Regulating Cyberspace Should certain forms of speech in

cyberspace be regulated? If so, which kinds: hate speech, speech that can cause physical harm, obscene speech

How should it be regulated?

Regulating Cyberspace (Continued)

John Weckert (2000) notes that concerns about cyberspace regulation raise two distinct questions:

(1) Should cyberspace be regulated?

(2) Can it be regulated?

Regulating Cyberspace (Continued)

Assuming that cyberspace can be regulated, who should be responsible for carrying out the regulatory functions:

the government, private organizations, Internet users themselves?

Cyberspace Regulation (Continued) Two additional questions involving

cyberspace regulation need to be considered:

(1)  What, exactly, do we mean by cyberspace?

(2) What is meant by regulation (and, in particular, by "regulation" as it applies to cyberspace)?

The Ontology of Cyberspace What, exactly, is cyberspace? Cyberspace is roughly equivalent to the

Internet. i.e., the network of interconnected computers.

Is cyberspace a place? – i.e., a virtual space that consists of all the

data and information that resides in the connected servers and databases that make up the Internet?

Or is cyberspace a medium of some sort?

Cyberspace as a Medium Mike Goodwin (2003) believes that the

Internet is a new kind of medium. It is a medium that is significantly

different from earlier media, such as the telephone or television. The telephone is a “one-to-one medium” The television as a “one-to-many medium.“

Goodman suggests that the Internet be characterized as a “many-to-many medium.”

Cyberspace as a Medium (Continued) Camp and Chien (2000) note

that there are four types of media:

publisher, broadcast, distributor, common carrier.

Cyberspace as a Medium) (Continued) An example of a publisher would be a

newspaper or a magazine. Examples of broadcast media include

television and radio. Telephone companies and cable

companies are examples of common carriers.

Camp and Chien argue that none of the media models are appropriate for understanding cyberspace.

Cyberspace as a (Public) Place Camp and Chien believe that a

spatial model is a more plausible way to conceive of cyberspace. They view cyberspace as a “public

space with certain digital characteristics.”

This model will influence our decisions about how to frame public policies affecting the Internet.

Figure 9-1: The Ontology of Cyberspace

Cyberspace

Public Space (or Place) Broadcast Medium

(bookstore model) (common carrier model)

Two Different Senses of “Cyberspace Regulation“ To "regulate" typically means to monitor

or control a certain product, process, or set of behaviors according to certain requirements, standards, or protocols.

Two different senses of “regulation” have been used to debate the question of cyberspace regulation: regulating the content of cyberspace, e.g.,

online pornography and hate speech. regulating processes – i.e., rules and policies

– for commercial transactions in cyberspace.

Regulatory Agencies in Physical Space Content-based examples:

Federal Drug Administration (FDA); Local and State Boards of Health; Liquor Control Board.

Process-based examples: Federal Trade Commission (FTC); Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Figure 9-2: Two Modes of Cyberspace Regulation

Cyberspace

Regulating Content Regulating Process

Speech Commerce

Four Modes of Regulating Cyberspace: The Lessig Model

Lawrence Lessig (1999) describes four distinct but interdependent constraints or "modalities," for regulating behavior:

laws, social norms, market pressures, architecture.

Analogy: Regulating Smoking Behavior in Physical Space Using the Lessig model with

regarding to smoking, we can: 1. Pass laws against smoking; 2. Apply social pressure (i.e., norms); 3. Apply market pressure (e.g., in

pricing practices); 4. Use architecture (e.g., no

cigarettes in vending machines).

Regulation by Code In cyberspace, Lessig notes that

code is law. Lessig compares the architectures

of NET 95 (Chicago) to NET 98 (Harvard).

Net 95 favors anonymity. Net 98 favors control.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) Technology DRM technologies allow content owners

to regulate the flow of information in digital media by: blocking access to it via encryption

mechanisms, and enabling access to it through the use of passwords.

The combination of DRM technology and the DMCA make it possible to regulate and enforce policies and laws in cyberspace to a degree that never existed in the physical realm.

DRM (Continued) Pamela Samuelson (2003) notes that

DRM technology allows content owners to exercise far more control over uses of copyrighted works in digital media than what is provided by conventional copyright law.

She also argues that DRM systems may violate the fair-use provision of copyright law.

DRM (Continued) Some critics worry about the ways DRM

systems can be abused by content owners to control users’ computers and to spy on unsuspecting users.

