Regulating speech How the Net changes attitudes and assumptions, and creates new societal tensions 1 and unintended consequences March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

source the “cloud” destination internetserviceproviders internet service providers regulation March 10, 20112Harvard Bits

The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 3March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

Miller Test for obsenity Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, and Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value. US Supreme Court, Miller v. California (1973) 4March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

The nastiest place on earth March 10, 20115Harvard Bits

6 Bob & Carleen Agent Dirmeyer March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

7March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

March 10, 20118Harvard Bits

July 3, 1995 March 10, 20119Harvard Bits

What the Carnegie Mellon researchers discovered was: THERE’S AN AWFUL LOT OF PORN ONLINE. In an 18-month study, the team surveyed 917,410 sexually explicit pictures, descriptions, short stories, and film clips. On those Usenet newsgroups where digitized images are stored, 83.5% of the pictures were pornographic. March 10, Harvard Bits

Georgetown Law Journal, June 1995 March 10, Harvard Bits

12March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

13March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

14March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

15March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

16March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

Communications Decency Act (2/ 96) “Display provision” Whoever... (1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly... uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or... 17March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

Communications Decency Act (2/96) “Display provision” (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1)... shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. 18March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

source internet service providers the cloud internetserviceproviders destination regulation ? March 10, Harvard Bits

20 March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

21 March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

22March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

23March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

24March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

25 E-commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), COPA (Child Online Protection Act, 1998) March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

26 Source: JOLT March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

27 Not narrowly tailored: “Minor” too broadly defined Defenses available to publishers -- credit cards -- too restrictive Gov’t failed to show that filtering tools won’t do the job Why COPA is Unconstitutional March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

28March 10, 2011Harvard Bits

source internet service providers the cloud internetserviceproviders destination regulation ? ? ? March 10, Harvard Bits