Speech, Day 1: Free Expression, Information, and Unwanted Speech

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


March 10

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 speak to a wide audience. With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? Is this form of information dissemination a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better- informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? When different countries take different approaches on speech, whose values should take precedence? This class will explore speech online, the laws and corporations that regulate it, and how the Internet deals with speech that is hateful, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable.


Assignments

The second half of Assignment 2 (commenting on at least three prospectuses) is due before class today.


Readings

Speech Theory
Informing the Public in the Internet Age
Private, public, and platforms - control of speech online
Unwanted and Dangerous Speech

Optional Readings


Links from Class Discussion

Text of First Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Elonis case and true threats: https://verdict.justia.com/2014/12/10/supreme-court-considers-true-threats-first-amendment

Prior Restraint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Original printing press in harvard square: http://www.harvardsquare.com/history/historical-sites/harvard-book-store

George Carlin's 7 dirty words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

Your fourth amendment rights in schools are also limited in schools - Acton v. Vernonia School District: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html

Shut down of Harvard Yard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Harvard#Gates_of_Harvard_Yard

OU Racist Chant: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/10/fallout-oklahoma-racist-video/24691017/

LaGuardia plane skids: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/plane-skids-off-laguardia-airport-runway/

Trolls online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Doxing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

Heckling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler

Louis CK on the difference between online and offline bullying: http://patch.com/new-york/windsorterrace/louis-ck-explains-how-to-fight-cyberbullying_6c57dbfd

Donald Sterling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

Cost of film tax credit: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/18/cost-film-tax-credit-per-mass-job/LGHOSjvkPrfwMyK4xYS79N/story.html

CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

CDA 230: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Ben Edelman: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/12/10/harvard_professor_rages_at_chinese_restaurant_he_may_have_even_gotten_the.html

White Hats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)

Black Hats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)#Black_hat

Google Bug Bounty: http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/

Press badges recognized by a lot of events: http://www.ia-pp.com/iapp-press-pass.html

Boston Marathon Bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

Press Association Page: http://uspressassociation.org/page.php?18

Reddit goes looking for Boston Bombers: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/04/reddit_and_the_boston_marathon_bombings_how_the_site_reckoned_with_its_own.html

Breaking News consumer handbook: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/20/224498227/on-the-media-presents-a-consumers-guide-to-breaking-news

Class Discussion

REMINDER
Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.


Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

I really liked this week’s readings as we start to enter the topics about speech. It certainly is an interesting and back and forth topic as we must consider the implications of allowing speech (first Amendment), or censoring it incase of certain harms. (such as Apple removing the shaking baby and Bush countdown apps) The Innocence of the Muslim is definitely the most controversial of them all. Though I do agree with Facebook’s and YouTube’s decisions to only censor it for countries that it is considered offensive, and keep it up in the United States due to the first Amendment. The Constitution was created hundreds of years ago, and just as Professor Sellars has said, it’s not like its California Constitution that could be given less importance. The First Amendment has great importance and would be extremely hard to undermine or to change. This reflects hugely on laws that govern the United States as well as firms based in the US. (which means a lot of websites)

It is quite shocking to realize that verification is so difficult on the internet. As Professor Sellars has mentioned, credit card verification for age is difficult for non-commercial websites since extra costs would be required that threatens them to close down. Passwords wouldn’t help much either. With it’s enforcement, even the government has doubts of its ability to really identify if a person is under 18 and visiting a pornographic website. This tough verification process isn’t just in explicit websites but very important too in media outlets on the web. The “blurring” between amateurs and professionals and the different forms of media forces companies to adapt. Profitability comes from internet traffic and when that is the main concern, the quality of the news becomes secondary. There is a conflict on interest between internet traffic and quality of news. As long as traffic is high, it justifies the lower quality of news.

As such, the unfortunate feedback loop of how these fake rumor news becomes headlines and makes the news environment highly delusional. Furthermore, when multiple news outlets release the same fake story, it becomes self fulfilling. The belief that “perception is reality” makes people believe in the rumor already even if they know it is fake. They would associate “some truths” to it. But that should be left for another time to discuss. According to Silverman, the trend goes like this: a rumor happens on the internet, then some news outlets report it. It therefore gains traction which makes more news media outlets think it is legitimate and also report it. With so many news websites supporting it, it gains credibility and could no longer trace the source of origin anymore. This is all due to the inability to verify, or the ignorance to verify rumors, especially when these rumor news generate a lot of internet traffic, which translates into advertisement money or click-through-rates, etc.