Some also believe that DRM technology has gone too far. Consider the controversial case (in the

text) involving a DRM system used by Sony BMG that would seem to support this view.

DRM (Continued) The DRM-related controversies in the Sony

BMG case raise the following questions: Can users trust content owners, such as

Sony BMG, who are: easily able to spy on them; able to control aspects of their computers via

the use of DRM technology? Are Sony’s actions justified on grounds

that companies need DRM systems to protect their intellectual property rights?

DRM, Regulation by Code, and Privatization of Information Policy Niva Elkin-Koren (2000) worries that

because of embedded controls (in code) made possible by technologies like DRM systems, our policies affecting information and digital media are becoming increasingly privatized.

She also notes that this trend toward privatization has enabled software companies to design code that reflects their own interests and values. They don’t have to worry about any adverse

effects that this can have for the public’s interests.

Privatizing Information Policy Jessica Litman (2002) also argues that

information policy in cyberspace is becoming increasingly privatized.

In 1998, a series of events contributed a transformation of the Internet into what Litman describes as a “giant American shopping mall.”

The US Congress passed three copyright-related acts that favored commercial interests: the DMCA, SBCTEA, and the NET Act.

The Recording Industry tried to pressure computer manufacturers to embed code in their future computer systems that would make it impossible to use personal computers to download MP3 files and to burn CDs.

Internet Domain Names and “Cybersquatting” The National Science Foundation

(NSF) formerly controlled the licensing of domain names. www.domainname.com/gov/org.

ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers) took over the process from NSF.

ICANN has been more business friendly.

Anti-Cybersquatting Act In 1999, the Anticyberquatting

Consumer Protection Act was passed.

This Act protected against “trademark infringements” and “dilutions” for trademark owners.

Consider the Amazon Bookstore vs. Amazon.com case (described in the text).

HTML Metatags Metatags are used in HTML Code for

Web sites. keyword metatags vs. descriptive

metatags. Keyword metatags, such as <football> and

<Peyton Manning>, enable Web page designers to identify search terms that can be used by search engines.

Descriptive metatags enable designers of Web pages to describe the contents.

For example, the description of a Web site for Peyton Manning might read: “Peyton Manning...quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts...named NFL Most Valuable Player in 2005...”

HTML Metatags (continued) Controversial cases involving the use

of HTML metatags. Consider the hypothetical scenario (in the text)

involving Keith, a student at Technical University. Also consider an actual case – Bihari v. Gross.

Gross, a former associate of Bihari, registered "bihari.com" and "bahiriinteriors.com" domain names;

Gross was forced to relinquish the domain names; Gross then embedded the keyword metatag "Bihari

Interiors" in the HTML code for his Web site and included derogatory remarks about Bihari on his Web site.

Hyperlinking and Deep Linking on the Web In controversies affecting hyperlinking and

deep linking, an important question to consider is whether a Web site is analogous to property.

Consider the hypothetical case (in the text) involving Maria’s Online Gallery.

Also consider an actual case involving Ticket Master vs. Microsoft (described in the text).

The controversy surrounding deep linking is still not legally resolved – the Ticket Master case was settled out of court.

Spam Spam is e-mail that is: (1) unsolicited, (2) promotional, (3) sent in bulk to multiple users. These three characteristics

distinguish spam from other forms of e-mail.

Spam (Continued) Because spam is unsolicited, it can

also be viewed as a form of communication that is nonconsensual.

But not all nonconsensual e-mail that one receives should necessarily be considered spam.

Spam (continued) Richard Spinello (1999) notes that spam

“shifts costs” from the advertiser to several other parties, including ISPs and the recipients of their service.

Because others must bear the cost for its delivery, spam is not “cost free.”

Spam also consumes valuable computer resources because:

spam sent through ISPs results in wasted network bandwidth;

spam also puts an increased strain on the utilization of system resources such as disk storage space.

Is Spam Unethical? Spinello argues that spam is

morally objectionable because: (a) it has harmful consequences; (b) it violates the individual autonomy of

Internet users.

Spam also “degrades” the fragile ecology of the Internet.

Spam (continued) The e-Bay v. Bidder’s Edge case, which

is not really about spam per se, illustrates some of the arguments used against spam as a form of behavior that consumes valuable system resources.

Many argue that explicit laws need to be passed to control the threat of spam.

Some critics ask whether any kind of legislation, even international laws, can solve the problem of spam.

