This class proved to be as thought provoking as I imagined it would be. Two things surprised me:
First - as adult citizens, we have an incredible amount of freedom when it comes to the First Amendment. We are free to speak our mind with very few limits. We can defame others, or incite violence, but, relatively speaking, anything else goes.
Second - For as much freedom as we have on the Internet, it could be gone in a heartbeat. What concerns me the most about the First Amendment in the Digital Age for the future is the vast amount of discretion the private ISP's have. If these companies wanted, they could severely curtail our freedom of speech.
This is certainly an interesting dichotomy. It is my hope that we take action to ensure the Internet remains a protected forum for the free expression of speech.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
".xxx" Domain Name Approved
On March 18th, the ICANN (the organization that manages domain names) approved the new .xxx domain name. Starting this summer, the ICM will begin selling the domain name to adult entertainment companies. In other words, playboy.com will be able to create a new website called playboy.xxx.
At this point, the domain name is completely voluntary. Some, however, fear that the domain name might become mandatory. Surprisingly, both religious conservative groups and pornography distributors are in agreement against the new domain name. Religious groups worry the new domain name will legitimize adult entertainment. Pornographers worry their content will be easily blocked and filtered by other governments, and private organizations.
This new domain name was the focus on my paper. I essentially argue the new domain name is a bad idea, and any attempt to make the domain mandatory would violate the First Amendment. The domain name would only apply to pornographers, and therefore would not be content-neutral. As such, because the regulation would be content-based, it would not survive strict scrutiny.
At this point, the domain name is completely voluntary. Some, however, fear that the domain name might become mandatory. Surprisingly, both religious conservative groups and pornography distributors are in agreement against the new domain name. Religious groups worry the new domain name will legitimize adult entertainment. Pornographers worry their content will be easily blocked and filtered by other governments, and private organizations.
This new domain name was the focus on my paper. I essentially argue the new domain name is a bad idea, and any attempt to make the domain mandatory would violate the First Amendment. The domain name would only apply to pornographers, and therefore would not be content-neutral. As such, because the regulation would be content-based, it would not survive strict scrutiny.
House Republicans Pass Bill To Repeal Rules On Net Neutrality
On April 11th, House Republicans passed a bill to repeal the rules set forth by the FCC regulating Net Neutrality. The Republicans argued the FCC lacked authority to promulgate the rules regarding Net Neutrality. According this article, the vote passed in the House largely among party lines. The Senate is not expected to pass the bill.
Also challenging the FCC regulation has been Verizon. In fact, most of the large ISP's would prefer not to be regulated. As we've discussed in class, this seems to be an instance where a little regulation would ensure a lot of freedom for users. I've come to the conclusion that, although currently provided by private companies, the Internet is a public resource, which should be regulated in a manner which benefits the public as much as possible.
By ensuring users can access all content without discrimination, the FCC can ensure all users are able to enjoy the Internet for whatever purpose they see fit.
Also challenging the FCC regulation has been Verizon. In fact, most of the large ISP's would prefer not to be regulated. As we've discussed in class, this seems to be an instance where a little regulation would ensure a lot of freedom for users. I've come to the conclusion that, although currently provided by private companies, the Internet is a public resource, which should be regulated in a manner which benefits the public as much as possible.
By ensuring users can access all content without discrimination, the FCC can ensure all users are able to enjoy the Internet for whatever purpose they see fit.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Leahy: 1st Amendment Protects Speech, Not Theft
Senator Leahy has announced he will be introducing a new bill to combat online piracy. According to this article, he stated, "There's no First Amendment right that protects thieves. It protects speech."
Now, at the start of the article, I pretty much agreed with Leahy's sentiment. Despite growing up at a time when free music and videos was pretty much the norm, I can't articulate any reasonable argument that would support the piracy of copyrighted content.
Then, I read that one of the supporters of the bill was Major League Baseball (MLB). For those who are familiar with YouTube, you may be aware that the MLB, and especially the NFL, attempt to keep their content off the site. On the other hand, the NBA has it's own NBA channel, and actually encourages its content being posted.
In contrast to music, TV shows, or movies, there is a very small market for replays of sporting events that occurred a decade ago. In other words, people buy CD's and DVD's that were released ten years ago; they don't pay for old sports footage.
Yet, the MLB and NFL don't want their content posted. While this is less of a 1st Amendment argument than a good business argument, it makes little sense to suppress the dissemination of content, even if protected by copyright, if it promotes your own sport.
Now, at the start of the article, I pretty much agreed with Leahy's sentiment. Despite growing up at a time when free music and videos was pretty much the norm, I can't articulate any reasonable argument that would support the piracy of copyrighted content.
Then, I read that one of the supporters of the bill was Major League Baseball (MLB). For those who are familiar with YouTube, you may be aware that the MLB, and especially the NFL, attempt to keep their content off the site. On the other hand, the NBA has it's own NBA channel, and actually encourages its content being posted.
In contrast to music, TV shows, or movies, there is a very small market for replays of sporting events that occurred a decade ago. In other words, people buy CD's and DVD's that were released ten years ago; they don't pay for old sports footage.
Yet, the MLB and NFL don't want their content posted. While this is less of a 1st Amendment argument than a good business argument, it makes little sense to suppress the dissemination of content, even if protected by copyright, if it promotes your own sport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)