As mentioned above, the First Amendment is the basic Constitutional law of the United States and would be extremely hard to undermine or ignore. It is in built into the American way of life. This provides the breeding ground of another huge debate between the increasing amount of internet platforms (which are mostly US companies) and the traditional industries that generate content. The former wants “immunity from third party claims” whereas the latter wants laws against copyright infringement. It is hard to satisfy both sides, but both sides do have their points as well. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes copyright work. Yet in contrast, radio and television that infringe this law in live broadcasts tend to be given a better treatment than do websites that are live all the time.

Next I’d like to talk about whether hate speech should be censored. There is always the consideration of censoring hate speech to prevent potential harms coming the way of the institutions or countries. Yet is it against the fundamental laws of that country? I think what Facebook and YouTube did on the video “Innocence of the Muslims” reflected their careful thinking in balancing between regulations (and potential consequences) and the belief of maintaining freedom of speech. According to Rosen, Wong and Willner had the conviction to do what they believed in. Willner finalized Facebook’s hate speech policy to “ban attack on groups, but not institutions”. This was a very good framework to start from. It prevents discrimination to groups of people, but allows opinions towards things, like institutions. This actually resonates with the Waze Traffic application. Facebook and Google (YouTube) were smart to make changes dependent on the laws of those countries it affects. The Waze application lets the app users know where police are. I do not see a problem with this as they are on public territory and once again should be protected by the First Amendment. If it protects me to tell my friend that a cop car is in front of me, it should also protect me to tell people using the app that a cop car is in front of me. This action should be exactly the same.

Now I’d like to give some views on this topic. It is a very fine line between allowing speech to be free on the internet, and potential hazards or discriminations that could occur due to that. I really liked the way Facebook (Willner) did it. I too agree that groups of people should not be allowed to be discriminated against, but institutions should be given the freedom to be criticized if necessary. A just way could be achieved from this. If localizing rules and regulations to websites is plausible (as we learned in previous lectures from the Yahoo case with Nazi products in France), then it should also be plausible to filter down to see what sort of speeches would be against local laws in different countries. I do not agree with the way Apple does things; being scared and taking down apps because they were afraid that a backlash would occur. Corporations should take a strong stance on this too. Yet I feel that because the internet has grown so quickly, it is hard to create “norms” for the internet society. Who should regulate them? Ideally I think a government department should be in charge of this; to create laws and regulations as well as guidelines for these potential sensitive issues. Make it universal so corporations like Facebook and Google could follow. If these two giant corporations follow, so would the rest of the internet.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/32505

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf

http://towcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LiesDamnLies_Silverman_TowCenter.pdf

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/NOC_United_States_case_study.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules

https://medium.com/internet-monitor-2014-public-discourse/flower-speech-new-responses-to-hatred-online-d98bf67735b7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfS_2oXVch0


Caelum (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2015 (EST)



On the topic of ISIS use of Twitter, you may want to check out the brand new study by the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. BoingBoing already pulled some highlights. Andy (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

The Hypocrisy of Watchers: Waze

Full concurrence with Caelum; this has been a fascinating week of readings.

I was caught especially by the New York Times article about the Waze mobile traffic app alerting users to locations of police cars in their neighborhoods.

I’ve noted this app before on the app store and I always viewed it as similar to those pseudo-spy/surveillance shops. Surely, some kind of undercover detail was covering these places and keeping a sort of watch and tracking of who was buying super secret surveillance cameras that could be hidden inside bobby pins and fountain pens. Surely, these places are tracked and watched themselves by law enforcement. Moreso if these shops are online and it is easier than ever to not only determine who is buying these on the edge of legality spy gadgets, but where they are and what their other purchasing history might be. I associated apps like Waze to be in a similar category; not illegal but certainly not chummy with law enforcement. And certainly watched.

But this is the conspiracist in me. That enforcement is actually concerned enough about these apps seems to imply that they have no real way to track users.

