Reading Ch. 12 in your Lessig book share your thoughts about the following. Explain what Lessig says, then provide your arguments and examples:
- There are modalities of both regulation and protection…[that] function both as constraints on behavior and as protections against other constraints. (p. 234).
- But on top of this list of protectors of speech in cyberspace is (once again) architecture. Relative anonymity, decentralized distribution, multiple points of access, no necessary tie to geography, no simple system to identify content, tools of encryption–all these features and consequences of the Internet protocol make it difficult to control speech in cyberspace. The architecture of cyberspace is the real protector of speech in cyberspace; it is the real “First Amendment in cyberspace,” (p. 236, para 3’ish).
- Regulations of Speech: Publication: give a current example from the last couple of years illustrating this tension here. What is the tension? What is the government’s position (p. 239)? What is prior restraint? (p. 239)….Thus the architecture of the Net, Abrams suggested, eliminates the need for the constitutional protection. (p. 241).
- Regulations of Speech: Spam and Porn: What is pam? (p. 245). Regardless of personal feelings, should law support spam? (p. 246) How is spam regulated extensively? (p. 246). How is porn regulated (p. 246, bottom)? Obscenity? (p. 247).
- Thus as with porn, a different architectural constraint means a radically different regulation of behavior. Both porn and spam are…regulated in real space; in cyberspace, this difference in architecture means neither is effectively regulated at all. (p. 249). How so…
- Regulating Net-Porn: p. 251: What id Ginsberg establish?
- Page 253: What is the <H2M> tag? What does it do for porn?
- Page 255: What is the ACLU’s concern? What do you think?
- P. 257: What’s the deal with the ratings and the filtering? How does it impact Freedom of Speech?
- p. 258: Between the filtering regime and the H2M+KMB solution, private zoning of speech, which would you prefer? Consider the arguments at bottom of p. 258 in your response and tell us what you feel, ultimately?
- What does Lessig argue vis a vis point 10? See page 260, bottom half.
- Page 262: Most of feel the law can’t be too effective at regulating spam. How so? What should the regulation be? What does Lessig advocate? p. 262.
- Regulations of speech: Free culture: What is the role of copies in digital space vs. real life space? (p. 268).
- Should First Amendment values have a role in this world beyond the minimal protections accorded to the idea/expression distinction and its relationship with “fair use”?
- Regulations of Free Speech: Distribution: p. 272, bottom para: How does WiFi example illustrate how spectrum works? p. 274: Spectrum allocated v. spectrum shared architectures: Which do you prefer and why? Explain both…
1. Law, norms, market, and architecture form a net of both protection and regulation that works to support one’s right to free speech, but in various cases one aspect of that net may outweigh another.
2. The international and open architecture of the internet enables a level of free speech that surpasses the control of any one government, allowing complete and total ability to express oneself in ways that may be controversial (in disagreement with cultural norms) or even illegal .
3. An example of a recent tension regarding publication and freedom of speech is the thousands of classified US government documents that Wikileaks has published since 2010. The government technically must show “irreparable harm” (so significant and irreversible that the Court
must intervene to prevent it) in order for articles to be prevented from being published, but it also gets upset when its ugly secrets are exposed. Prior restraint refers to when the government gets a court to stop publication
of some material, instead of punish the publisher later for what was
4. Spam is an interaction in cyberspace where there is no relationship between the sender and recipient, is not related to politics, and is sent to many users at once. Law should not support spam because it is most often a form of fraud and misrepresentation. In cyberspace neither spam nor porn is regulated, but in real space spam is regulated by the physical and financial limits of bulk mail, and porn by laws, social norms, and the market.
5. The open architecture of the internet allows these activities to occur inexpensively (low risk for returns) and secretly (browsing online is easier to conceal than the physical action of walking into a store).
6. Ginsberg established requirements for vendors of porn to sell it only to adults, and that states can require vendors to check the ID of buyers. Ginsberg also established that there is a class of speech that adults have a
right to but that children do not
7. H2M means “harmful to minors” and would make kids-mode-browsing possible by refusing to show webpages (e.i. porn) with that tag to children.
