1. Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye (and Liam Keliher) A Gift of Fire Third edition Sara Baase Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech

2. What We Will Cover Legal Foundations Changing Communication Paradigms Controlling Offensive Speech Censorship on the Global Net Anonymity Net Neutrality or De-regulation (Free Market)?

3. Offensive / Dangerous Material Online Material that may be very offensive to some, and potentially dangerous, is readily available online: –Ku Klux Klan (www.kkk.com)www.kkk.com –Aryan Nations (www.aryan-nations.org)www.aryan-nations.org –bomb-building information –pornography

4. Fighting Fire With Fire Of course, those who oppose such material can also use the Internet to get their messages out: –National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (www.naacp.org)www.naacp.org –Simon Wiesenthal Center (www.wiesenthal.com)www.wiesenthal.com –anti-pornography groups www.cybertip.ca

5. Ethical Questions Ethical Questions What should be allowed / forbidden on the Internet? Does protection of children justify restricting material that adults can access? Does providing material that could be misused (e.g., bomb-building information) constitute a crime? Where is the line between art and pornography?

6. Legal Foundations In the U.S., the First Amendment to the Constitution is the basis for almost legal considerations of free-speech: –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.

7. Legal Foundations In Canada, Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists four fundamental freedoms: –(a) freedom of conscience and religion; –(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; –(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and –(d) freedom of association.

8. Changing Communication Paradigms Pre-Internet, there were three main categories of communications media: Print media (newspapers, magazines, books) Broadcasters (television, radio) Common carriers (telephone, postal system) Legally, each of these was treated differently

9. Changing Communication Paradigms Different legal treatments: Print – strongest protection Broadcast – fact that it could reach into homes unsolicited led to tighter rules Common carrier – often treated as “neutral”, not responsible for content transmitted

10. Changing Communication Paradigms (cont.) Free-speech Principles: Written for offensive and/or controversial speech and ideas Restriction on the power of government, not individuals or private businesses

11. Changing Communication Paradigms (cont.) Free-speech Principles (cont.): U.S. Supreme Court principles and guidelines: –Advocating illegal acts is often legal –Does not protect libel (false and damaging statements) and direct, specific threats –Allows some restrictions on advertising –Inciting violence is sometimes illegal –Protects anonymous speech

12. Changing Communication Paradigms (cont.) Free-speech Principles (cont.): In U.S., laws that have a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech are often struck down –create an atmosphere of fear that restricts legal speech

13. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) What was already illegal? Obscenity –1. Depicts a sexual act against state law –2. Depicts these acts in a patently offensive manner that appeals to prurient interest as judged by a reasonable person using community standards –3. Lacks literary, artistic, social, political or scientific value

14. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives: Communication Decency Act (CDA) – 1996 –Attempted to avoid conflict with First Amendment by focusing on children –Fine of $100,000 and 2 years in prison for anyone making indecent or obscene material available to a person under 18 –Global reach of Net makes this complicated – anyone with an open Web site (not subscription-based) is making material available to children

15. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.): Communication Decency Act (CDA) (cont.) –Found to be unconstitutional: The worst material threatening children was already illegal It was too vague and broad It did not use the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal of protecting children

16. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.): Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA): –Federal crime ($50,000 fine and 1 year in jail) for commercial web sites making available to minors material harmful by FCC standards –Found to be unconstitutional: Government did not show that COPA was necessary to protect children Reduces everyone to most conservative standards Child Online Protection Commission concluded that less restrictive means, filtering, was superior to COPA

17. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.): Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA): –Requires schools and libraries that participate in certain federal programs to install filtering software –Upheld in court: Does not violate First Amendment since it does not require the use of filters, impose jail or fines It sets a condition for receipt of certain federal funds

18. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.): Filters –Block sites with specific words, phrases or images –Parental control for sex and violence –Updated frequently but may still screen out too much (false positives) or too little (false negatives) –Not possible to eliminate all errors –What should be blocked?

19. Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Controlling Offensive Speech (cont.) Spam: What’s the problem? –Loosely described as unsolicited bulk email –Mostly commercial advertisements –Angers many people Free speech issues –Spam imposes a cost on others not protected by free speech –Spam filters do not violate free speech (free speech does not require anyone to listen)

20. Controlling Offensive Speech Discussion Questions Is the the Internet an appropriate tool for young children? Why or why not?

21. Censorship on the Global Net Global Impact of Censorship Global nature of the Internet protects against censorship (banned in one country, move to another) However, may result in more restrictive censorship (block everything in an attempt to block one thing) Yahoo and French censorship –French laws forbid display/sale of Nazi memorabilia –Yahoo sued because Nazi material could be viewed on Yahoo’s U.S. site (not Yahoo’s French site) –Legal status unclear –Yahoo removed “hate material” from all its sites

22. Censorship on the Global Net (cont.) Censorship in Other Nations: Attempts to limit the flow of information on the Internet similar to earlier attempts to place limits on other communications media Some countries own the Internet backbone within their countries, block at the border specific sites and content Some countries ban all or certain types of access to the Internet, e.g., Afghanistan

23. Censorship on the Global Net (cont.) Aiding Foreign Censors: Companies who do business in countries that control Internet access must comply with the local laws Google argued that some access is better than no access

24. Anonymity Common Sense and the Internet: Anonymity protected by the First Amendment Services available to send anonymous email (Anonymizer.com) Anonymizing services used by individuals, businesses, law enforcement agencies, and government intelligence services

25. Anonymity (cont.) Against Anonymity: Fears –It hides crime or protects criminals –Glowing reviews (such as those posted on eBay or Amazon.com) may actually be from the author, publisher, seller, or their friends U.S. and European countries working on laws that require ISPs to maintain records of the true identity of each user and maintain records of online activity for potential use in criminal investigations

26. Anonymity Discussion Questions Where (if anywhere) is anonymity appropriate on the Internet? What are some kinds of Web sites that should prohibit anonymity? Where (if anywhere) should laws prohibit anonymity on the Internet?

27. Protecting Access and Innovation Net Neutrality or De-regulation? Should companies be permitted to exclude or give special treatment to content transmitted based on the content itself or on the company that provides it? Should companies be permitted to provide different levels of speed at different prices?

28. Protecting Access and Innovation (cont.) Net Neutrality or De-regulation? (cont.) Net Neutrality –Argue for equal treatment of all customers De-regulation –Flexibility and market incentives will benefit customers