So why do watchers fear being watched? Are they afraid that they will become targets? Law enforcement? So long as they have police cars and wear uniforms that all of us can actually see, unfortunately, they will always be targets to those who want them to be.

It seems that this is more a protest against loss of speeding ticket revenues using the pretense of safety concerns.

In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. The mere presence and reminder is enough to keep law-abiding citizens on the up and up. Waze has a similar effect. If anything, it reminds drivers that we are being watched. And watchers would much rather see things from the shadows than from the spotlight.

This case of protest from law enforcement is a fascinating miniature study into the broader topic of this week’s readings. Watchers don’t appreciate being watched themselves because it has a chilling effect on society when we know and identify those giant cameras in the room. Interestingly, it is an example where the chilling effect is on behavior and on behavior that is illegal or not appropriate to begin with. A positive chilling effect if ever there was one.

The only major loss I see here is that from a traffic enforcement perspective, speeders are going to slow down and as a result, majorly impede police enforcement’s abilities to bring revenue from speed traps. We cannot punish society from sharing public information. Waze deals with public information about police cars parked or located in full view. It simply propates the information so that we “see” the police car one intersection earlier. If law enforcement were truly fearful of their own safety and fearful of targeting, then they wouldn’t put sirens on their cars or decals on their doors or drive around in a police badge or uniform. If they were truly afraid of the light, they’d hide in the darkness wearing not uniforms but in plainscothes and driving unmarked police cars.

In the broader scope of discussion between the tensions of free speech and public safety – this is a case where I fail to see the public safety argument coming on top. It just doesn’t work when it comes from the mouths of the ones who have the most (or, theoretically should have the most) resources to watch and control society.

Chanel

Chanel Rion (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

I’m fascinated by the topics of free speech, dangerous speech, and harassment online, especially as someone who feels passionate about making the Internet a safer place for women. I have always supported the U.S. Constitution’s steadfast devotion to free speech, but some of the vitriol and abuse I have observed against women online has made me question whether free speech above all other values is too simplistic an approach. My doubts particularly grew throughout the Gamergate phenomenon, during which I observed mind-boggling misogyny directed both to the general online world of women, as well as to specific individuals. It was at that point that I realized that I am personally not in favor of free speech at all costs, since online, the speech of some can silence the speech of others through intimidation and fear. I agree with Ethan Zuckerman free speech is a false concept, since lack of censorship will still lead to certain voices getting suppressed.

Because of this, I was particularly intrigued by Susan Benesch’s research and the idea that hate speech and dangerous speech can be combatted through counter speech, rather than censorship or restrictions. I also found it interesting that social media platforms can make subtle changes to their layout or user experience in order to encourage or discourage certain types of speech. It reinforces the idea that engineers working in Silicon Valley wield incredible power with the choices they make in designing social platforms, and it also highlights the importance of diversity in that workforce, based on the social implications of even the most subtle design choices.

The question that still lingers for me is how the tactic of counter speech might work in self-selecting communities, such as a men’s rights forum. In those cases, there most likely won’t be a larger community to temper conversation through counter speech, but the conversation that takes place on those sites could still potentially spur someone to commit violent action. For example, in the case of the Isla Vista shooter, it’s known that he was involved with men’s rights groups online, but it’s less clear how directly members of those groups incited him to action. It seems that the lines defining incitement and threats are growing blurrier as a result of the Internet, which presents problems of its own when that might be the only justification for restricting certain speech on a site, or addressing it from a legal standpoint (I’m also reminded of the Elonis vs. United States case, where the lines have been particularly blurry as well).

Despite the additional questions that crop up, and some nuances that still aren’t clear to me, I find Susan Benesch’s approach intriguing and promising.

Beccalew (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

“In Japan, they have life size silhouettes and pictures of police officers with whistles in their mouths reminding drivers to keep to the speed limit and drive carefully. The result has been that these signs have proven to be effective at preventing traffic infringements on Japanese roadways. “

Great point Chanel, I am in Japan right now and that is what I am seeing all the time when I drive around! They even have fake posters of cop cars with sirens on! Definitely a great chilling effect.

