CS 1590

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution)

The Internet enables any ordinary citizen to become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. (Supreme Court)

We have exported to the world, through the architecture of the Internet, a First Amendment in code more extreme than our own First Amendment in law. (Larry Lessig)

The Net puts the full power of 'freedom of the press' into each individual's hands. (Michael Godwin)

Obscene Speech:

• Depicts illegal sexual or scatological acts.

• Offensive to a reasonable person according to community standards.

• No serious literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value.

• Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendmend and is illegal for everyone.

Harmful to Minors:

• Appeals to prurient or morbid interests of minors.

• Offensive to adult standards of what is suitable for minors.

• Utterly without redeeming social value for minors.

• Banned for minors under age of 17.

Child Pornography:

• Depicts children engaged in sexual activity.

• Illegal under all circumstances.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) enacted because:

• Public and Congress worried about easily accessible pornography on the Internet.

• Congress concerned that widespread pornography would diminish value of the Internet.

• Passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Key provisions of the CDA:

• Established criminal penalties on anyone who knowlingly transmits indecent material to a minor.

• Outlawed display of offensive sexual material in a manner available to minors.

Defenders claimed:

• Appropriate way to keep pornographic material from children.

• Did not ban adults from viewing pornography.

• Established defense for those who take "reasonably effective" measures to screen out children.

Problems with the CDA:

• Category of "indecent" speech not well-defined.

• Definition of "reasonably effective" not clear.

• Might censor art, literature, or health-related information.

• Did nothing to stop international or anonymous sources of pornography.

Fate of the CDA:

• Challenged by ACLU and others.

• Declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in 1997.

• Supreme Court claims that the Internet is entitled to First Amendment protection.

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA):

• Passed Congress, and signed by President Clinton, in 1998.

• Aimed at commercial sites on the Internet.

• Makes it illegal to make sexual materials harmful to minors available to people under 17.

• Requires adult web sites to collect credit card number or other identification code.

• Despite narrow focus still challenged by ACLU and others.

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA):

• Championed by Senator McCain and signed by President Clinton in 2000.

• Relies on libraries and schools to regulate the Internet by using filters.

• Connected to federal e-rate program which subsidizes Internet connections for libraries and schools.

• Immediately challenged by libraries and others.

The defeat of the CDA and other legislation had two effects:

• Less confidence in governmental controls on the Internet.

• Greater reliance on individual solutions such as filtering.

Internet filters can operate in several ways:

• They can allow access to only an explicit list of sites.

• They can disallow access to an explicit list of sites.

• They can rely on labels assigned by authors.

• They can rely on labels assigned by organizations and other third parties.

• They can (intelligently) evaluate content.

The use of filters raises potential problems:

• Should adults limit children's access to the Internet?

• Will voluntary rating schemes eventually become mandatory?

• Will reliance on one or two rating schemes effectively censor the Internet?

• Does the use of filters distort one's view of reality?

• Should libraries use Internet filters?

The use of filters in libraries has been challenged:

• American Library Association has taken position against use of filters in libraries.

• Several libraries, notably Loudoun County Library (Virginia), have resisted using filters.

There are several good arguments against use of filters in libraries:

• Use of filters in libraries violates First Amendment.

• Even limited use of filters puts us on slippery slope towards censorship.

• Use of filtering software gives control to outsiders (software companies, etc.).

• Puts administrative and financial burden on library.

• Filters are not completely effective.

There are several good arguments for the use of filters in libraries:

• People have a right to feel comfortable in their public library.

• A rigid position against filters might create a backlash and more extreme censorship.

• Filters can be customized or turned off for research purposes.

• If libraries become outlets for pornography and hate materials, public will refuse to fund them.

• Display of pornography and hate materials will create a hostile workplace for staff; lawsuits will follow.

Hate speech is treated differently in the U.S. and Europe:

• Americans generally view hate speech as a problem but do not outlaw it.

• Europe (especially France and Germany) outlaw hate speech.

Hate speech is widespread on the Internet:

• Each of us is the target of hate speech on the Internet.

• Minorities (racial, religious, ethnic, sexual) are frequently targets.

• There are thousands of virulent hate sites that advocate violence.

Attempts to regulate hate speech often are problematic:

• Yahoo, France, and Nazi memorabilia.

• Planned Parenthood and The Nuremberg Files web site.

Some people love it:

• Spam is a form of speech and should be protected by the First Amendment.

• It enables cheap, targeted advertising.

• Can serve important social or political causes.

Most people hate it:

• Spam is commercial speech that does not deserve constitutional protection.

• It is very costly to the recipients.

• Is a form of trespass.

• Does not serve any legitimate causes.