with their group. By definition of a DDoS, you need massive resources to take down a website. In contrast, a sit in can be effective with a handful of protestors.
*******


While Anonymous needs the resources of others to have successful DDoS attacks, I don’t think that alone negates the activism they participate in. A successful DDoS requires massive resources. Without pooling bandwidth from multiple users, the DDoS would not be successful. The fact is that Anonymous acquired the bandwidth and directed it at targeted servers to participate in the activism they deem worthy. I don’t think we should claim that their group is any less of a protest organization because they don’t have the millions of members required to produce DDoS attacks. [[User:chrism|chrism]] February 7, 2012 19:33 UTC
I was interested in the issues raised by Funding Evil and impressed by the speed in which several states and then Congress responded to the verdict against the author in the UK. I did some follow up research on the topic, and could find one of the four other texts that were taken out of publication available on line, and was interested in how the libraries who had purchased one of the earlier texts (Alms for Jihad) responded to the publisher's request to destroy the book. (They didn't. And then several moved the books to reserve or hold desks so that they could make sure the book was not stolen or destroyed.) I checked the mainstream newspapers of the US and could find no review of the book Funding Evil, either before or after the court case in the UK, and it had me wonder if the book has gotten significantly more readers and attention from the trial and the publicity surrounding the trial then it ever would have received without it. Alms for Jihad, did not receive the attention or the increase in sales (it is, I think, out of print, and only available at libraries who have not destroyed it and also online as a pdf.)
What can and cannot be written on the internet, who gets to decide, and who is liable if someone makes the wrong decision looks to be something we will be discussing as a society for quite a while. Bullying, lies, false information are all easier on the internet, but also more public, easier to find out and if you are an adult, easier to counter by publishing your own response.
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
****
The American people are, as a rule, hostile towards the dubious authority of international law; in instances in which foreign actors initiate civil proceedings against Americans in foreign countries, no American stands to benefit should the American state comply with the demands of an alien court. While couched in a simpering context of self-righteous "principle," the SPEECH Act correctly secures the prerogatives of Americans to say and do as they please, irrespective of the preferences of those whose interests the American government does not exist to represent. Although, perhaps understandably, the Act concedes the authority of foreign states to punish expression given the application of defamation laws analogous to our own, the spirit of the SPEECH Act defends those whose interests its purpose it to defend- the American people- instead of confusing the interests of the world community with the interests of a state and its citizens, which is what opponents of legislation like the SPEECH Act insist that states and their citizens do.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:19, 26 February 2013 (EST)


While I had written a lengthy response to the Anonymous article, unfortunately, @chrism explained a lot of what I had written.  However, let me go further and state that Anonymous is not the organization that it is purported to be.  While tools like LOIC enable greater numbers to participate in DDoS attacks, each attack is not an organized effort.  The members of Anonymous do not necessarily know one another, they do not have to speak the same language, nor even live in the same country.  Any individual can be a member of Anonymous so long as they have a computer and an internet connection.  The mechanics of their operation is fairly simple once understood.  Using message board services like 4chan, individuals are able to anonymously suggest sites for attacks.  Once a site is agreed upon, which usually relates to the suppression of freedom on the internet, such as PayPal, who gave in to the pressures of cutting off Wikileaks, or the MPAA and RIAA after MegaUpload went under, those anonymous individuals use an anonymizing services such as Tor, LOIC and others to make their attacks.  Then someone somewhere uses the name Anonymous to claim the attack. 
****


It's simple in its design, and since the internet is a globally connected community, members of Anonymous can live anywhere there is an internet connection, and do not necessarily have to be American.  Even still further, members of Anonymous do not have to know one another, nor do they have to be experienced computer hackers, or for that matter, good at all with computers.  They could be a thirteen year old kid who was shown how to use this basic program for simple executions, which might only appear to him as minute acts of vandalism. The repercussions of which, however, are far greater.  But it still stand that the group known as Anonymous is a loosely based group of like-minded individuals from anywhere. The group is exceptionally fluid, and while Commander X claims he orchestrated attacks, in reality it was the collective consensus of unaffiliated individuals that made it happen, not some organized crime syndicate. 
The Communications Decency Act provides legal immunity from liability for internet service providers who publish information provided by others. In my opinion, this is a common sense law which is just - you shouldn't attempt to hold an ISP legally liable for what their customers post online - as well as practical, as holding an ISP accountable would give them significant responsibility to screen and monitor all their customers' Internet activity, which not only would would be unusually burdensome but also would possibly infringe on some of their customers' privacy rights. Online service providers should be no more liable than any similar physical-based offering. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)


