click for the homepage!

 

Liberty Pro

Liberty / Equality / Property / Participation / Surveys / Notre Dame Web Group / Teaching Tool  Contact Us / Other Groups / Public Private Home / Definitions

Introduction

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they understood that they could not possibly envision certain things in the future.  That is why they created a flexible document to role with the times.  However, they did remember to include freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the right of assembly found in the first amendment.  The very creation of the internet was to share information and by definition the internet should be a strong community of free speech.
Anti-American Websites: Are they free speech?
Since September 11th, there has been mixed sentiments about what to do with Anti-American information found on the web.  The FBI has even asked so me websites to be pulled.  Is not this what democracy is all about?  Did we not fight in Iraq so that so me one can oppose their government and not be punished?  These are two providers do not tolerate the kind of sites that have Anti-American information: www.cihost.com and www.liquidweb.com. In the terms and conditions of C I Host, I found this disclaimer: “All hosting accounts may be terminated that include the following content or which have links to the following content: Providing Material that is grossly offensive to the Web community including blatant expressions of bigotry, racism or hatred.” Liquid Web has a similar policy.  Their CEO Matthew Hill said, “We don’t want to host terrorism.”  However is it really the providers’ job to regulate this sort of thing? 

No, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (website below), “when something like a web page is taken down because of what it says, that’s censorship, discrimination against ideas.”  Another provider, www.prohosters.com will host anything that is legal on their websites.  Recently a video regarding the Daniel Pearl incident was found on a website within this provider.  The FBI asked ProHosters to pull the video but they refused citing the 1st Amendment.

Communications Decency Act Overturned

The Center for Democracy and Technology fights for freedom of speech on the web.  They were part of the plaintiff group who took the government to court.  Recently the Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional.  “Internet is a unique medium entitled to the highest protection under the free speech protections of the first a me nd me nt.” “CDT strongly opposed this legislation because it threatened the very existence of the Internet as a means for free expression, education, and political discourse.”

In this decision of the court, we learn that the government’s basis for the CDA is based on (1) protecting children and (2) “equally significant interest in fostering the growth of the Internet provides an independent basis for upholding the constitutionality of the CDA.”  It is the government’s contention that the fact that the internet is unregulated is driving people away from using it.  However, based upon the court’s research this is incorrect:

 “The Internet has experienced "extraordinary growth." [n.5] The number of "host" computers--those that store information and relay communications--increased from about 300 in 1981 to approximately 9,400,000 by the time of the trial in 1996. Roughly 60% of these hosts are located in the United States . About 40 million people used the Internet at the time of trial, a number that is expected to mushroom to 200 million by 1999.”

These figures completely dispute the government’s findings.  In summary the decision of the court is as follows:  

 “We find this argument singularly unpersuasive. The dramatic expansion of this new marketplace of  ideas   contradicts the factual basis of this contention. The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet  has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Links

http://www.hostingtech.com/lo/02_12_conflict.html

This article discusses what the role of service providers is in free speech.

http://www.1stamendment.net/

http://www.eff.org/

This group is a “non-profit group of passionate people- lawyers, volunteers, and visionaries- working to protect your digital rights”.  They also played an instrumental role in the CDA court case.

http://www.cdt.org/speech/cda/

The Communications Decency Act was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  This is complete act. 

http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/decision.shtml

The Citizens Internet Empowerment Commission provides the Supreme Court decision.

http://www.cdt.org/speech/cda/ciec.shtml

This is the complete route of the CDA up to the Supreme Court.

http://www.princeton.edu/~eszter/smith.cs102j.html

Syllabi for Princeton course CS102j: Free Speech and the Internet.

http://www.whitehouse.org/

Just for kicks, check out this free speech on the web.

click here to view the con argument!