The CAN SPAM Act The U.S. Congress passed the CAN

SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) Act, which went into effect in 2004. This Act specifies criminal penalties that

include a fine of $250 for each spam email. Critics of the CAN SPAM Act note that

spammers who use ISPs outside the U.S. to send their spam e-mail cannot be prosecuted under this act.

Free Speech vs. Censorship in Cyberspace

Should certain forms of speech on the Internet be censored?

Do all forms of speech deserve protection under the Constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Free Speech (Continued) According to the First

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law...abridging

the freedom of speech, or of the press...

The right to free speech is a conditional right.

Censorship Jacques Catudal (2004) believes that an

important distinction can be drawn between:

censorship by suppression, censorship by deterrence.

Both forms of censorship presuppose that some “authorized person or group of persons”

has judged some text or “type of text” to be objectionable on moral, political or other grounds.

Censorship by Suppression Censorship by suppression affects the

prohibition of the objectionable "text" or material from being:

published, displayed, circulated. Banning certain kinds of books from being

published and prohibiting certain kinds of movies to be made would be examples of censorship by suppression.

For example, pornography and other objectionable forms of speech would not be allowed to exist on the Internet

Censorship (continued) Censorship by deterrence is a less

drastic means of censoring because it:

(a) does not suppress or block out objectionable material or forbid it from being published;

(b) depends on threats of arrest, prosecution, conviction, and punishment against those who make an objectionable "text" available and those who acquire it;

(c) can use heavy fines and possible imprisonment to deter the publication and acquisition of this objectionable content.

Pornography in Cyberspace The concept of pornography is often debated

in the legal sphere in terms of notions such as obscenity and indecent speech.

The Miller v. California case (1973) established that material is obscene when it:

1. depicts sexual (or excretory) acts whose depiction is specifically prohibited by law.

2. depicts these acts in a patently offensive manner, appealing to prurient interest as judged by a reasonable person using community standards.

3. has no serious literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value.

Pornography (continued) The Miller case has been

problematic in attempting to enforce pornography laws.

It includes three controversial notions:

1”prurient interest,“ 2 “reasonable person,“ 3 “community standards.”

Censorship (Continued) The term prurient is usually defined as having

to do with lust and with lewd behavior. It has been challenged as being vague and arbitrary.

We can ask who would count as a “reasonable person.”

The notion of a “community standard” is no longer simple and straightforward because we can ask:

What is a community in cyberspace? Where multiple communities are involved in a dispute

involving pornography, whose community standards apply?

Censorship/Pornography The Amateur Auction BBS in

California made sexually explicit images available to its members.

Because the BBS was an electronic forum, its contents were available to users in other states and countries who had Internet access.

The Amateur Auction BBS (Continued) A person living in Memphis, Tennessee

downloaded on his computer in Tennessee sexually explicit pictures.

Including sexually explicit images on a BBS was not illegal in California, viewing such images was illegal in Tennessee.

Criminal charges were brought against the operators of the California-based BBS, who were prosecuted in Tennessee.

Censorship/Pornography The California couple was found guilty

under Tennessee law of distributing obscenity under the local community standards that applied in Memphis Tennessee.

This case raised issues that had to do with what was meant by "community standards" on the Internet.

What is a community in cyberspace (See Chap 11)?

Internet Pornography and Protecting Children Online in 1995, many first learned about the

amount of pornographic material on the Internet in a story entitled CyberPorn in Time Magazine.

Time reported that there were 900,000 sexually explicit pornographic materials (pictures, film clips, etc.) on the Internet.

The study on which the Time magazine story was based was seriously flawed.

Internet Pornography and Protecting Children Online (Continued)

The study accurately reported the number of pornographic images and pornographic Web sites, but did not put this information into proper perspective.

For example, the study made no mention of the fact that the percentage of pornographic sites relative to other sites on the Web was very low.

Online Pornography Laws Many lawmakers were outraged when they

learned about the amount of pornography on the Internet from the TIME Magazine study.

The report influenced politicians, who drafted legislation in response to what they saw as a growing online "pornography industry."

The result was the passage of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996.

Online Pornography Laws (Continued) The CDA was controversial because of

the section referred to as the “Exon Amendment” that dealt exclusively with online pornography.

In the summer of 1996, CDA was struck down by a district court on grounds that it was too broad and that it violated the U.S. Constitution.

A portion of the CDA, known as the Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) of 1996, was determined to be constitutional.