@chrism, while I do like what you have added, it needs to be clarified that a huge number of individual computers had to have been used for the DDoS attacks to be effective.  I don't disagree that LOIC was used.  But I wish to broaden my horizons to areas outside of the U.S. to the countries that would like to see American Corporations fail.  I'm not suggesting that LOIC and DDoS attacks are orchestrated by foreign military cyber-warfare divisions, but I could see a bunch of Europeans or Asians not caring if an American corporation was taken out, so they go ahead and cooperate with the Anonymous attack.  [[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
****


I found the arguments between Palfrey and Thierer most interesting in this week’s readings. I agree with Palfrey that a hands-off approach to online security by the government is of concern. I feel that there should be more regulation to protect people’s privacy and child safety online. However, how and to what extent should we fiddle with Section 230? So, I am torn between these two views and also agree that online restriction would lead to less innovation. I think that the consumers, such as the parents, can take more initiative to monitor and protect their children’s online safety. For example, they can restrict a child from using Facebook if they feel that he/she may be harmed for visiting social networking sites. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick link to share. This is a great and simple visualization of net neutrality: http://www.theopeninter.net/ [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)


I enjoyed reading David Ardia's explanation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and how it impacts online speech. Judge Ain's response to the Stratton Oakmont decision was shocking to me. To suggest that Prodigy would be better off limiting their oversight on material that is posted to the site for fear of liability goes against what the CDA was fighting for - to protect children from harmful material on the Internet. Without a proper legal backing intermediaries do not have an incentive to protect children from harmful material for fear of liability. It appears that Section 230 was written in such a way to protect intermediaries not to provide oversight for environments created by intermediaries.  [[User: Hds5]] 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
****


What a difficult subject, that of how much freedom of speech we should have in society, and how much responsibility that impliesOn the one hand, if all "whistleblowers" are suffocated, society is in trouble, and in fact, the US would not exist, possibly, but if there is a free for all on speech which does hurt and is used irresponsibly, this is not good for any society. The question come up about who can judge this. Possibly, the solution is not about an "who" can judge, but what form of law can judgePeople can be arbitrary, but laws are meant to be objectivePersonally, I do believe what Jesus said about everything boiling down to two commandments: Love God and love others as much as you love yourself; but in practice, we just don't seem to have that much love to do it on a daily, massive scale, so we need to have a lot more laws, at least for now, at our stage of maturity. I think it is better to restrict some, so that there is not a free-for-all which degrades society, but there must be care to allow for freedom of opinion, belief, and within guidelines, freedom of speech.
Having been a criminal (and thus also a Constitutional) trail and appellate lawyer for decades I have always had a profound interest in the First Amendment. It is one of the most misunderstood of all of our 'inalienable rights.' The Bill of Rights did not even apply to the states until almost 80 years after the Constitution was amended to include the first 8 amendments with the enactment of the 14th Amendment. But, even today most believe that Freedom of Speech is a protected right in all media, when in fact the 1st Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall pass no law ...".  It does not apply to private entitles and individuals that restrict free speechName it, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, Wikipedia all can restrict free speech. Wiki claims that it does not censure content, but contradicts itself by admitting it is not a forum for unlimited free speech.
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