8. The ACLU argues that the filters that the market has created not only filter much more broadly than the government wants to by bocking speech, as they are prone to accidentally filtering out sites that need not be filtered by it (overinclusive).
9. Rating systems could be set up for different ideological bodies, filtration could occur in accordance with those ratings. Freedom of speech could hypothetically be squashed by this if a government with a particular ideology applied its filter to their country’s whole internet, thus eliminating not the posting of conflicting views but the viewing of that content by other citizens.
10. I prefer the kids-ID zoning solution because it more specifically addresses the concern at hand. It lets the user know that they are being blocked from a site, unlike filtering which can happen without your knowledge. Additionally, there is a value in confronting the unfiltered, as it helps us learn and stay informed.
11. Lessig argues for “the regime that is least transformative of important
public values. A zoning regime that enables children to self-identify is less
transformative than a filtering regime that in effect requires all speech to be
12. The law has trouble being effective at preventing spam because the goal of spam is generally to incur a financial transaction. The goal of regulation should be to block nonconsensual communication and enable
consensual communication. Lessig advocates use of code to control spam.
13. In real life, material can be communicated and shared without ever making a “copy” but in the digital realm material has to be copied in order to be shared.
14. Beyond the minimal protections of the “idea/expression” distinction and the requirement of “fair use,” First Amendment ideas should have no reach.
15. With both wifi and radio waves (spectrum), there is no government
or regulator that tells which machine when it can speak. Allocated means the government tells entities which wavelengths they can use, shared means more of a free for all. I prefer allocated with an ability of individual entities (regardless of financial status) to protest, as this is the most fair way to ensure equal access to radio waves by small, university stations and commercial public stations alike.
1. Market, law, norms, and architecture are the constraints on behavior and protections against other constraints.
2. Architecture is the most protective when it comes to free speech. I think the architecture of the internet should be the most protective towards free speech, but should also be responsible to constraining illegal activity.
3. WikiLeaks represents the most recent example of this tension between being able to freely publish information and wanting to keep secrets; the latter is preferred by the government. Prior restraint is when the government orders the court to halt publication of certain material, rather than to punish the author after the fact.
4. Spam refers to unsolicited commercial emails sent in bulk. The law should not support spam because it is typically false information or fraudulent material. Spam is regulated loosely by the cost. Porn is regulated by laws and social norms that dictate the market.
5. The nature of these activities are inexpensive so even though it may be minimal profit, it is still profit. In addition there is a lot of privacy on the internet.
6. Regulations – can only be sold to adults (check IDs)
7. Harmful to Minors – it does not allow children to access certain material and may redirect their web activity
8. That they will be blocking more sites than are necessary, therefore overregulating. I think this can be good and bad. Sometimes it’s better to be safer than sorry.
9. Ratings would allow filtration to be recommended through the rating system. This could allow overregulation and block particular news, for example, from mass amounts of people because someone set the filter this way.
10. I particularly like prefer the zoning solution because it only blocks are certain crowd and for a good reason. The filter model could happen and effect more people without their knowledge or consent.
11. Argues that the zoning regime that allows one to self-identify is less transformative than filtering and he is for the method that is least transformative.
12. The law cannot effectively regulate spam because it is a financial entity. The regulation should be to block unwanted information and allow one to enable what is wanted by them independently. Lessig believes there should be a code to control the communication of spam.
13. In real life we are able to communicate multiple times without having to make copies as one needs to do in digital space.
15. There is not regulation, but rather each shares a narrow band of spectrum that allows them to operate freely. Allocated – government specifies which wavelengths are used by what, shared does not have this regulation. Allocated allows a more fair distribution, although shared some may argue bigger commercial entities may require a larger wavelength.
1. Laws and regulations are in place because while some cases may find the rules extreme and unnecessary, but they define a standard to protect the interests of people involved.
