internet regulation. w “modern technology-- especially the internet-- creates important...

Internet Regulation

Internet Regulation “Modern technology-- especially

the Internet-- creates important opportunities to expand freedom of speech globally. It also poses challenges to our traditional notions of freedom and censorship.”

--Alan Dershowitz, Shouting

Fire (Boston: Little Brown, 2002), p. 196.

Internet Regulation

two eras• pre-Reno v. ACLU (1997)• post-Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Libel on the Internet

statement of fact that is published whether the plaintiff is identified that is defamatory that is false that is a result of fault by the defendant


Cubby, Inc. v. (1991).


Cubby, Inc. v. (1991). Stratton Oakmont v. (1995).


Cubby, Inc. v. (1991). Stratton Oakmont v. (1995). Telecommunications Act of 1996



• Communications Decency Act



• Communications Decency Act• § 230



• Communications Decency Act• § 230

– “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”


The Cases


The Cases Zeran v. America Online (1997)


The Cases Zeran v. America Online (1997) Blumenthal v. AOL & Drudge (1998)

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

What is the Internet? What First Amendment standard

should be applied?• Is it like the print media?

• Is it broadcast-like?

• Is it like no other medium?

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Pacifica Foundation v. FCC (1978)

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Pacifica Foundation v. FCC (1978) Chris Hansen ACLU Senior Staff Counsel

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Pacifica Foundation v. FCC (1978) Chris Hansen ACLU Senior Staff Counsel

“A huge amount of the case was designed to distinguish us from Pacifica. That’s the whole fight. If we were television, then we were Pacifica. And if we were Pacifica, we lose.”

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Communications Decency Act criminally prohibits: § 223(a): the knowing transmission, by means of a

telecommunications device, of "obscene or indecent” communications to any recipient under 18 years of age

§ 223(d): the knowing use of an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age communications that, in context, depict or describe, in terms "patently offensive" as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

Ann Beeson ACLU Staff Counsel

“There weren’t any hearings held, the Congressmen, just like the courts, didn’t know anything about the Internet. They didn’t have a clue as to what this law would do. It’s really only in hindsight that everybody understands implicitly why it is that it was so facially unconstitutional. They didn’t understand that unlike the ‘real world’...


“...you can’t verify age on the Internet, so they thought they just could issue some kind of blanket ban on indecency to minors and that it wouldn’t have any effect necessarily on adults. They just didn’t understand at all. In that sense, I suppose you could say, they had a little bit of an excuse the first time, but that’s becoming increasingly less so and they continue to pass these laws….”


“They do this kind of thing all the time. So the other answer is they don’t care whether it’s unconstitutional. And you get Congressmen literally admitting that, and passing laws because they get political points for passing them as being anti-porn. Then they know that the courts are going to strike them down if they’re unconstitutional.”

Reno v. ACLU/assembling the plaintiffs

Patricia Nell Warren Wildcat Press

“If I as an individual who believes in the American dream, and believes in free speech—and if I really think that our country has had a history of struggle to learn how to respect diverse viewpoints—then how can I live with myself if I step back and allow this to be done to me?”

Patricia Nell Warren Wildcat Press

“If I let it be done to me, what kind of signal does that send to other people, especially young writers? Because young people do pay attention to these things, and when they see examples of people standing up for what they think and what they feel, then that can be important to them. If they see a lot of us willing to eat dirt and bow our necks to the yoke, then that sends a terrible signal.”

Reno v. ACLU/assembling the plaintiffs

Reno v. ACLU (1997) Justice Stevens’ opinion for the Court [U]nlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the

broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a “scarce” expressive commodity.

[The CDA] silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection.

[T]he CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech.

In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another.

That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.

“Regardless of the strength of the government's interest” in protecting children, “the level of discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.”

John B. Morris, Jr. ALA attorney

“What is the legacy of this case? What’s the long term impact? I think this decision will continue to be the starting point for 50 years—for a very long time it will be where courts start when they evaluate the regulation of the Internet.”

John B. Morris, Jr. ALA attorney

“...But it will also be an important point in the whole development of lots of smaller parts of the First Amendment jurisprudence in terms of avoiding the dumbing down of communications just to protect children. I think it will withstand the test of time. I think it really sets up the framework for years to come.”

Chris Hansen ACLU Senior Counsel

“I take the long view of all of this stuff that no issue is ever won, and no issue is ever lost. I do think that the longer you hold onto a medium like the Internet that is free of restriction, the harder it is to start rolling that back. It’s easiest to impose restrictions at the very beginning. The fact that we held off restrictions at the very beginning, I suspect--I hope--will last.”

Regulating the Internet

Children’s Online Protection Act (1998) targets speech on the World Wide Web that is harmful to

minors according to “contemporary community standards.”

$50,000 fine and 6 months in jail for those who are found to knowingly “make any communication for commercial purposes” on the Internet “that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors.”

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002)


Library computers Loudoun County, Virginia

• Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library (1998)

Regulating the Internet Privacy

• Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (1998)

• Intercepting e-mail• Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines (2001)


Misappropriation


Misappropriation• Milano v. Machinenet

(1998)



(1998)• Milano v. Eight

Ball, Inc., et al. (1998)



(1998)• Milano v. Eight

Ball, Inc., et al. (1998)

• $238,000 + other settlements


Misappropriation


Misappropriation• Hoffman v. Capital

Cities/ABC, Fairchild Publications and Los Angeles Magazine, 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (1999)


Misappropriation• Hoffman v. Capital

Cities/ABC, Fairchild Publications and Los Angeles Magazine, 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (1999)

• $3 million

Technology’s Threats to Privacy


transparency


transparency user control


transparency user control “Users should be told exactly what personal information is

being collected and what will be done with it. And it should be made easy for users to withhold private information or set conditions for its use.”


transparency user control “Users should be told exactly what personal information is being

collected and what will be done with it. And it should be made easy for users to withhold private information or set conditions for its use.”

“The burden remains on companies like Microsoft to show that they can be trusted to build transparency and user control into their technology. If not, the government may need to step in to protect users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”


Copyright


Copyright A&M Records, et al.

v.

Napster (2001)



v.

Napster (2001)Fair Use



v.


Purpose and character of the use



v.



Nature of the work



v.



Nature of the work

How much of the original work is used



v.



Nature of the work

How much of the original work is used

Effect on the potential market


Copyright


Copyright

2600 Enterprises

COPYRIGHT - KaZaA does not condone activities and actions that breach the copyright of artists and copyright owners - as a KaZaA user you are bound by the KaZaA Terms of Use and laws governing copyright in each country.


Copyright

With ReplayTV 4000, the only

networked Digital Video

Recorder (DVR) with broadband

connectivity, you can stream

your recorded shows between

different ReplayTVs in your

home, send recorded

programs to your friends via

the Internet, use Commercial

Advance® to playback your

favorite shows without commercials, organize your shows in show folders, and record up to 320 hours of programming!

Internet Regulation “Modern technology-- especially

the Internet-- creates important opportunities to expand freedom of speech globally. It also poses challenges to our traditional notions of freedom and censorship.”

--Alan Dershowitz, Shouting

Fire (Boston: Little Brown, 2002), p. 196.

internet regulation. w “modern technology-- especially the internet-- creates important...

Documents