I would like to know more or hear anyone's input on why these networks need to be regulated in the first place. Is it because the network connections travel across state lines? What about a network that is operated inside a state used by a native of that state? If these networks/businesses and the lines that connect them are all private companies why are they subject to regulation, for the most part, in the first place? [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I retired from private practice just as the Internet was becoming popular in the mid-1990s so I never had the opportunity to defend anyone charged with downloading child or other pornography.  I wish I had had that chance because I find it shocking that an individual can be criminally prosecuted for simply downloading material that is allowed to exist on the Internet. I can think of no greater limitation on free speech. In fact this is a restriction on free observation; a control on what we see and think.  Of course I find child pornography nothing short of revolting.  But I also find a lot of free expression revolting. I find rap and hip hop music tasteless if not outright immoral, but it is legal and I support freedom of expression and speech. We cannot legislate class and morals, so the choice is free speech without boundaries or restricted speech (there are obviously many utterances that cannot be tolerated ... the classic example I learned many years ago in my first year of law school when I took Constitutional and Criminal Law ... you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  There are many instances where the public good must trump individual rights, but to extend that to downloading what one can observe is in my not-so-humble opinion going way too far.


CDA 230 provides too much immunity to intermediaries, almost encouraging them to be negligent. I agree with Palfrey that an intermediary's immunity is extended too broadly. I don't think it would stifle innovation if CDA 230's immunity was  extended more narrowly. It would most likely result in less negligence on behalf of the intermediary (which, according to Palfrey, is happening to a small degree already). [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What is "decent?"  Is it in the eye of the beholder. In the Muslim word it is indecent for a woman to expose her head and face. 100 years ago it was indecent for a woman to expose her legs at a public beach.  


I believe that there must be some restrictions when it comes to national security, fighting words defamation, compelling and government reasons. But I simply cannot accept a restriction on observations.  Before one can be criminally, or even civilly liable for an illegal conspiracy, there must be an overt act ... so kind of participation, albeit a very low bar. But here we can be sent to prison for a very long time for simply observing pornography sent over the airwaves. Tain't fair or just.


February 7: Regulating Speech Online
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:07, 27 February 2013 (EST)


“The US Treasury Department therefore has the right to issue administrative subpoenas (administrative orders) to receive information helpful in the fight against terrorism.  Those subpoenas are secret and are not subject to review by any judge or jury (Meyer and Miller 2006).” 
I would recommend reading a couple of books I am sure most already know about, Networks and States, The Global Politics of Internet Governance by Milton L. Muller (MIT, 2010 and Freedom And Cyberpunks: The Future Of The Internet by Julian Assange (OR Books, 2012).


What I think is actually really compelling about the SWIFT Affair is that there are very different opinions when it comes to surrounding the legality of United States authorization outside of United States jurisdiction, expanding powers, and so on and so forth. Here, I see a clear and very distinct transition from the early part of the article toward the more immediate style of post 9/11 ruthless action.
I had heard of WikiLeaks but not Mr. Assange until he became an International criminal recently when he truly upset our government by leaking top secret information.  At first I was outraged at his conduct and believed he was definitely a cyber terrorist, but upon reading his book which I am continuing to do my views are beginning to change.  Back in college (my first go-round in California during the Vietnam war I found myself in a unique position as a person who had many ultra liberal views, but considered myself a super patriot as well. In a piece I wrote for my college student newspaper supporting the presidency, but not necessarily President Johnson on the way the war was being handled I was dismayed when several letters to the editor referred to me as a "Conservative." After all, I campaigned strongly for Johnson in 1964 (Yes, classmates I may be the oldest Ivy Leaguer, ha, ha) and against Goldwater. But that did not mean I supported his every policy. I did strongly support his domestic policies.


Just what happens in the meantime between this transition to the new world order is what seems most problematic. Who is left out in the cold, and who gets to ride high on the new wave?  Just how are these ''second class US citizens'' fit into the overall landscape of the new world order? It is a slow and painful process.
The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal wised me up that our politicians might be as ruthless as many dictators but the difference could be that while they do not overly murder their opponents as a Saddam Yussein or Joseph Stalin did, but perhaps only because some who would if they could get away with it can't. It is naive to believe that our government leaders are immune from the evilness that abounds in closed societies. We are not a nation of natural born saints. I will not name names but some of our recently leaders have that capacity if they could get away with it.  