Since the topic is about ISIS, I’d like to share this video that gives a good summary of ISIS. http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

“Almost one in five ISIS supporters selected English as their primary language when using Twitter. Three quarters selected Arabic (section 1.5).”

I think this is an important issue because their purpose of using Twitter would likely to spread their beliefs and thoughts. English is a great medium to do things after all.


“A minimum of 1,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were suspended between September and December 2014, and we saw evidence of potentially thousands more. Accounts that tweeted most often and had the most followers were most likely to be suspended (section 2.5.1).”

I wonder where this kicks in in the security vs. free speech debate. My initial thoughts are that it’s such a sensitive topic that something has to be done. ISIS has definitely done a great deal to promote themselves on social media as evident from the high volume and number of active ISIS users. One in five uses English which really questions who these people are? Are they really radicals and extremists? Not to summarize or generalize, but I believe having some exposure to English means that they probably seen the world in more than one perspective before. If so, wouldn’t they become less of an extremist? Now what questions me is that ISIS might have hired people to help them promote themselves on social media. If so, who is willing to help them? For money? Is it moral to help a group like ISIS? Or wait, did they capture people to do it for them forcefully?

By looking at “Top Hashtags” on page 20 from Berger and Morgan, we could see ISIS references far outweigh other topics in the Middle East. It is not only raising awareness for their group, but also creates this “fear” in other users. This is now the hot topic, and I fear that news outlets would just use this as an excuse to create more traffic for their websites. Afterall, most of these websites only focus on the traffic. And as mentioned in my previous post, over time other news outlets would follow along and it gives “legitimacy” to ISIS. Which is exactly what we do not want. It gives recognition to their group.

“Suspensions, of which Twitter made more than a thousand by December, may have unintended consequences, including cutting off ISIS supporters from beneficial social pressures on Twitter.” – Berger and Morgan.

This is great news, but I do not believe there are smart enough algorithms to track this yet. I believe the data is available, but its more about how we extract this out. I found this website and findings very fascinating. It detaches the extremists from the average Twitter user, which means their objective of spreading their beliefs and causing fear in others would fail. The unintended consequences by Twitter has definitely done more good than harm (from the Western anti-ISIS perspective of course).

Yet it does lurk another question. If there’s more interactions between extremists, did we just help ISIS filter out potential members? Did we just help them find more hardcore supporters that would do their deed? Afterall sifting through hundreds of thousands of people on Twitter isn’t easy. By threatening their existence by deleting accounts, we might have made it easier for them to find loyal followers. (literally, not just on Twitter) Of course all of this is unfalsifiable and we could never prove this unless we go back in time.

After reading those two articles, I start to wonder if platforms are just platforms, or are they much more? So I had a thought about this, imagine a huge whiteboard in a public space. The intention is for people to write on it. It is a public good. It just “exists”. It is a platform for drawings and messages. Some people would draw funny stuff, some would write inspirational stuff. Yet I am sure, some would write religious and philosophical beliefs on it too. Or beliefs that say they despise a group of people. I understand that it is offensive to some groups of people, but what if the sole purpose of that whiteboard was to be a public good so people could write “anything” they want? Or is that too farfetched? Too idealistic of a world? In that case we could say that we never really have full freedom of speech. But then ISIS isn’t protected by the First Amendment! But what if some members of ISIS are Americans?

This issue seems to bring up more questions than it answers. Or perhaps I’m just asking too many questions. Not sure if they’re stupid questions, but they’re just taking over my head. Does the First Amendment only protect Americans? So if Americans uses hate-speech on Twitter to express their disliking of a group, is that protected by the First Amendment or not? I hope I am not ignorant here and just writing about something that has already been answered.

References:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan/the-isis-twitter-census-defining-and-describing-the-population-of-isis-supporters-on-twitter.pdf

http://youtu.be/AQPlREDW-Ro

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/07/isis-vs-twitter-a-cautionary.html

Caelum (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

I was most interested this week in thinking about how most people come at free speech and the Internet and what, as Andy points out, is the legal, structural reality. The Berkman Center video quoted Clay Shirky plainly enough: “The Internet is not a public sphere. It is a private sphere that tolerate public speech.” At first pass, our reactions to censorship on the Internet are largely on first-amendment grounds. This is a public forum, my speech is protected! Indeed, as Shirky points out, this is not so. Regardless of whether you’re posting on Facebook, your blog, or the New York Times comment thread, if you’re posting online, you’re almost guaranteed to be posting on a privately-owned website with a content policy you implicitly agreed to by hitting “post.”