2. It makes a lot of sense that the online world, in a way has a totally separate set of rules and even culture. All of the producers of web content are subject to the actual coders and the procedures they must follow to make the content accessible.
3. There are many instances that people believe the world would be better if certain content wasn’t published. The problem is, if you can censor one thing, then where does it stop? What’s the precedent? And who gets to decide? The Charlie France example from last year for example. The paper has a free right to publish offensive cartoons even if they might have traumatic consequences.
4. The publication of content like spam and porn might not be illegal, especially if people are paying/subscribing to it, but the practices themselves could still call for legal action. Such as the treatment of participants.
5. The publication of content like spam and porn might not be illegal, especially if people are paying/subscribing to it, but the practices themselves could still call for legal action. Such as the treatment of participants.
6. Regulations can also control and alter culture. If a lot of rules are placed on porn distribution then it is shaped as something that is taboo and not to be viewed as publicly acceptable. Free speech allows the content to exist but doesn’t stop lawmakers from keeping it out of the hands of children. However behind the veil of a computer everything becomes much more discrete.
7. I answered 6&7 ^
8. They believe that free speech is important but so is safe content. Therefore they believe that private filters were a less restrictive means than government regulation.
9. Users would then pick their filtering software and rating system.If you wanted the ratings of the Christian Right, for example, you could select its rating system; if I wanted the ratings of the Atheist Left, I could select that. By picking our raters, we would pick the content we wanted the software to filter.
10.The H2M+KMB solution alternative is much narrower. It enables a kind of private zoning of speech. But there would be no incentive for speakers to block out listeners; the incentive of a speaker is to have more, not fewer, listeners. This effect is even clearer if we take apart the components of the filtering process. Recall the two elements of filtering solutions—labeling content, and then blocking based on that labeling.
11. If there is speech the government has an interest in controlling, then let that control be obvious to the users. A political response is possible only when regulation is transparent.
12. The aim here, as with porn, should be to regulate to the end of assuring what we could call “consensual communication.”That is, the only purpose of the regulation should be to block nonconsensual communication, and enable consensual communication
13. The elements in that change are simple. Copyright law regulates, at a minimum, “copies.”Digital networks function by making “copies”: There’s no way to use a work in a digital environment without making a copy. Thus, every single use of creative work in a digital environment triggers, in theory at least, copyright.
14. The first amendment should be upheld but not taken as a blanket statement. Every case is unique and must be treated within the best interest of the community.
15. The best evidence of this is the second example I offer to dislodge the common understanding of how spectrum works. This example is called “WiFi.”WiFi is the popular name of a particular set of protocols that together 272 CODE 2.0 0465039146-01 12/5/06 12:28 AM Page 272 enable computers to “share” bands of unlicensed spectrum.
1. Modalities of regulation and protection can both protect content creators in ways such as copyrights, but it also protects those using someone else’s intellectual property if it falls under fair use.
2. Free speech on the Internet is much more “free” than free speech in real life, because it is not tied down by national laws as much and there is the aspect of anonymity online. People can say things online that are near untraceable due to the nature of tech used on the Web. It is a freer than free speech in a way.
3. One recent example of tension in recent years is the constant release of what was previously classified government information. Obviously, the government is usually not very pleased with this happening. Prior restraint happens when the government gets the court to stop the publication of certain things without punishing the publisher.
4. Spam is bulk, unsolicited emails. Laws should only support spam if it is not hindering the user. If the user asks for it to stop, it needs to be regulated. Porn and obscenity are regulated differently. Porn is illegal for children, obscenity is illegal for everyone.
5. Spam and porn are not regulated online because either can be accessed easily at any time by anyone, even by accident.
6. Ginsberg established that adults have a class of speech that is not allowed by children.
7. The H2M tag means “harmful to minors”. Certain types of kid browsing would be able to prevent sites, such as porn, with the H2M tag.
8. The ACLU’s concern is that H2M filters block out too much, including sites that are actually harmless, and would fine for children to visit.