However, one of the main ways that we can change norms is through the media. By controlling the media consumption of a particular population, we can slowly shape and change cultural norms.  Other institutions – such as government, educational, as well as religious pillars all shift when new norms are planted by way of mass media consumerism.  The process slowly continues with each new generation.  And there is resistance within older generations.  Particularly within Europe, globalization has hit a bit of a halt.  Although progress within these regions will likely continue through United States intelligence, there is a bit of a lag primarily due to language as well as strong religious barriers set in deep-rooted cultural history.  The Vatican, for instance, controls quite a considerable amount of the population of the planet through religion.  And the physical reality set in the landscape of most of Europe is very rich, full of art and architecture -- which plays a strong role in dictating cultural behavior.  Euro-Disney has remained open, even as the French don't seem all that interested in it.  Those who do not watch television, listen to the radio, play video games, watch films, and are not engaged in mass culture are basically immune.  Yet, for those people we have Google, and now Facebook.  Great Britain still has power, although is not what it used to be after colonization and World War 2.  And the United States – as US intelligence would have us accept – has picked up the torch, so to speak, from Great Britain.  Just how far humanity will go has yet to be seen, but progress continues.  And for the most part, it seems to become a world's strongest man competition when it comes to the command of power across legal boundaries. 
The so-called "Decency Act" is an amendment to the Comstock Act. If any of you are unfamiliar with the anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock after who the act is named, let me familiar you. He was a fanatic whose famous line when asked to define "obscenity" stated he could not define it, but "I know it when I see it."  Not too supportive of the spirit of Due Process and the 14th Amendment is such rhetoric is it?


"In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy over their banking records. Following that decision, US Congress passed the 'Right to Financial Privacy Act' in 1978 to re-establish privacy rights for US bank customers. (Connorton 2007)"
In my first year in law school I took a Legal Methods class and did a term paper on pornography and obscenity which is when I first learned of Mr. Comstock. I was Editor-in-Chief of The Appeal, our school newspaper and my front page article on bottomless dancers resulted in the owners of this definitely "for profit" grade Z law school shutting it down the newspaper for a year. So much for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.


What I am really wondering about here is whether or not, if ever, most of these post 9/11 laws are going to be retracted ... yet, gone with the wind.   
Since then I realized that allowing or restricting freedom of speech is a two-edged sword. Where it stops is often, very often subjective and what is allowed in one era, in one culture, in one country is not allowed in another. Forty years later in many respects we have more censorship today than we did back then. So, I believe we must be very careful how tolerant we are of those who are intolerant.   


"US lawyers have nevertheless tried to sue SWIFT for violating their privacy rights under the Financial Privacy Act. Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse filed a class action lawsuit in a federal court the same day that the New York Times revealed the program, on 26 June 2006. They claimed that the US federal executive branch violated their privacy rights by obtaining their financial data through the SWIFT network."
I do not necessarily subscribe to the Cyberpunk "science" or philosophy chapter and verse, but I see the attempts to squelch free speech on the Internet as a major threat to our very foundation as a democracy.  


I do see a problem in that these new and expansive post 9/11 surveilance powers do conflict with pre-existing privacy laws.   
As a trial lawyer I have prosecuted and defended libel and slander cases, so I have fought for both sides in many cases. I realize that defamation can be almost deadly, but again this is a matter of the specifics on a case-by-case basisAny restriction of free speech must be very carefully weighed and I believe when in doubt allow it.
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


== Links from Class ==
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 16:34, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Latest revision as of 12:39, 4 March 2013

February 26

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, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). 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, 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 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.

Download slides from this week's class.


Readings

  • Case Study: The SPEECH Act

Optional Readings

Links

Links from Adobe Connect Session

US Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

State constitutions: http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm

US regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

Map of the circuit courts and their jurisdictions: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf

The Supreme Court has been taking fewer and fewer cases: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29bar.html?_r=0

The International Shoe test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_v._Washington

A very influential case addressing websites is a district court case from Pittsburgh called Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippo_Manufacturing_Co._v._Zippo_Dot_Com,_Inc

A more recent case of "Libel Tourism" - this time concerning parties from Ethiopia: http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2013/02/25/london-libel-ruling-against-ethiopian-dissident-shows-urgent-need-for-reform/

Shaari v. Harvard: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/427/427mass129.html

This org has done a lot to make sure that online sites have to remove child porn: http://www.missingkids.com/home

The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying


Class Discussion

In watching last week's lecture on the topic of free speech on the Internet it only reminded me that if the United States is to become the leader, or even respected in the Internet world we must design our laws and programs more to promote collaboration with other countries and cultures than using imperialistic measures as we have done since the Monroe Doctrine was formulated. The Wiki rule that that site required collaborative efforts rather than the majority rules principal.

