Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Promote
Mary Hofstetter

2384
3481 Posts
3481
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 100 Poster
Person Of The Week
INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH
9/12/2007 4:00:25 AM
Internet Freedom of Speech http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ip_speech.htm AUTHOR IS NOT NAMED [W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct, that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas, that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. - Justice Holmes; Abrams v. United States; In dissent; 250 U.S. 616; 630; 1919. Information wants to be free, and the Internet fosters freedom of speech on a global scale. The Internet is a common area, a public space like any village square, except that it is the largest common area that has ever existed. Anything that anybody wishes to say can be heard by anyone else with access to the Internet, and this world-wide community is as large and diverse as humanity itself. Therefore, from a practical point of view, no one community's standards can govern the type of speech permissible on the Internet. In the words of John Barlow, a founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) -- "In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance". The principle of freedom of speech is also embedded in the Internet's robust architecture. In the words of John Gilmore, another founding member of the EFF -- "The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." Because of the Internet's robust design, it is impossible to completely block access to information except in very limited and controlled circumstances, such as when blocking access to a specific site from a home computer, or when using a firewall to block certain sites from employees on a workplace network. If you believe that progress of human civilization depends on individual expression of new ideas, especially unpopular ideas, then the principle of freedom of speech is the most important value society can uphold. The more experience someone has with the Internet the more strongly they generally believe in the importance of freedom of speech, usually because their personal experience has convinced them of the benefits of open expression. The Internet not only provides universal access to free speech, it also promotes the basic concept of freedom of speech. If you believe that there is an inherent value in truth, that human beings on average and over time recognize and value truth, and that truth is best decided in a free marketplace of ideas, then the ability of the Internet to promote freedom of speech is very important indeed. A few of the early events that signaled the power of the Internet to promote freedom of speech are summarized below: Tiananmen. During the Tiananmen Square rebellion in China in 1990, the Internet kept Chinese communities around the world, especially in universities, in touch with the current events through email and the newsgroups, bypassing all government censorship. Russian Coup. In 1991 a Soviet computer network called Relcom stayed online and bypassed an information blackout to keep Soviet citizens and others around the world in touch with eyewitness accounts and up-to-date information about the attempted communist coup against Mikhail Gorbachev. Kuwait Invasion. Internet Relay Chat became well-known to the general public around the world in 1991, when traffic skyrocketed as users logged on to get up-to-date information on Iraq's invasion of Baghdad through an Internet link with Kuwait. The links stayed operational for a week after radio and television broadcasts were cut off. Archives of this first world famous IRC event can be found here. CDA. In 1996 the US Government passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) prohibiting distribution of adult material over the Internet, even though the law was widely believed to be unenforceable and unconstitutional. This gave birth to a blue ribbon campaign to show support for freedom of speech on the Internet. Many sites placed a black background on their web pages for the first 24 hours after the CDA passed. A few months later a three-judge panel imposed an injunction against the law's enforcement, pending resolution of lawsuits launched by several civil liberties groups, and the law was subsequently found be be unconstitutional. National Restrictions. In 1996 many countries around the world became frightened of the freedom of speech associated with the Internet. China mandated that Internet users must register with the police. Germany banned access to some adult newsgroups on Compuserve. Saudi Arabia restricted Internet access to universities and hospitals. Singapore mandated that political and religious sites must register with the government. New Zealand courts ruled that computer disks are a type of "publication" that can be censored. None of these efforts had much lasting effect. Yugoslavia. 1996, a radio station in Yugoslavia bravely exercised their right to freedom of speech and continued to broadcast over the Internet after all other normal broadcasting was shut down by one of the last remaining dictatorial governments in Europe, later overthrown.
+0
Joe
Joe Tedesco

0
6 Posts
6
Invite Me as a Friend
Re: INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH
9/12/2007 5:41:37 AM
Well, it is tough to argue with a statement such as that. It would be like standing up and shouting I hate freedom!  Not to mention the fact that I have to post right after that. It is sort of a tough act to follow. So I won't even try. lol
+0
Arthur Webster

181
600 Posts
600
Invite Me as a Friend
Re: INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH
9/12/2007 6:19:18 AM

Hi, Mary,

Freedom carries responsibility and while the basic tennet of 'free speech' is applauded by all, it cannot oner-rule the equally strict tennet of not presenting opinions as facts.

I posted the following article to My Local Gazette some while ago and it is, indeed, an object lesson in the difference between freedom and licence.

A long case between the owners of a web site covering the concerns and opinions of young mothers and the author of several successful books on the subject of baby and childcare in the UK High Court has tried to establish the responsibility for posts that could be made into a forum or blog. (Gina Ford - v - Mumsnet)

The successful author and child care expert became the subject of what almost amounted to a major attack upon her on a very personal level. The basic defence of the owners of the website against the charge was that they only provided a place for people to get together and share ideas and opinions. The ascertion was that, as facilitators, they could not be held accountable for what others had done.

The case was in the High Court for well over a year before the web site owners decided that a settlement out of court might be the safest way forward because it had become more clear that the owners of a website were just as responsible for the statements and comments of contributors to the website as the publishers of more traditional media.

Although the settlement out of court could indicate that no final ruling had been reached, it is fairly clear that the website owners had seen that their case was not as strong as first thought and that discretion would be the greater form of valour.

Although, probably, not the major victory that the expert might have hoped for, this lengthy case will have attracted the attention of the law makers and the likelihood is that what appears to be a grey area at the moment will be brought into sharp focus before too long.

It seems that statements of opinion,when clearly identifiable as such, will be defensible but any statement of fact or any statement having the appearance of a factual nature will almost certainly be brought into the laws of libel and defamy - and this could cost website, forum owners and bloggers dear.

If you have anything on your web pages, no matter who put it there, that might become actionable, you might consider removing it. If the law is tightened up it will be retroactive. If the offending statements are still there when the legislation is fixed, you will have no defence.

Meanwhile, why take the risk?

Freedom of speech is a great asset that gets abused on a regular basis. It can be said that to preface every controversial statement with the words "In my opinion....." or "According to Joe Bloggs...." is no longer a defence against a charge of libel because it has become formulaic, rather like syaing 'bless you' when somebody sneezes.

The Old Coot.

+0
Re: INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH
9/12/2007 8:45:41 AM
If a person or a country has nothing to hide, why should freedom of speech be feared?
+0
Re: INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH
9/12/2007 10:01:41 AM

HELLO ALL :

yep...that's it in a nut shell... cashew or unsalted...

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!