9. By putting ratings and filters on certain things, that could limit who sees them, therefore in a way, limiting freedom of speech because it does not reach everyone.
10. I much prefer the kid-zone ID because if something is blocked, the reason is known, and also, if there is no kid using the device, it can be turned off.
11. Lessig argues that there should not be much filtering, and if there is filtering, it should be apparent to the user.
12. The law typically has trouble regulating spam because spam’s goal is financial transactions. Regulation should stop communication if it is not desired, but allow desired communication. Lessig says we should use code to control spam.
13. Online, there must be copies made to share things. In emails, both the sender and recipient get a copy of the email. In real life however, one thing can be shared between multiple people.
14. Beyond protection of intellectual property and fair use, freedom of speech online and First Amendment ideas should not have reach.
15. Spectrum works in that there is no government regulation saying which machine can communicate with another machine.
1. Lessig says that modalities of regulation and protection can both enable and disable certain behavior. For example, an individual who has impaired hearing is protected by laws ensuring the rights of the disabled, but that individual might be hindered by the cost of hearing aids.
2. Lessig’s argument is that the way the Internet is structured enables and relies on freedom of speech and access to content. I think that the fundamental structure of the Internet would make it difficult to police speech on a comprehensive level, and that if net neutrality can be maintained then free speech can also be maintained.
3. An example of the tension between the government and publications is WikiLeaks’ publication of documents about the Iraq War released by Chelsea Manning. As a result, Manning was arrested and the Obama administration was tasked with minimizing the impact of these documents. The government’s position in this case, as with the case mentioned by Lessig, was that these documents could potentially cause harm to soldiers and damage the reputation of the United States. Prior restraint, which is generally not exercised by the government, generally rules what materials can be published ahead of time. In regard to Adams’ statement, I do agree that the architecture of the Internet does encourage freedom of speech, but I don’t think that is an excuse not to protect freedom of speech online. Particularly where net neutrality and the power of ISPs are concerned, constitutional protection could one day be necessary to ensuring that all users of the Internet are equally able to access and produce content legally.
4. Spam is “unsolicited commercial e-mail sent in bulk” (245). According to Lessig, spam should be regulated online just as it is offline, where there are regulations against fraud and misrepresentation, and bulk mail is regulated in real space. Pornography in real space is also heavily regulated by laws, the market, and norms, which all dictate who exactly can purchase pornography. Obscenity is banned for all in real space in the United States.
5. Porn can be regulated strictly in real space, while the open architecture of the Internet makes regulation more difficult. Laws can be made to regulate specifically who can and cannot purchase porn, who can sell it, etc., but the open architecture of the Internet which allows virtually everyone to be able to publish and create content makes regulation more difficult.
6. Ginsberg established that children do not have a right to a class of speech that adults have a right to, which can be regulated by states. If speech is deemed harmful to minors and minors are able to consume this speech, then access can be blocked.
7. The tag delineates speech that would be “harmful to minors,” and would not display the content within the tag. Government regulation would be required to put such content blocks in place, requiring speakers to mark potentially harmful content.
8. The ACLU’s concern in this case is that filters created by the market filter more broadly than they should be able to, and in a non-transparent way. By using filters, the government could censor any speech they did not agree with. I think that the ACLU’s concern is something all Internet users should be concerned with. Such surveillance vastly oversteps the authority of the government to regulate content published online and can potentially be harmful to the function of the Internet and the ability of people to use it.
9. Ratings and filters would rate Internet content and then filter it accordingly. The system which would be utilized to rate and filter would lack transparency, and could be used broadly to filter large amounts of content. This could potentially inhibit freedom of speech if filters were applied to speech that might not be agreed with.
10. I would prefer the H2M+KMB solution because it seems much less broad than the filtering regime. Individual content creators are still in control of the content they publish; they just have to mark the speech that could be harmful. The filtering regime on the other hand, is much less transparent and far more overreaching, potentially limiting freedom of speech for nebulous reasons.