We need to establish our goal of what our participation on the Internet is. If we continue to insist only our way is the right way,God's way then we will never reach and be respected by other cultures. Is it not better to compromise than bully others to follow our culture, rules and principals such as free speech?

Rich 11:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)



TAG: Student ID#10789842

The discussion on Why, How, and Who was insightful. It made me to examine deeper into the concept of online behavioral intent on both a micro and macro level. This specific space (Online) when examined, allows you to weigh both sides of the coin. In one argument censorship or content, which controls this behavior shapes our participation in the internet. On the other side of the coin freedom of speech. Politically more and more countries have taken the position to restrict and control the internet through designed "Nation Boundaries" as mentioned in class.

In the readings concerning the laws of defamation and the restriction of content on the internet, it appears to be flawed. Depending on your country of jurisdiction the interpretation of the laws of defamation or control are interpreted differently. In a global information world which we are all a part of, restrictions are becoming tighter and tighter. An example is France restricted Yahoo to having Nazi memorabilia online. Another way to review this precedent set by the French government, is what if a corporation made tremendous acquisitions? If fundamental islamic fanatic group was to acquire Google, Bing, or both, it could become a paradigm shift in controlling the internet from an acquisition stand point. The article "Funding Evil" extends this point by exam terrorist groups that may try to use these resources to distribute their messages of hate.

The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it.

Have a nice week. Interestingcomments 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)

This week there were fabulous document that discussed internet security. Programs such as our adobe can at times be considered to indexed. Here the issue is whether hyperbole or preposition is defined or at least contextualized. Bearing with the notion that "more is better" I shall continue typing: Here the reader shall notice that a program as it may be quoted is merely a type of application that is for sanitary use. Therefore, the internet decidedly is not the same as a program and the program is not necessarily reliant on the internet per se. In conclusion to this stream of logic the type of compartmentalized information is not the actual understanding that something can be a mobile storehouse of information without affirmative action. Since computers are only affirmative in their position there leaves the possibil;ity for autocorrecting such documents and this very notion is the idea here of internet security. Johnathan Merkwan 12:51, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Reading the Wikipedia article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prompted me to think about cyber-security and where liability should fall if private information was hacked and released and later deemed as defamatory. Earlier in the course I posted a Gizmodo article on Apple’s iMessage server being hacked and I am beginning to wonder if, as online hubs of information grow to become more institutional, individuals who are targets of cyber attacks will start blaming the companies that have their private information stored on their servers. I foresee that as the internet and cloud take on greater roles in the institutionalization of business and everyday life, that issues like these will start arising. As to the Ars Technica interview, I think that scaling back protection for service providers in order to protect children presents a weak claim. I think doing so would severely alter the costs of operating a site like Myspace or Facebook. Also, it is my personal belief that a parent should be responsible for teaching their children how to correctly use the web and exercise safe practices online. I feel that extending liability and limiting free speech poses a great danger at a minor benefit of altering section 230 for a very specific purpose. AaronEttl 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)

I was very interested to read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I very much support the idea that the internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service, where the company itself does not exersize creative control over the content (i.e. deleting a post is not a basis for liability). Although I am not an expert, this regime would seem to be different from Canada where we have witnessed very prominent internet communities being brought to their knees by posts made by one or two offenders. My proposed research article, on lawbuzz.ca, will be very much concerned with ideas contained in the s. 230 of the CDA and I looking forward to comparing your legal regime with Canada's. Joshywonder 21:35, 25 February 2013 (EST)