Child Pornography Laws (Continued) In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online

Pornography Act (COPA). In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that

COPA was unconstitutional. So the only remaining federal law

specifically directed at online pornography, which had managed to withstand constitutional scrutiny, was the CPPA of 1996 (a section of the original CDA).

Child Pornography Laws CPPA significantly broadens the

definition of child pornography to include entire categories of images that many would not judge to be either:

“child pornographic,” or pornographic at all. Child pornography, according to CPPA,

is defined as: ...any depiction, including a photograph, film, video,

picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct...

Child Online Pornography Laws (Continued) According to the CPPA, it was a crime

to "knowingly send, receive, distribute, reproduce, sell, or possess more than three child pornographic images."

On April 16, 2002, the US Supreme Court, in a ruling of 6-3, struck down a controversial section of CPPA as unconstitutional.

Online Child Pornography Laws (Continued) In December 2000 the U.S. Congress

enacted into law the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) CIPA was designed to address concerns about

children’s access to “offensive content” over the Internet on school and library computers.

It was targeted specifically to schools and libraries. CIPA affects any schools or public libraries that

receive federal subsidies in the form of E-Rates, i.e., discounts which make certain technologies more affordable for eligible schools and libraries.

Pornography (Continued) Under CIPA, schools and libraries may not

receive the discounts offered by the E-Rate Program unless they certify that they have an “Internet safety policy” in place.

This policy includes technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access by minors to pictures that are:

(a) obscene, (b) child pornography, (c) harmful to minors.

Pornography (Continued) Both the American Library Association

(ALA) and the ACLU filed suit to prevent the enforcement of CIPA’s filtering requirement in public libraries.

In 2002, a U.S. district court ruled that the CIPA filtering mandate was unconstitutional.

That decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld CIPA in a 6-3 decision in June 2003.

Table 9-1: Internet-specific Child Pornography Laws

CDA (Communications Decency Act) Passed in January 1996 and declared unconstitutional in July 1996. The lower court's decision was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1997.

CPPA (Child Pornography Protection Act)

Passed as part of the larger CDA, but was not initially struck down in 1997 with the CDA. It was declared unconstitutional in April 2002.

COPA (Child Online Pornography Act)

__________________________________CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act)

Passed in June 1998 and (portions) declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in February 1999. ______________________________Passed in December 2000 and declared unconstitutional by a U.S. district court in 2002. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling in June 2003.

Two types of Controversial Speech in Cyberspace

In addition to pornography, two additional kinds of speech that have been controversial in cyberspace are:

hate speech; speech that can cause physical

harm to individuals and communities.

Hate Speech The U.S. has tended to focus on controversial

Internet speech issues that involve online pornography.

European countries such as France and Germany have been more concerned about online hate speech.

In 1997, Germany enacted the Information and Communications Act, which was directed at censoring neo-Nazi propaganda.

However, the German statute applies only to persons who reside in Germany.

Initially, the statute was intended to regulate the speech transmitted by ISPs outside of Germany, as well.

Hate Speech (Continued) Hate speech on the Internet often

targets members of certain racial and ethnic groups.

White supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) can include on their Web pages offensive remarks about African Americans and Jews.

Because of the Internet, international "hate groups," such as "skin heads" in America, Europe, and Russia, can spread their messages of hate in ways that were not previously possible.

Hate Speech (continued) Another controversial form of hate speech on

the Internet is one that has involved radical elements of conservative organizations.

For example, right-wing militia groups, whose ideology has often been anti-federal-government, can broadcast information on the Internet about how to harm or even kill agents of the federal government.

Consider the kind of anti-government rhetoric that emanated from the militia movements in the U.S. in the early 1990s, which some believe led to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Web Sites Designed to Combat Hate Speech “Hate-watch” Web sites, such as the Southern

Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “Intelligence Project” (http://www.splcenter.org), have been constructed.

These sites have exposed the existence of various hate organizations to the public.

SPLC’s Intelligence Project counted 762 active hate groups in the U. S. in 2004.

SPLC also includes a detailed map with physical locations of various hate groups, which it identifies under categories such as Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, Racist Skinhead, etc.

Web Sites Designed to Combat Hate Speech (Continued) Information available on these sites also

provides an easy way for consumers of hate speech to locate and visit particular hate sites that serve their interests.