11. Lessig argues that regulations should be applied based on the values that are being asserted, and that if a regime were to be adopted, one that is least transformative of public values would be preferred.
12. Many think that law cannot be applied to spam because spammers will evade law as they avoid spam filters. Lessig argues that regulation should be put in place to allow individuals to block nonconsensual communication instead of just code that spammers can work around.
13. Copies in real space created for abnormal use such as publishing or public performance are subject to copyright claims. Copies in digital space have been targeted more frequently by copyright claims as regulation has expanded.
14. I do not think First Amendment values should have a role beyond its minimal protections. When these values are extended too far, they are abused by companies and intellectual property holders that can in turn infringe on the First Amendment rights afforded to others.
15. The WiFi example illustrates how computers use bands of unlicensed spectrum to communicate with one another. Spectrum allocated architecture relies on the government to determine the use of wavelengths, while shared spectrum architecture enables individual users to share wavelengths with one another controlled by protocols. I prefer the shared spectrum because it seems like it allows individual users more freedom from potentially extensive regulation imposed by government sources.
1. There are modalities of both regulation and protection…[that] function both as constraints on behavior and as protections against other constraints. (p. 234). Different modalities have different functions in different situations. The law, for example, might protect some while assisting in the discrimination of others.
2. But on top of this list of protectors of speech in cyberspace is (once again) architecture. Relative anonymity, decentralized distribution, multiple points of access, no necessary tie to geography, no simple system to identify content, tools of encryption–all these features and consequences of the Internet protocol make it difficult to control speech in cyberspace. The architecture of cyberspace is the real protector of speech in cyberspace; it is the real “First Amendment in cyberspace,” (p. 236, para 3’ish). The architecture of the internet is integral to its use. The Internet was meant to be used freely to promote a free flow of ideas, and its architecture allows for that.
3. Regulations of Speech: Publication: give a current example from the last couple of years illustrating this tension here. What is the tension? What is the government’s position (p. 239)? What is prior restraint? (p. 239)….Thus the architecture of the Net, Abrams suggested, eliminates the need for the constitutional protection. (p. 241). One of the most prominent examples is any time a news corporation fact-checks Donald Trump’s outlandish claims. He freaks out, calls it “fake news,” and demands the news corporations take back the claims. When they don’t, he calls them fake again and claims they’re “failing.” Sad! As it is well within news corporations’ rights to say “Donald Trump lied about his position on the Iraqi War multiple times,” the government can’t do much to oppose them even when Trump is president. Should he continue his totalitarian approach to governing, however, the case might change. One of the nice things about the Internet, however, is that once something goes up, it’s impossible to truly take down. Trump can say something and then delete it, but screenshots will exist forever (See: his tweet “Is it possible to impeach a president for gross incompetence?” which he has deleted since his gross incompetence became an issue of national debate).
4. Regulations of Speech: Spam and Porn: What is spam? (p. 245). Regardless of personal feelings, should law support spam? (p. 246) How is spam regulated extensively? (p. 246). How is porn regulated (p. 246, bottom)? Obscenity? (p. 247). Spam is unsolicited commercial email sent in bulk. I don’t think law should support spam, since most public places prohibit solicitation in real life and there are regulations on physical spam messages. Spam is regulated through real world restraints, cost restraints, and heavy regulation with things like contests. Porn is regulated to ensure nobody has access to child porn and no children have access to regular porn. This means checking IDs if porn is purchased in real life, social norms, and the actual requirement of trading money for a good (since kids often don’t have money). Obscenity is banned for all in real spaces.
5. Thus as with porn, a different architectural constraint means a radically different regulation of behavior. Both porn and spam are…regulated in real space; in cyberspace, this difference in architecture means neither is effectively regulated at all. (p. 249). How so… The open architecture of the internet means that minors can have free access to porn (often times literary porn, but also visual porn – see Tumblr) across a host of websites. While in real life there are easy ways to tell if someone is actually a Nigerian prince who has a fortune to pass on to you (he’s not), it can be more difficult to discern online when you can’t see a face or read body language.