In was quite an interesting read about Section 230 for this class, however in my view, suing diverse websites for such defamatory content is virtually impossible. Since the information is distributed, diverse websites seem to be immune from liability and responsibility to screen or remove the offending content. Who is responsible then? While a clear understanding of Section 230 is present, its critics are more valuable and portray a completely new approach when dealing with Internet content facilitators. In my view, interpretation of Section 230, can grant an immense immunity to companies or website that provide service or content (inappropriate) to realm the defamation factor altogether. What about speech? In my view, defamation is not only the single area of law, but it could be found as a refuge under Section 230 immunity. A section 230 has been interpreted so broadly in my view, that it has protected diverse types of speech, which was intended to prevent from precise inappropriate behavior. user777 11:12, 26 February 2013 (EST)

The readings on Section 230 reminded me of Zittrain's argument that it was not inevitable that the internet world would turn out the way it is today. I think Section 230 and the way the courts have broadly interpreted it to protect internet service providers and social website companies has been, and still is, key to the success of the internet and maintaining that spirit of freedom the internet is known for. I agree with AaronEttl that Section 230's protections shouldn't be narrowed, especially if the reason is to increase online safety for young users. In addition to traditional education ("don't talk to strangers" adjusted and applied online), there are also plenty of parental filtering tools that can be used by individuals themselves. ISPs and websites that are not content publishers should not be held responsible for the actions of internet users, although they certainly can act according to their own company policies, which in turn would be determined by the company's principles, values, and target audience/market. It is not the shopping mall owner's fault if a person walks in and suddenly strips naked or does something worse. --Muromi 11:43, 26 February 2013 (EST)

I concur with Joshywonder’s statement above: I support the idea that the Internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service. However, in some circumstances, I think the Internet provider should play a mitigation role. While reading about defamation this week, online bullying emerged in my mind. Social networking has changed the landscape with bullying, especially for children and adolescents. Mass media presents a series of legal issues, as outlined on the Citizen Media Law site, but defamation via media has always been present. Online confrontation among elementary and high school students highlights a distinct reality. An adult may take action if one’s name is tarnished, but youth will rarely take bullying to the legal arena. That said, it would be interesting to read more case studies surrounding the actions service providers have taken, when youth defamation scenarios have surfaced. In our readings this week, the examples were excellent, but I’d also be interested in learning about specific cases against Facebook, or Twitter, or Orkut. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate reactions from other countries. For example, do other governments/courts of law acknowledge online youth bullying, and if so, is action taken? Or, is online bullying more prevalent in the U.S. due to cultural/environmental factors?

It has become apparent in the first month of this course that online “freedom of speech” is a complex topic. I very much enjoyed the discussion between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, because both arguments shed light on valid points. Thierer: “What I worry about, is that a new liability standard might not leave sufficient room for flexibility or experimentation. If Congress altered Section 230 (or the courts tipped the balance) such that negligence claims could be brought too easily, I think that could have a chilling effect on a great deal of legitimate online speech, especially for many smaller social networking sites and up-and-coming operators.” This argument is in-line with our readings from two weeks ago: More Confusion about Internet “Freedom.” Suppressing freedom of speech can, in some circumstances, cause more damage than good. If inhibited, our founding principles may not be upheld; but at the same time, there is an enormous unknown gray area between right and wrong communication practices.

Palfrey’s response in reference to this statement is also worth noting: “My proposal would be to leave the question of negligence on the part of service providers….[W]e need a range of community-based solutions that put parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, kids themselves, law enforcement, social workers, technologists and online service providers to work.” In other words, the battle to uphold decency cannot be done alone. Society at-large must step up to the plate as online communication evolves. It begins with new policies and trickles-down through law enforcement officials, community leaders, and parents, ultimately impacting the instigators. Although “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” as outlined in the Wikipedia post (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), we all play a role to protect the vulnerable. Many youth who are bullied have no options available, no protection, and no escape. Given recent tragedies surrounding youth defamation, from my perspective, extreme circumstances should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and pursued as appropriate. Zak Paster 12:05, 26 February 2013 (EST)