Some hate sites use deceptive metatags to lure unsuspecting users to their sites. For example, a racist hate group could use

keyword or descriptive metatags such as “Martin Luther King, Jr.” to intentionally mislead persons interested in acquiring information about Dr. King by directing them instead to its racist Web site.

Speech That Can Cause Harm to Others

Some forms of hate speech on the Internet are such that they might also result in physical harm being caused to individuals.

Other forms of this speech are, by the nature of their content, biased towards violence and physical harm to others.

Speech That Can Cause Harm to Others (Continued) Recall the Amy Boyer cyberstalking case. Was the posting on Liam Youen's Web

site, describing his plans to murder Boyer (see Chapter 1), an example of hate speech?

It resulted in physical harm to Boyer – viz., her murder.

Should the ISPs that enable users to construct Web sites that contain this form of speech be held legally liable?

Speech That Can Cause Harm to Others (Continued) Two examples of how certain

forms of speech on the Internet can result in serious physical harm:

information on how to construct bombs; information on how to abduct children

for the purpose of molesting them. Should such information be

censored in cyberspace?

Software Filtering Programs as an Alternative to Censorship on the Internet

Software filters can be defined as: programs that screen Internet content

and block access to unacceptable Web sites.

Some believe that software filtering provides an reasonable alternative to censoring speech on the Internet., while others are skeptical.

Software Filtering Programs (Continued)

Some filters have been criticized because they screen too much, and others because they screen too little.

Filtering out objectionable material through the use of the keyword "sex" could block out important literary and scientific works.

For example, it could preclude one's being able to access certain works by Shakespeare, as well as books on biology and health.

Filtering schemes that are too broad, on the other hand, might not successfully block non-obvious pornographic Web sites, such as the www.whitehouse.com site.

Some Objections to Filtering Lawrence Lessig (1999) believes that

filtering programs using architectures like PICS (Platform Independent Content Standard) are a form of “regulation by code.”

He argues that PICS is a “universal censorship system,” which can be used to censor any kind of material, not just pornography and hate speech. For example, software filters can be used to

block unpopular political speech or dissenting points of view.

Objections to Software Filtering (Continued) Richard Rosenberg (2001) motes that

filters could also be used by conservative school boards to block out information about evolutionary theory.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also recently taken a similar position on the use of filtering.

A 2001 ACLU report expressed it fear that using censoring mechanisms such as filters may “burn the global village to roast the pig.”

Case Illustration: Mainstream Loudon v. Board of Trustees Adult members of the Loudon County

public libraries sued the Board of Trustees of the library for “the impermissible blocking of access to Internet sites. “

The library claimed that it used filters to block child pornography and obscene material.

The plaintiffs complained that the filtering devices also blocked access to non-pornographic sites, such as the Quaker Home Page, the American Association of University Women, and others.

Mainstream Loudon Case (continued) The district court in Virginia ruled in favor

of the plaintiffs. It determined that the installation of filtering

software on public access computers in libraries violates the First Amendment.

But no clear direction was given as to how to resolve the problem.

One solution would have been for libraries to provide no Internet access at all.

This would not have been a satisfactory alternative for obvious reasons.

Mainstream Loudon Case (Continued) Another solution would be for the library

to set aside one or more sections for children, in which computer with filtering programs could be provided.

Because children are protected under the Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) of 1996, it was argued that it would be permissible for libraries to include filtering devices on computers intended for use by children in restricted sections of the library.

Defamation in Cyberspace and the Role of ISPs Richard Spinello (2000) defines

defamation as communication that harms the reputation of

another and lowers that person's self esteem in the eyes of the community.

Defamatory remarks can take two forms: (1) libel, which refers to written or printed

defamation; (2) slander, which refers to oral defamation.

Defamation (Continued) Mawhood and Tsyver (2000) point out

that it is not only through words that defamation can occur.

For example, a person can be defamed through pictures, images, gestures, and other methods of signifying meaning.

A picture of a person that has been scanned and changed by merging another image can also suggest something defamatory.

Anyone who passed on such an image could also be held liable by the person filing defamation charges.

Defamation (Continued) Libelous speech on the Internet

can be distinguished from certain kinds of inflammatory speech.

Inflammatory remarks made in on-line forums are sometimes referred to as "flames."

A person who is the victim of such a remark is described as someone who has been "flamed."

Defamation (Continued) Most “flames” do not meet the legal

standards of defamation. Online flames, as in the case of genuine

defamatory remarks, are still problematic. In response to behavior involving

flaming, some on-line user groups have developed their own rules of behavior or "netiquette" (etiquette on the Internet).