6. Regulating Net-Porn: p. 251: What did Ginsberg establish? Ginsberg established that there is a class of free speech that adults have access to (porn) and children do not.
7. Page 253: What is the tag? What does it do for porn? H2M = harmful to minors. What it would do for porn is that it could denote content as porn without the site the content is hosted on being relegated to a porn domain name (.sex, .xxxx)
8. Page 255: What is the ACLU’s concern? What do you think? The filters that market create filter content over a much broader range than just H2M content and do so in a totally non-transparent way. I’m inclined to agree, because so many people think that non-cisgender/heterosexual identities are inherently harmful to minors and should be filtered away, when in reality they’re not and discrimination of that sort only leads to higher suicide rates.
9. P. 257: What’s the deal with the ratings and the filtering? How does it impact Freedom of Speech? Those that rate the internet’s content are not unbiased in their ratings, but also the filtering can be horizontal and also vertical. Once you rate something, ISPs can filter content without you even realizing it.
10. p. 258: Between the filtering regime and the H2M+KMB solution, private zoning of speech, which would you prefer? Consider the arguments at bottom of p. 258 in your response and tell us what you feel, ultimately? I would prefer the H2M+KMB solution. First of all, I think it’s simply unrealistic to rate the entire internet. It’s huge and expansive and grows more each day, there’s simply not enough people dedicated to that cause for it to be a realistic undertaking. Moreover, i think the M2M+KMB is more easily enforceable and less nebulous than filtering.
11. What does Lessig argue vis a vis point 10? See page 260, bottom half. Lessig favors the H2M+KMB solution as he doesn’t trust the vertical filtering regime and its lack of transparency, as well as how it can be used politically.
12. Page 262: Most of feel the law can’t be too effective at regulating spam. How so? What should the regulation be? What does Lessig advocate? p. 262. Lessig advocates cutting spam off at the point where spam needs to pay to be spread. If we can cut them off there with the law, then we can significantly cut down on spam.
13. Regulations of speech: Free culture: What is the role of copies in digital space vs. real life space? (p. 268). It is virtually impossible for media to exist in a digital space without being a copy or being copied. This is nothing like real life space, where copies aren’t as omnipresent and don’t invoke so many copyright laws.
14. Should First Amendment values have a role in this world beyond the minimal protections accorded to the idea/expression distinction and its relationship with “fair use”? No. People really like to say that calling them out on their nonsense is a violation of their first amendment rights, and those people need to stop.
15. Regulations of Free Speech: Distribution: p. 272, bottom para: How does WiFi example illustrate how spectrum works? p. 274: Spectrum allocated v. spectrum shared architectures: Which do you prefer and why? Explain both…
Wifi enables a large number of computers to use a spectrum of 2.5 GHz to 5 Ghz to communicate.
I prefer spectrum shared architectures because it allows more freedom for innovation and it presumes that people have common sense. Spectrum allocated means the government decides ranges, while spectrum shared architectures mean that designers and hardware itself determines ranges. I support that freedom to choose and adapt as needed.
1. Law, norms, market, and architecture are all restraints but they also protect against other restraints.
2. It is good that the way the internet is built/ the way that cyberspace’s architecture is makes a positive impact. This allows for complete free speech which can be good or bad depending on who interprets it.
4. Spam is unsolicited commercial e-mail sent in bulk. Despite the fact that most users find spam annoying, it should be legal because there is no illegal activity going on, it is just a slight inconvenience. Spam is regulated by cost. Porn does have more regulations by the law, what society thinks of it, and by who buys it.
5. Because of the architecture of cyberspace, you can still browse these things very secretively, especially since it is inexpensive.
6. Ginsberg established that there is a class of speech that adults have a
right to but that children do not.
7. The tag is the “harmful to minors” mark. This tag can restrict minors from seeing this content if that content is blocked by a parent.
