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. |
|