As we’ve already mentioned several times in class, many major companies are making a good faith effort to keep their sites as open to speech as possible. As Rob Faris mentioned, speculators after the ECJ case thought Google was going to grant or throw away all requests for removal of information, either to clog the European court system with 250,000 suits or remove so much content that their search engine was half-useless. Instead, they set out to attempt to find the best route for balancing free speech with legitimate claims against speech. We read in Rosen’s article about the effectiveness of Facebook’s policy dividing individual members of a group from institutions—Facebook (and YouTube) lets is users say, “I hate Islam” but not, “I hate Muslims.” This give and take may be the best effort of international corporations to provide as much speech as possible while complying with local laws and social norms. We read a number of other articles this week that complicate this picture.

As emerged first in our conversation about Google: if you’re a European and you request Google to remove content and it refuses, you may bring your case before a court. If your request is granted, there is no higher authority than the company itself, and your information is removed even if it shouldn’t have been. Andy fleshed out the mechanics of this logic in his article with three structural observations: 1) private companies have set the free speech bar beneath first amendment levels of protection, 2) there is no appeal process; the company owns the interaction, it is not public, and 3) company censorship policies can change without warning; these policies are not the product of a legislative process.

The structural fact of the matter is that users are agents agreeing to the platform’s terms of service—not full citizens with rights as strong as they would be while standing on a soapbox. Major online companies (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) have already indicated they are interested in making an effort to balance these concerns. But can we say we have free speech online? Certainly not.

MattK (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Firstly, I would like to problematize the assertion ”…anyone with an Internet connection can speak to a wide audience.” that you can find in the introduction at the top of this page. An Internet connection does of course give you a better opportunity to reach out to a lot of people, but not having an Internet connection is not the only obstacle to reaching out to a great amount of people.

Only because you post something on the Internet, you don´t automatically reach out to the masses, get a great amount of retweets, a lot of readers on your blog, a comment field full of activity, or a lot of likes. There are several possible barriers to reach out such as language, money, contacts and knowledge. For example, if you speak English, you can take part of more material and reach out to more people than you could´ve done if you did not speak English. You also have a great advantage if you have knowledge about how to effectively use the Internet, how to do your research, how you reach out, etc. Money and contacts can also help you in reaching out on the Internet. That makes this subject more complex than if first might seem to be.

Another relevant issue to bring up is the fact that the media landscape has been reshaped and constantly is. This is however not a new phenomena, the debate on ”what will happen with the media” was blooming back when the radio was invented, when the TV came, etc. However, the Internet differs from earlier inventions since it is much more easy for the average Joe to post whatever he or she likes with just a click. With that comes both possibilities and difficulties. For example is credibility something we have to be more observant about than ever. And the fact that everyone creates their own news feed depending on for example who they choose to follow on Twitter, can be a great problem since people get very different news and views of the world presented to them. I would say that this problem has increased since the Internet became such a big part of our lives and of how we read news. What is new is also that it is more difficult to reach out to everyone when we all have our own news feeds, since broadcasting something on the radio or writing in the newspaper no longer is a guarantee for reaching out to the masses.

JosefinS (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

lots of different, interesting topics. I have a couple of posts, here is the first one.

The internet and the news media. Before I settled on English literature as a focus on my undergraduate studies I declared journalism as a major. One of the best classes I took was analyzing headlines. Back then in the 90’s the internet was still in its infancy and print media was still dominant, and it was possible to analyze headlines as to what parts of the story they highlighted, or what political slant they had. A good example was how two different papers in the same city covered the same news, like in New York City, looking at the way The New York Times and The New York Post covered the same news event. One is held to the highest journalistic standards, the other isn’t.