8. The concern is that the filters that the market has created not only filter much more broadly than the legitimate interest the state has here—blocking speech—they also do so in a totally nontransparent way. If they are blocking more than what is legitimately needed, that is not a good thing.
9. Ratings and filtering could potentially lead to certain things being over filtered. This hinders freedom of speech because if you are being overly filtered, you won’t be able to say what you truly feel on certain cites.
10. I prefer the H2H=KMB solution. You have a right to know what is being blocked and with filtering, you can’t see any content so you don’t know what is being blocked.
11. Lessig’s viewpoint is that we shouldn’t opt for perfect filtering or allow for invisible upstream filtering.
12. Most people think the law cant play a big role because they think spammers will be better at evading the law than they are at evading spam filters. Lessig doesn’t fully agree.
13. In real life space, no copies are needed like they are in digital space.
14. It is hard to say so, since there are more an more platforms being invented to exercise your freedom of speech on, but in general, it should be kept to the minimal role it was originally intended for.
15. Regulations of Free Speech: Distribution: p. 272, bottom para: How does WiFi example illustrate how spectrum works? p. 274: Spectrum allocated v. spectrum shared architectures: Which do you prefer and why? Explain both…Wifi enables spectrum to be used by computers so that they can communicate. Spectrum allocated is more consistent with the first amendment because it is distributed it doesn’t focus on price.
1. Architecture, laws, markets and norms for the net of protection that works to protect free speech. These are the standard methods of protection.
2. One of the best attributes of the web and open architecture for that matter, is that it allows people the ability to have an unbothered platform to voice their opinions. The Web of course has to have its own set of rules, it is in essence its old word, but the protection of free speech should transcend to all platforms of communication,
3. The easiest example here is Wikileaks, but we are currently seeing the same issue arise with the argument of the withholding of intelligence documents. The government want to toe the fine line of portraying freedom of speech and information, but at the same time, trying its best to keep their best interests in mind at all times.
4. Spam is simply unsolicited junk sent to users. Spam should not be protected in the slightest because normally the content within these messages is malicious in nature. Entertainment such as porn, is more regulated by law than these truly malicious items. While porn has its knocks in terms of morality and social ethics, it should not be more regulated than spam that is basically trying to prey on people.
5. Neither spam nor porn is regulated in cyberspace because of the element of anonymity and privacy that the web offers. This type of hidden architecture allows both of these to stay unregulated because it is hard to pinpoint each and every time the content is sent or viewed.
6. Ginsberg required that porn vendors only sell to adults and that states can demand ID from both buyers and sellers. These are fair and just requirements.
7. H2M is an acronym that means “harmful to minors”. It limits access to certain sites and can redirect certain web activity.
8. The ACLU worries that while some sites should be regulated, there could be the unexpected fallout that the government overregulates and places an umbrella of limited access over sites that do not warrant it.
9. Filters and rating systems would offer us the ability to separate and classify what each certain set of people may want, but it could also develop into a system used to divide. Even these filtrations methods are over used or in a negative way, it completely flips free speech on its head and there would no sense of freedom at all.
10. The zoning method seems to be the more applicable way of blocking users for just reasons compared to filtering which may be too broad. Filtering also occurs without ones knowledge, a big drawback.
11. Lessig prefers the “least transformative” method. Thus, he would be more in line with a zoning method rather than a system that sought to label every form of speech.
12. Difficulties lie in that spam’s goal is financial. Regulation should stop communication if it is not desired, but allow desired communication. Lessig offered that coding could be implemented to control spam.
13. In our day to day life, communication does not need to be copied in order to be understood or sent. However, as is the nature of digital communication, there is also a footprint or “copies” that have to be used in order to transmit information.
14. The First Amendment should be enacted and carried out to its fullest degree. But, not every case is black and white, so there is a grey area that exists. This is an issue where it depends on a case by case matter whether or not freedom of speech applies.
15. Both in WIFI and spectrums there are no government regulations that determine which machine can speak. In terms of a preferred architecture, I would side with allocated only because there has to be some sort of regulation that directs which sources can use which wavelengths at a certain time.