@Zak, I agree with your general stance on ISP immunity from individual expression, but, like Adam Thierer from the reading, I’m not as clear on the extreme circumstances that would warrant an information provider to intervene. Let’s take your example of online bullying. Online bullying does not happen in a vacuum; it usually happens as an extension of real-life interactions. This creates a number of concerns. First, how will an information provider recognize bullying? The danger is that this could be broadly interpreted. It may not be bullying at all, but an inside joke or nod to some real life context. It would be impossible to understand the entirety of the context offline. Second, if content is taken down or mitigated, this could make it seem as though the victim needed to seek out help. That might make the victim feel more weak and disempowered and it might exacerbate the bullying in real life. So I guess my question is, when it comes to something like online bullying, how do we make it so that the victim still has control over the situation and not make it seem like some third party came in to resolve the issue (because the victim tattletaled) ? I agree society at large needs to protect the vulnerable, especially in public forums. And I agree that we as a society must manage online bullying, we just have to be careful that the solution is not just “this is bullying, remove the content.” Asmith 15:48, 26 February 2013 (EST)

I was interested in the issues raised by Funding Evil and impressed by the speed in which several states and then Congress responded to the verdict against the author in the UK. I did some follow up research on the topic, and could find one of the four other texts that were taken out of publication available on line, and was interested in how the libraries who had purchased one of the earlier texts (Alms for Jihad) responded to the publisher's request to destroy the book. (They didn't. And then several moved the books to reserve or hold desks so that they could make sure the book was not stolen or destroyed.) I checked the mainstream newspapers of the US and could find no review of the book Funding Evil, either before or after the court case in the UK, and it had me wonder if the book has gotten significantly more readers and attention from the trial and the publicity surrounding the trial then it ever would have received without it. Alms for Jihad, did not receive the attention or the increase in sales (it is, I think, out of print, and only available at libraries who have not destroyed it and also online as a pdf.) What can and cannot be written on the internet, who gets to decide, and who is liable if someone makes the wrong decision looks to be something we will be discussing as a society for quite a while. Bullying, lies, false information are all easier on the internet, but also more public, easier to find out and if you are an adult, easier to counter by publishing your own response. Raven 16:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)

The American people are, as a rule, hostile towards the dubious authority of international law; in instances in which foreign actors initiate civil proceedings against Americans in foreign countries, no American stands to benefit should the American state comply with the demands of an alien court. While couched in a simpering context of self-righteous "principle," the SPEECH Act correctly secures the prerogatives of Americans to say and do as they please, irrespective of the preferences of those whose interests the American government does not exist to represent. Although, perhaps understandably, the Act concedes the authority of foreign states to punish expression given the application of defamation laws analogous to our own, the spirit of the SPEECH Act defends those whose interests its purpose it to defend- the American people- instead of confusing the interests of the world community with the interests of a state and its citizens, which is what opponents of legislation like the SPEECH Act insist that states and their citizens do. Johnfloyd6675 17:19, 26 February 2013 (EST)

The Communications Decency Act provides legal immunity from liability for internet service providers who publish information provided by others. In my opinion, this is a common sense law which is just - you shouldn't attempt to hold an ISP legally liable for what their customers post online - as well as practical, as holding an ISP accountable would give them significant responsibility to screen and monitor all their customers' Internet activity, which not only would would be unusually burdensome but also would possibly infringe on some of their customers' privacy rights. Online service providers should be no more liable than any similar physical-based offering. CyberRalph 17:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Just a quick link to share. This is a great and simple visualization of net neutrality: http://www.theopeninter.net/ Asmith 22:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Having been a criminal (and thus also a Constitutional) trail and appellate lawyer for decades I have always had a profound interest in the First Amendment. It is one of the most misunderstood of all of our 'inalienable rights.' The Bill of Rights did not even apply to the states until almost 80 years after the Constitution was amended to include the first 8 amendments with the enactment of the 14th Amendment. But, even today most believe that Freedom of Speech is a protected right in all media, when in fact the 1st Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall pass no law ...". It does not apply to private entitles and individuals that restrict free speech. Name it, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, Wikipedia all can restrict free speech. Wiki claims that it does not censure content, but contradicts itself by admitting it is not a forum for unlimited free speech.