This analysis can also be made between similarly situated newspapers like the Boston Globe or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the more conservative ones like USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. This constant analysis and sorting of biases in print media served me well over the years and it helped me develop media filters that translate well in web news media. You can filter through biases, misinformation and glaring omissions from news stories between different outlets, for example CNN, Fox News, Politico and the Washington Post, and arrive at a clear picture of the news, not just by what is said and what tone is adopted by the person reporting the news, but also by what they omit from the story.

If I was to give anybody any advice about how to find the real news on line is to do the same scanning for headlines. Some people don’t bother with it and stick to one source of news that feels comfortable, but we all know that this can lead to misinformation, there is no really trustworthy news outlet out there these days, because even the most storied and prestigious news outlets on the web have been victims of biased and outright fraud by some of its staff members. And also reading the 1st paragraph behind several headlines from different news outlets and looking at how each story deals with the who, what and where can tell a lot about biases and misinformation. Hromero10 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

After delving into this week’s readings on the delicate balance between the censorship of unwanted speech on the internet and the protection of U. S. citizens’ first amendment right of freedom of speech, I think the members of, “the delete squad,” highlighted in Jeffery Rosen’s article have had an enormous burden placed on them, because I feel it is nearly impossible to find the perfect balance between these two concepts in such an immense global arena.

Meanwhile, I do strongly believe it is a slippery slope if American based companies give into global demands, which will slowly erode our freedom of speech doctrine, in order to maintain their global business models. In many respects the internet has become the new bastion of protest movements, and if posts on sites such as Facebook and Twitter become increasingly more censored, out of a fear of whether or not they might incite violence, I believe they will inadvertently stifle positive progressive movements.

As a former student of the American Protest Literature scholar, John Stauffer, I have learned that “protest literature functions as a catalyst, guide or mirror of social change” by employing “shock value, empathy, and symbolic action” (xii-xiii). As a result, at the heart of every successful protest document and ensuing movement from the Revolution to the present is an awakening and conversion experience “analogous to a religious revival” (Stauffer, xiii). Since I agree with Stauffer’s take on how and why protest literature plays such an important role in the manner by which our nation has made progress through a succession of political, social, and cultural revolutions, I think it is better to allow room for a little rebellious speech rather than risk the unintended consequences of stifling it.

Consequently, I agree with Susan Benesch’s recommendation that rather than censor “we should approach dangerous speech through counterspeech” (Zuckerman). As history has illustrated, by doing so we can open formerly closed doors and see how people really think and feel, which I truly believe is best for the common good.

Works Cited

Rosen, Jeffery. “The Delete Squad.” NewRepublic.com. 29 April 2013.

Stauffer, John. “Foreword.” American Protest Literature. Edited by Trodd, Zoë. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2006. pp. xi-xviii.

Zuckerman, Ethan. “Susan Benesch on Dangerous Speech and Counterspeech.” EthanZuckerman.com. 24 March 2014.

EmiMac (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Hate Speech on the web. Whether it relates to an offensive message on a website, crafted in private by one or more users then released to the public, or an angry blog post that goes on a tirade against a particular group of people, the boundary lines between private and public platforms have blurred since the coming of age of the internet. Back in the early days of the web, many people recall the experience of writing an e-mail in the heat of the moment, getting carried away with emotions and then firing away the e-mail, only to regret it seconds later after pressing the return button or angrily clicking the mouse. The consequences of those e-mails generally included embarrassment, apologies, never talking to that person again, or simply not sending controversial e-mails right away and moderating oneself the next time.

For some people, those boundaries of private and public platforms are much harder to differentiate. I noticed that younger users are much less aware of these two spheres when facebook was surging in popularity and sexting became a more wide spread problem. Now personally, because those lines between private and public platforms had been reinforced very strongly over the years, I would never in a million years send a naked picture of myself to anyone, not even my wife, and yet teenagers do this very often without thinking of the consequences. Then their mistake is compounded a hundred times when the recipient, another teenager with no sense of boundaries, forwards the pictures to all his friends and the next thing the sender realizes is that the entire school, perhaps even the entire town has seen these inappropriate photos.

The same problem happens on blogs, especially in regards to controversial issues, like the Sandra Fluke story, or the immigrant children crisis at the southern border, or the race riots in Ferguson, Missouri. When it comes to the internet, people in their privacy of their homes, stew and boil over their own opinions and when they blog the most racist condescending and obnoxious statements are thrown scattershot by many, almost like an epidemic. In reference to E Zuckerman’s article, some people allow themselves to say things on line that they would say only in a locker room, except some don’t realize they are blaring it out to the entire world.