For example, some Internet chat rooms have instituted rules to the effect that any individual who "flames" another member of the group will be banned from the chat room.

The Role of ISPs in Defamation In the 1991 case of Cubby, Inc v.

Compuserve, the court ruled that Compuserve was not liable for disseminating an electronic newsletter with libelous content.

The court determined that Compuserve had acted as a distributor, and not as a publisher because: the service provider did not exercise editorial

control over the contents of its bulletin boards or other online publications.

The Role of ISPs in Defamation (Continued) A different interpretation of the role of

ISPs was rendered in the1995 case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services Company.

A court found that Prodigy was legally liable since it had advertised that it had "editorial control" over the computer bulletin board system (BBS) it hosted.

The court noted that Prodigy had positioned itself as a proprietary, family-oriented, electronic network that screened out objectionable content, thereby making the network more suitable for children.

ISPs and Defamation (Continued)

ISPs argued that they provide the "conduits for communication but not the content."

This view of ISPs was used in the Zeran v. AOL case in 1997, where AOL was found not to be legally liable for content disseminated in its electronic forums.

Defamation and ISPs (Continued) The Zeran case was the first to test the new

provisions for ISPs included in Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which we examined earlier in our discussion of on-line pornography.

The 1996 law protects ISPs from lawsuits similar to the one filed against Prodigy.

According to the relevant section of the CDA: 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.

Defamation and ISPs (Continued) Richard Spinello (2001) argues that

simply because an ISP presents an "occasion for defamation" does not necessarily imply that ISP is accountable.

For an ISP to be accountable, two conditions are required:

(a) the ISP must also have had some capability to do have done something about the defamation;

(b) the ISP failed but failed to take action.

Defamation and ISPs (Continued)

For Spinello, ISPs are required to take three steps to avoid responsibility:

(1) prompt removal of the defamatory remarks;

(2) the issuance of a retraction on behalf of the victim;

(3) the initiation of a good faith effort to track down the originator so that the defamation does not reoccur.

Defamation and ISPs (Continued) Anton Vedder (2001) also argues that

ISPs should be morally responsible for harm caused to individuals.

He draws a distinction between: prospective responsibility, and retrospective responsibility.

Retrospective responsibility tends to be “backward looking,” while prospective responsibility is “forward looking.”

Defamation and ISPs (Continued) Vedder notes that liability for ISPs

has tended to be prospective, because:

(a) the primary objective of liability laws has been to deter future online abuses rather than punish past offenses;

(b) we are hesitant to attribute a retrospective sense of responsibility to ISPs because this sense of moral responsibility is usually applied to individuals (as opposed to organizations, or “collectivities).

Defamation and ISPs (Continued) Vedder argues that if collectivities can be

held responsible in a prospective sense—a rationale that has been used for utilitarian arguments in attributing legal liability for ISPs—then we can also ascribe retrospective responsibility to them.

So, Vedder believes that ISPs can be held morally accountable for speech that is communicated in their electronic forums.

Implications for the Amy Boyer Case Should Tripod and Geocities, the two ISPs that

enabled Liam Youens to set up his Web sites about Boyer, be held morally accountable for the harm caused to Boyer and to her family?

Should those two ISPs be held morally accountable, even if they were not responsible (in the narrow sense) for causing harm to Boyer and even if they can be exonerated from charges of strict legal liability?

It would be reasonable to hold these ISPs accountable if it also could be shown that the ISPs were capable of limiting the harm to persons that result from their various online forums.

Review Guide Chapter 2: Discussion Stoppers

What are morality and ethics? People disagree on solutions to moral issues. Who am I to judge others? Morality is simply a private matter Flaws in discussion stoppers

Cultural relativism, moral relativism, moral absolutism Consequence-based ethical theories Duty-based ethical theories Contract-based ethical theories Character-based ethical theories 

Review Guide II Chapter 4

What is a profession? Who is a computer professional? Professional code in computer science Responsibility, legal liability, and accountability

 Chapter 5 Dimensions of privacy: accessibility, decisional, etc. Data monitoring, recording and tracking techniques;

merging matching, mining What are PETs?

Review Guide III Chapter 6

Categories and subcategories of computer security Hacktivism, cyberterrorism, information warfare

 Chapter 8 Intellectual property Copyright law, fair-use, fair-sale Theories of property