FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET

1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET BY: RAYMOND , NIKHIL, JAY, MARIO, MADHU

2. Video Jay Rockefeller - Prelude To Internet Kill Switch • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb0E66BSD9I&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL35148052DC2198B4

3. What Companies Can Do • Global issues • Censorship is a problem in many countries • Resistance – e.g. Google refused services in China unless China stopped censoring searches Pope handout, page 7 http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-13/tech/google.china.analysis_1_google-network-thousands-of-search-terms-search-engine?_s=PM:TECH

4. What Companies Can Do • Make it clear that every action taken on a given site is monitored – would cause people to be more cautious

5. What Companies Can Do • Facebook is allowing hateful/racist comments • The First Amendment protects these statements • While Facebook’s rules prohibit these posts, they’re not enforced http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/09/report-facebook-a-haven-for-ha.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/13/facebook-holocaust-denial-groups

6. What Companies Can Do • If private companies don’t regulate freedom of speech, then the government would have to step in, and that has widespread opposition http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/09/report-facebook-a-haven-for-ha.html

7. What constitutes being “responsible” on the internet? • Some examples of being responsible: • Not uploading inappropriate content • Not spreading viruses • Not stealing other people’s information and identity • Two forms of user responsibility: • Personal responsibility • Mandated responsibility http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5542230081_c0e07657b3.jpg

8. federal developments regarding cybersecurity • President Obama proposed a national cybersecurity education program • He also proposed increased penalties for computer criminals • Cybersecurity is key in federal government policy http://www.pcworld.com/article/165773/obamas_cybersecurity_initiative_wins_praise.html; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/12/fact-sheet-cybersecurity-legislative-proposal; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62861.html; http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/wharton-aerospace-defense-report/images/cyber300_2.jpg

9. Personal developments regarding security • Users have to be more aware of the websites they are visiting: • Do business with credible companies • Avoid submitting credit card information online • Avoid using debit cards for online purchases • Limit exposure of private information http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST04-013.html; http://www.fantasticplaces.net/products/designs/Personal_Responsibility.jpg

10. Religious developments regarding cybersecurity • [The Church seeks] “honest and respectful dialogue with those responsible for … communications” • Fundamental fact of the Church about Internet responsibility: “Young people in particular need to be taught … ‘to be good Christians’ … So, young people will be true citizens of that age of social communications which has already begun” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html#_ftn11; http://slangcath.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/the-digital-revolution-and-the-church.jpg

11. Worldwide Censorship • Blue=no censorship • Yellow=some censorship • Red= countries under surveillance from reporters without borders. • Black-most heavily censored nations. (legend wording found on Wikipedia)Reporters without borders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_blackholes.svg )

12. Worldwide Censorship www.ifap.ru/library/book495.pdf )

13. US Statistics • Percentage of cyberbullying victims among high school students in the US: 5.7%-18.3%. • Percent of cyberbullies: 9.1%-23.1% http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf

14. Chinese Statistics • Percentage of cyberbullying victims among high school students in China: 17.8%. • Percent of cyberbullies: 32.1% http://www.macaudailytimes.com.mo/macau/28850-Cyberbullying-worrying-trend-new-playground-for-teenagers.html

15. Conclusions • Both these studies were conducted over approximately 2000 teenage students. • The conclusion drawn is that government censorship may not be the solution. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

16. Exceptions to the First Amendment Speech that is likely to lead to imminent lawless action may be prohibited. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

17. Exceptions to the First Amendment "Fighting words" -- i.e., words so insulting that people are likely to fight back -- may be prohibited. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

18. Exceptions to the First Amendment Obscenity -- i.e., erotic expression, grossly or patently offensive to an average person -- may be prohibited. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

19. Exceptions to the First Amendment Child pornography may be banned whether or not it is legally obscene and whether or not it has serious artistic or social value. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

20. Exceptions to the First Amendment Defamatory statements may be prohibited. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

21. Exceptions to the First Amendment Commercial Speech may be banned only if it is misleading, pertains to illegal products http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

22. Threats When does speech become a threat? When does a communication over the Internet inflict -- or threaten to inflict -- sufficient damage to be considered illegal? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

23. “Jake Baker” Case Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz fabricated a story of how he tortured, abused, and killed a young woman, who was given the name a classmate. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

24. “Jake Baker” Case Jake corresponded with another person over the internet to fabricate plans for kidnapping and torturing another of his classmates http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

25. “Jake Baker” Case DECISION? ILLEGAL Anybody implying any threat to kidnap or to injure a person, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

26. “Nuremberg Files” Case The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), an anti-abortion group, created a poster featuring a group of doctors dubbed “the Dirty Dozen” who performed abortions. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

27. “Nuremberg Files” Case An expanded list of abortion providers, now dubbed the "Nuremberg files," was posted on the Internet with the home addresses of the doctors http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

28. “Nuremberg Files” Case • The list was color-coded as follows: • People who had been murdered were crossed out • People who had been wounded were printed in grey http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

29. “Nuremberg Files” Case The doctors named and described on the list feared for their lives. They believed that the ACLA was implicitly encouraging their being targeted. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

30. “Nuremberg Files” Case DECISION? LEGAL Although there were violent tinges to the ACLA’s methods, it was ruled that there was no explicit threat to kidnap or injure. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

31. Intellectual Property Intellectual property MAY NOT be republished via the internet without the consent of the original author. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

32. Implications of anonymity “Suppose I receive an anonymous note asserting that I have been betrayed by a friend. I will not know what to make of it – is it a joke, a slander, a warning, a test? “ http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/03/on-internet-slander-and-irresponsibility/