Most blogs that I frequent have other people calling out the trolls and publicly object to some opinions, I do this myself from time to time, I even post on the same blog for whoever is watching that the content is offensive and does not enhance the discussion. Sadly this problem happens at an individual level and it is likely to be pervasive on the internet for many years to come. The only answer I have is ‘teach children to know the difference between public and private communications’, and specially how to exercise self-control when writing anything on the web. Hromero10 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

I have a question for class discussion. How does the government draw the line between a website whose purpose and activities are ilegal versus a platform like Craig's List where ilegal activities are procured? In reference to the letter by the Attorney General's I agree that the loop hole in the CDA needs to be closed to include criminal state law because child abuse is a crime, plain and simple. Any one with an ounce of sense can tell when a crime against a child is being comitted and a web site cannot wash its hands by saying 'we're only the intermediaries".Hromero10 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

The most interesting to me was the discussion about indirect liability for copyright infringement in NoC Intermeiary Liability. Case by case judgments, are a poor substitute for statutory guidance. Intermediaries, users and copyright holders alike have a right to know what is expected. They need to know how to comply with the law and what is a violation. Leaving it to the everchanging opinions of judges in diverse jurisdictions is not the answer. Legislation needs to address this field. Gary Brown (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

This week’s readings were particularly interesting to me as I tend to regard the idea of “censorship” as something that happens in dictatorial countries with strong, centralized governments. I had studied the impact of China’s social media laws and crackdowns against dissidents including their extremely strict anti-defamation laws which could equate 500 retweets of anti-government speech to three years in prison (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/9/4710222/china-passes-anti-defamation-laws-three-year-sentence-social-media-crackdown), but had never thought very hard about the fact that the Internet isn’t technically a haven for free speech—no matter where you live.

It’s easy to see all the internet trolls and feel like the average person doesn’t have the capacity to control speech on the Internet, and that all the promises of Barlow’s Declaration— that it is a place where “no one can arrest our thoughts” — are mostly true. But I was struck by Shirky’s premise that the internet is a private sphere that merely “tolerates free speech” as opposed to being built as a forum for it. Upon further thought this appears to be the basis for most of the problems concerning censorship, but a seemingly impossible one to remedy. Public utilities are subject to even more government oversight and potential heavy handedness.

The other difficulty here lies in the algorithms themselves, when what people search for on a regular basis begins to dictate the kind of content they see. So not only do we have an information flow problem, we struggle to even identify what we’re missing. As Berkman’s 2008 News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age noted, in an era where web-native sources outnumber traditional news media, reporting gaps are left wide open and there are no incentives to fill them—especially because many of us may not even realize they’re there.

But even in the midst of government and corporate censorship, there lies another debate altogether and one that is supremely unique to this age: should extremist groups like ISIS have access to conventional platforms like Twitter when traditionally they’ve been relegated to less sophisticated sites/the Deep Web. Personally, I feel like it’s a very difficult balance to strike: ISIS has utilized Twitter and Instagram to both showcase their crimes and as a recruitment tool. However, for the purposes of the US government, the effect that such a ubiquitous and widely viewed platform can have on affecting national sentiment is deeply relevant. It is hard to imagine the American public, as desensitized and war-weary as they are, would have as strong support for US missions against ISIS without being able to view their activities through a relatively unfiltered lens.

Overall, it seems like censorship is yet another developing issue that has implications our legislative and corporate extensions have not had enough time to adequately parse out. Meredith (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

--- To say the internet is a new phenomenon given that gives individuals to reach out to a wide audience is not necessarily entirely true in itself. Pamphlets, publications etc. have achieved this throughout history and faced similar controversy over free speech, regulation and censorship issues. Near v. Minnesota, New York Times v. US. and Schenk v. US faced these issues of delivering opinion, information, personal opinion and beliefs in delivering such in various media forms. The internet being another form of popular media gives much easier access for anyone to share such content.

