Regulating Speech Online - Revision history

Rich: /* Class Discussion */

2013-03-04T16:39:53Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 4 March 2013
Line 60:		Line 60:

	==Class Discussion==		==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?

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





	TAG: Student ID#10789842		TAG: Student ID#10789842

Rich: /* Class Discussion */

2013-02-27T21:34:01Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 27 February 2013
Line 132:		Line 132:

	[[User:Rich\|Rich]] 10:07, 27 February 2013 (EST)		[[User:Rich\|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.

			[[User:Rich\|Rich]] 16:34, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Ryanb at 18:13, 27 February 2013

2013-02-27T18:13:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 27 February 2013
Line 34:		Line 34:

	===Links from Adobe Connect Session===		===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>

Ryanb at 18:06, 27 February 2013

2013-02-27T18:06:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 27 February 2013
Line 30:		Line 30:

	* [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://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)]

			==Links==

			===Links from Adobe Connect Session===

	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>

Ryanb at 18:03, 27 February 2013

2013-02-27T18:03:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 27 February 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	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.		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.]		'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-02-26-Regulating_Speech_Online.pdf Download slides from this week's class.]'''

	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>

Ryanb at 18:01, 27 February 2013

2013-02-27T18:01:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 27 February 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:

	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>

	== Readings ==		== Readings ==

Rich: /* Class Discussion */

2013-02-27T15:07:15Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 27 February 2013
Line 95:		Line 95:

	****		****

			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.

			[[User:Rich\|Rich]] 10:07, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: /* Class Discussion */

2013-02-27T03:46:02Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 27 February 2013
Line 92:		Line 92:
	****		****

	Just a quick link to share. This is a great and simple visualization of net neutrality: http://www.theopeninter.net/ ~~````~~		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)

	****		****

Asmith: /* Class Discussion */

2013-02-27T03:45:38Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 27 February 2013
Line 89:		Line 89:

	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)		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)

			****

			Just a quick link to share. This is a great and simple visualization of net neutrality: http://www.theopeninter.net/ ````

	****		****

Johnfloyd6675 at 23:32, 26 February 2013

2013-02-26T23:32:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 26 February 2013
Line 83:		Line 83:
	[[User:Raven\|Raven]] 16:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)		[[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 ~~expressive acts unprotected by~~ the ~~First Amendment~~, 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.		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)		[[User:Johnfloyd6675\|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:19, 26 February 2013 (EST)