Regulating Speech Online
February 18
The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. 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 balance the rights of speakers with the interests in safeguarding minors from offensive content? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? When a user of a website says something defamatory, when should we punish the user and when should we punish the website?
In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.
Joining us this week will be Jeff Hermes, Director of the Digital Media Law Project.
Assignments
The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class next week (Feb. 25th). Information on the assignment can be found here.
Readings
- Private and public control of speech online
- Berkman Center, How Internet Censorship Works (about 7 mins., watch all)
- Biz Stone and Alex Macgillivary, The Tweets Must Flow and The Tweets Still Must Flow
- Speech laws and liabilities in the United States
- Cross-border concerns
- Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech (audio interview, about 9 mins., listen to all)
Optional Readings
- 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)
Links from Class Discussion
Class Discussion
"The spread of information networks (the internet) is forming a new nervous system for our planet" - Hilary Clinton.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw
For governments to react expeditiously to help individuals or communities in distress, there must be freedom of speech online. But for this to be effective, the process need to be organized and formalized. Individuals need to ensure they are not sending noises and gibberish but useful information so that either the government or other able individuals, NGO's, or even private corporations can come to the rescue.
Ichua 06:57, 12 February 2014 (EST)
I have to say, I found "The Delete Squad" article by Jeffrey Rosen to be extremely interesting. While I find hate speech despicable, I agree with the conclusion at which "The Deciders" arrived, to intervene only in rare cases in which resulting violence appeared imminent. In this age of prolific internet bullying, I can see how many people (particularly parents) might be inclined to argue that regulations must be implemented, but to me the solution seems to lie more so in the individual's own usage of the internet. By this I mean to say that a person should be responsible for restricting his or her (or his or her child's) internet usage so that he or she is not actively involved in sites which might be problematic. Castille 02:26, 15 February 2014 (EST)