What might be an unpopular topic, libel or offensive to one person does not make itself necessarily unwanted speech and thus begins the slippery slope of defining boundaries over what is acceptable for use of the internet. As the New Republic article Free Speech on the Internet pointed out "Facebook’s new policy was dramatically tested last September, when the company refused to remove Innocence of the Muslims, the anti-Muhammad video that was initially blamed for causing the Benghazi riots that led to the death of the American ambassador to Libya" even though many Muslims were offended by the video. Nonetheless, did this video constitute the Benghazi riots and killings of others? No, it was an one's expression whether we choose to agree or disagree with it does not constitute senseless acts of crime nor is any viewer forced to watch it anymore as one may find it offensive to have a print subscription to Playboy.

We are all entitled to opinions/speech and the form to express it. The internet being another form of mass communication does not dissolve the means of recklessness or inciting harm. In approach to regulation it is going to continue differ as societies differ in beliefs, religion and government among different countries. Andrew C. (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

I really like the starting phrase of “How Internet Censorship Works” – "The Internet is not a public sphere . It is a private sphere that tolerates public speech." We are so used to finding everything we are looking for online and till recently most of the people believed it is also for free. We should remember that everything is coming at a certain price at the end of the day and very often the price in Internet is either the poor quality of the product (if not a nasty virus). More and more often we are coming across ‘misinformation, and other forms of inaccurate content that flow constantly over digital platforms” as Craig Silverman is calling it. The creation of a online news website/platform for the only purpose to promote and advertise certain business is not an exception. In such cases we could definitely not expect the content there to be neutral and objective.

Silverman is saying also that “the bar for what is worth giving attention seems to be much lower” but I am not sure if we should only blame the general public for asking more gossips then news. Although it is the "demand which driving the market", being floоded with low-quality news information sometimes just does not give us the chance to know that something better exists. And because even on Internet (or especially there) the economy regulations apply, I would refer to the law of demand which says that he higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded, because consumers’ opportunity cost to acquire that good or service increases. This is exactly the case with the


The most interesting for me from today’s reading was Adam Holland' s NoC Intermediary Case Studies. It is covering a lot of issues regarding the intermediary's liability but I am not sure I found an example of how it is treated in case in which the intermediary not only has facilitated the process of making the untrue information public, but also has earned money from it? Allow me to illustrate my question by a recent example. A client came to me claiming that his personal name was used in a blog post, where he was called "proven criminal" and many other things. My client was certainly not convicted for any crimes, having a clean criminal record so the statements in the blog were easily going to be proven wrong and a potential defamation case against the blogger would not be a hard one to win. Here comes the interesting part. The blogger was obviously so angry after my client that he paid a Google add for his blog, putting with my client’s name plus “criminal” as key words. Because of this, my clients desire was to start a case against the Google as well as against the blogger, but this time not for defamation but a civil case for financial losses. He was claiming that if Google is earning money by selling ads, it is supposed to be checking the reliability of the information advertised. I find this case is a good example of a possible extension of the intermediary’s liability or just another r point of view at it.


Thanks to today's reading I had the chance to learn who are "the Deciders". For me personally, this is one of the less-wanted jobs ever. Although giving a huge power to the one doing this job, making him "more power than any politician or bureaucrat—more power, in fact, than any president or judge. " , this post is even a bigger responsibility. For a single person it is impossible to be hundred person neutral when taking a decision. What is more our decisions regarding what is right or wrong are pretty much predestined by our cultural identity. And those decisions,even motivated and right for us, often happen to be at the same time equally motivated and unacceptable for people with a different cultural identity. The opportunity to shape the whole Internet according to your personal moral code sounds majestically but also scary to me. (Gia (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (EDT))

In this class I think that it is important to find the balance of free speech and harmful speech, speech that harms minors, and that does create problems or commotion among people, I think that the trade of is great when wanting to communicate with the rest of the world but only when we as people get to the high level of education in which we can act without harming the cyber environment then we will be able to enjoy all the benefits, meanwhile the first amendment can not be sue as a vague excuse to harm others.

Edwin Duque (15:43, 23 March 2015 (EDT))

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Speech,_Day_1:_Free_Expression,_Information,_and_Unwanted_Speech&oldid=4078"