1. Market, Law, Norms and architecture are all constraints on behavior. They form a net of protection that supports free speech.
2. Architecture of cyberspace helps individuals with free speech and protects them.
3. There is a constant struggle of government files being leaked and shown to the public. This classified information is one example of the tension that is illustrated in regulating free speech.
4. Spam is not related to what the sender does or how they got it. It can happen to anyone with an email address that searches on the web. I don’t believe the law should support spam because this is an overall inconvenience to anyone who has ever gotten it in his or her inbox. The information on spam can also be false or lead to problems in your computer.
5. Laws can be made to regulate porn and spam in a way that anyone publishing and uploading content will have a difficult time with open architecture.
6. Ginsberg established that children do not have the same rights to free speech as adults do.
7. This bracket, , shows that the content in the webpage is harmful to minors.
8. The ACLU is concerned with the market’s filters and how they filter more broadly and in a non-transparent way. I think for the safety of minors, the filters are there to help and can be useful if constructed and fabricated in the correct way.
9. They are stressing the individual’s first amendment rights and values.
10. I would prefer the kids-ID zoning. This system seems to focus on the problem at hand and works on creating a solution.
11. Lessig argues that the government will always have control over free speech. He says the values should be what the regulations are based off of.
12. Spam has a main goal, which is money. The laws probably wont regulate it because the law may be contributing to the collection of your money. He is saying that the aim here should be to regulate and assure “consensual communication”.
13. Digital networks work by making copies. In real life space, there are many ways to come up with creative ideas without copying anything.
14. No I don’t believe so.
15. Wi-Fi shares bands of unlicensed spectrum. I prefer allocated because individuals have more of a say and what they say is not governed.
1. Market, law norms and architecture protect against other constraints, and are the constraints on behavior. They also support free speech.
2. Free speech on the internet is certainly more free than free speech in real life. On the internet you have the ability to stay somewhat anonymous, and do not have the pressures of people with opposing viewpoints in clear sight.
3. A relevant example of this that has occurred within the last few years is WikiLeaks. This shows a very clear tension between having the ability to freely publish information, but also trying to hide certain information and keep secrets from being exposed to the public. This was a controversy and the credibility behind this was definitely questioned as freedom of speech and information was questioned.
4. Spam is unsolicited emails that are often put in its own category in a user’s email inbox. I do not think the law should support spam as it often takes up a lot of unnecessary space in an inbox, and more times than not contains false information or spam links that can do harm to either the user or the users device. At the very least, it should be more highly regulated.
5. These activities are inexpensive, however they still do produce profit, However I do still believe that it should be regulated at a higher level.
6. Ginsberg established the requirements for porn vendors to sell to people 18 and over, stating that an ID must be shown when purchasing porn. This established the fact that there is content that is suitable for people above a certain age and not suitable for children.
7. H2M is an abbreviation that means harmful to minors that makes certain blocks on content not suitable for children.
8. That the market has the ability to more broadly filter things and that there is a lot of overregulation. This can be good and bad because it is better to overregulate in my opinion than under regulate just in case.
9. Ratings would allow viewership based on a recommended rating system that is clearly defined. This system gives the user the ability to select their way of filtering.
10. I agree with the zoning solution simply because only certain groups are being blocked and there is reasoning behind it.
11. Lessig argues that the regime that is the least transformative of important public values and having a zoning regime enables children to self-identify is less transformative than a filtering regime that in effect require all speech to be labeled.
12. The main goal of spam is in some way to receive money from the person who is being spammed, which is why it is hard to prevent spam. Because of this as previously stated there should be more regulation and overall a block on spam.
13. On the internet there is a clear way to copy material and a clear way to regulate it, however in real life it is not as black and white.
14. The first amendment can cause controversy because all cases are different and can be looked at in a different way. Yes, the first amendment is extremely important and should certainly be upheld but each case should be looked at individually and judged based on a common good.