I retired from private practice just as the Internet was becoming popular in the mid-1990s so I never had the opportunity to defend anyone charged with downloading child or other pornography. I wish I had had that chance because I find it shocking that an individual can be criminally prosecuted for simply downloading material that is allowed to exist on the Internet. I can think of no greater limitation on free speech. In fact this is a restriction on free observation; a control on what we see and think. Of course I find child pornography nothing short of revolting. But I also find a lot of free expression revolting. I find rap and hip hop music tasteless if not outright immoral, but it is legal and I support freedom of expression and speech. We cannot legislate class and morals, so the choice is free speech without boundaries or restricted speech (there are obviously many utterances that cannot be tolerated ... the classic example I learned many years ago in my first year of law school when I took Constitutional and Criminal Law ... you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are many instances where the public good must trump individual rights, but to extend that to downloading what one can observe is in my not-so-humble opinion going way too far.

What is "decent?" Is it in the eye of the beholder. In the Muslim word it is indecent for a woman to expose her head and face. 100 years ago it was indecent for a woman to expose her legs at a public beach.

I believe that there must be some restrictions when it comes to national security, fighting words defamation, compelling and government reasons. But I simply cannot accept a restriction on observations. Before one can be criminally, or even civilly liable for an illegal conspiracy, there must be an overt act ... so kind of participation, albeit a very low bar. But here we can be sent to prison for a very long time for simply observing pornography sent over the airwaves. Tain't fair or just.

Rich 10:07, 27 February 2013 (EST)

I would recommend reading a couple of books I am sure most already know about, Networks and States, The Global Politics of Internet Governance by Milton L. Muller (MIT, 2010 and Freedom And Cyberpunks: The Future Of The Internet by Julian Assange (OR Books, 2012).

I had heard of WikiLeaks but not Mr. Assange until he became an International criminal recently when he truly upset our government by leaking top secret information. At first I was outraged at his conduct and believed he was definitely a cyber terrorist, but upon reading his book which I am continuing to do my views are beginning to change. Back in college (my first go-round in California during the Vietnam war I found myself in a unique position as a person who had many ultra liberal views, but considered myself a super patriot as well. In a piece I wrote for my college student newspaper supporting the presidency, but not necessarily President Johnson on the way the war was being handled I was dismayed when several letters to the editor referred to me as a "Conservative." After all, I campaigned strongly for Johnson in 1964 (Yes, classmates I may be the oldest Ivy Leaguer, ha, ha) and against Goldwater. But that did not mean I supported his every policy. I did strongly support his domestic policies.

The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal wised me up that our politicians might be as ruthless as many dictators but the difference could be that while they do not overly murder their opponents as a Saddam Yussein or Joseph Stalin did, but perhaps only because some who would if they could get away with it can't. It is naive to believe that our government leaders are immune from the evilness that abounds in closed societies. We are not a nation of natural born saints. I will not name names but some of our recently leaders have that capacity if they could get away with it.

The so-called "Decency Act" is an amendment to the Comstock Act. If any of you are unfamiliar with the anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock after who the act is named, let me familiar you. He was a fanatic whose famous line when asked to define "obscenity" stated he could not define it, but "I know it when I see it." Not too supportive of the spirit of Due Process and the 14th Amendment is such rhetoric is it?

In my first year in law school I took a Legal Methods class and did a term paper on pornography and obscenity which is when I first learned of Mr. Comstock. I was Editor-in-Chief of The Appeal, our school newspaper and my front page article on bottomless dancers resulted in the owners of this definitely "for profit" grade Z law school shutting it down the newspaper for a year. So much for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Since then I realized that allowing or restricting freedom of speech is a two-edged sword. Where it stops is often, very often subjective and what is allowed in one era, in one culture, in one country is not allowed in another. Forty years later in many respects we have more censorship today than we did back then. So, I believe we must be very careful how tolerant we are of those who are intolerant.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the Cyberpunk "science" or philosophy chapter and verse, but I see the attempts to squelch free speech on the Internet as a major threat to our very foundation as a democracy.

As a trial lawyer I have prosecuted and defended libel and slander cases, so I have fought for both sides in many cases. I realize that defamation can be almost deadly, but again this is a matter of the specifics on a case-by-case basis. Any restriction of free speech must be very carefully weighed and I believe when in doubt allow it.

Rich 16:34, 27 February 2013 (EST)