Different forms of speech have received differenttreatment under the First Amendment
And they continue to do so, which is innately wrong. As I mentioned in one of the first annotations, the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned social media as it is today, but their framework for our rights still holds up completely for our society today. Free speech is free speech, whether in a telegram, book, newspaper, or anywhere online.
if regulation of Cyber-Speech is even warranted
I believe regulation is 100% warranted. No regulation leads to, in my opinion, chaos, and this will not be beneficial to us as a society.
Communication, when accessed on a homecomputer, should not be subjected to lesser FirstAmendment protection
Agree 100%, and this is becoming a much bigger issue today.
specificallywhen a BBS is accessible only to paying customers.
I chuckle at this line because BBS's are not as prominent of an issue today as what the author is making it out to be.
In formulating such regulations and policies,however, legislators and adjudicators must carefullychoose the manner in which they will proceed to de-termine what will constitute permissible regulationof transmissions adross computer networks
Although this is an older article, this idea is very much true today, if not even more so. The internet is going to continuously evolve. There will be more pathways to go down, new doors to be opened, so if legislators think they are having a rough time right now trying to keep up it is going to become a whole different ballgame.
When computer bulletin board services are uti-lized as a means of promoting criminal or dangerousbehavior, particularly that found to endanger thesafety of children, there is a compelling governmentinterest in providing protection from any form ofharm.
Rightfully so. I think everyone can get on board with this sentiment.
The Act would requireregulation of everything from public postings to pri-vate e-mail messages.
This reminds me of the Patriot Act, signed into law by George W. Bush. Essentially, the Patriot Act called for the allowance of surveillance of people's private calls, emails, and internet usage for the purpose of stopping terrorist attacks before they are ever able to begin. Looking back, this invasion of privacy was very close to infringing on people's First Amendment rights. Attached is a video for a more concise definition and why it was so controversial.
A major problem with the bill is that itcensors more than just sexually explicit stories.
Was the intention of this bill only to censor sexually explicit material? I don't believe that was the case, so if I am reading this right, the author is wrong.
Communications De-cency Act of 1995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VltcZRiSM7M
Video about a small part of this act, Section 230.
The First Amendment of the United States Con-stitution guarantees the freedom of speech and of the
Cubby Inc. filed suit against CompuServe Inc.based on alleged defamatory statements found on"Rumorville," a daily newsletter provided on-line onthe Journalism Forum.
LaMacchia maintained that he was only adistributor, and thus was no more liable than abookstore owner who supplies information that islater used illegally by others.
LaMacchia in this instance is using a similar defense that platforms use all the time. Similar to what we discussed earlier, platforms are just places to post, and they take no liability over what people say or do on their platform. It is a compelling argument. In a way, both LaMacchia in this instance and platforms in general are just "giving people the tools," they are not making or forcing them to use them.
Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/776/135/2340509/
Becauseof its anonymous character,
https://images.app.goo.gl/yYSKTnict5u9wwd77
(Image)
Judge Richard A. Dami-ani set bail at $500,000
Very unusually high for something like this.
If a print publisher is permitted to print and re-port information that is available to the public, thena computer systems operator should not be deniedthat same freedom. The information that MichaelElansky published was not classified; indeed, it wasfreely available to the public at large. Denying himthe right to publish the information was a violationof his rights.
I think I have to respectfully disagree with this sentiment. True, anyone could go buy those instruction books, including children, but those books are not being thrust at them to read like Michael Elanasky was doing online.
The Thomasesoperated their bulletin board out of their Californiahome; however, they were tried and convicted inMemphis, Tennessee.
Very intriguing how through usage of the internet, you can be tried in a completely different place then where you were operating/living.
Sable Communi-cations of Cal. Inc. v. FCC,
Here is an article with a better explanation of the case.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
Here is a solid article explaining the case and ruling in-depth.
In Ac-tion for Children's Television v. FCC,"e the FCC or-dered a ban on the broadcast of indecent speech fromsix a.m. to midnight.'
This part is very interesting to me. A ban for that long seemingly because that's when kids are awake is odd because it takes away all time of the day, even for adults.The implication that only adults will be awake then is a hot-take.
The Court has de-fined indecent speech as that which fails to conformwith accepted standards of morality
I feel like this line can really connect well with Dr. Z's article "Gender Moderation and Moderating Gender on Twitch." In the article, Dr. Zolides cites Sarah Roberts. She states that "moderation and screening are crucial steps that protect their corporate or platform brand." Dr. Zolides adds to this by saying "yet, sites also wish to uphold a vision of freedom of expression." Back to what I annotated, it can be very difficult moderating. The idea of "indecent speech" adds a whole new wrinkle into what platforms may choose to allow and disallow. Seemingly, platforms are boxed into a corner with no "right" solution.
When Newsweek released a contro-versial cover story entitled Men, Women & Com
(https://www.newsweek.com/men-women-computers-188544)
Here is a link to said article.
In Ca-nada, for example, when a court imposed a gag or-der on the media to prevent potential jurors fromlearning the details of a confession made by an ac-cused murderer's accomplice, computer users set upa newsgroup on a computer bulletin board service("BBS") to post daily information.'
(https://mdcourts.gov/juryservice/why)
Here is a good website to help understand why, as a juror, you cannot use outside information, web services specifically, to influence your line of thinking. This is becoming more and more difficult to manage as technology becomes more and more widespread.
The protection given speech and press was fash-ioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas forthe bringing about of political and social changes de-sired by the people
Our found fathers could never have envisioned Twitter, Facebook, or social media in general. But what they created in the rights of free speech are perhaps even more important today than they were back then.
It is a "free space" that noone controls or owns.
I would actually challenge this sentiment. Although I understand what the author is saying, a good portion of the internet is monitored and controlled by organizations. What I mean is if you want to share with your friends your thoughts you would probably have to go on Twitter or Facebook to do this. These are obviously moderated platforms, so it begs the question if the internet is truly "free."
the Internet appears to be a virtualplayground for pedophiles and anarchists to roam,thereby creating a demand for increased regulation.
This line reminds me of Fitzgerald's "Late Nights Online" article that we covered in class. Anyone on the internet can act like someone they are not. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to tell who someone online really is. In Fitzgerald's work, she talks about catfishing someone online. This is a part of the concern in the line that I am annotating currently.
Vice President Al Gore
https://images.app.goo.gl/Laez2xMN3sUUzrL99
(Image)
*Since we covered memes I thought this would be appropriate
made it difficult for the legislative and judicialbranches to determine exactly what protection com-puter speech warrants.
This idea of judicial and legislation having trouble coming up with remedies and additions to free speech regulations as technology gets more and more unique is very similar to our idea we touched on regarding "platforms" and their free speech rights. I forget the bill name, but we discussed it for a day. It was about the liability platforms face if they edit too many things.