Regulation & Censorship
Freedom of speech and censorship have long been a tricky subject, and this is especially true in the digital realm; attempts to censor the Internet date back at least to 1996 with the Communications Decency Act, followed by COPA (Child Online Protection Act) in 1998 [ACLU]. Length legal suits have taken place time and again in response to such legislation, but governments aren’t the only entities attempting to censor or control the online world. Corporations have the capability to shut down parts of the IT infrastructure as a means of censorship, bottlenecking or entirely blocking access to sources that may express opinions or facts that are contrary to the ‘company line’. An example of such is the cell service shutdown in downtown San Francisco, in response to planned protests at the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) stations; “One thing is clear… cutting off cell phone service in response to a planned protest is a shameful attack on free speech [BART, EFF].”
Even seemingly innocuous efforts such as mandating parental filters or taking ‘minors protection measures’ may fall under censorship; the language of the legislation could be too broad to be effective while stepping on too many liberties. In this case, a prime example is a law enacted by the State of Louisiana (case, Garden District Book Shop v. Caldwell), mandating that “If you are in Louisiana, and publish anything on the Internet, you have to either make sure that none of that content could be considered harmful to a minor of any age… or install an age-verification screen… before allowing access [Bhandari].”
However, there are cases where some measure of regulation can be beneficial to the wireless world and the ability to express oneself through it. Many sites, particularly social media, have to walk a fine line in determining whether the actions people take within their domain is free speech or not; in particular, this distinction is often in regards to harassment, and how the sites deal with these issues is a means of regulation. “...survey published in 2014 found that four out of 10 internet users… (have experienced) online harassment [Newcomb].”
Legislation from governments and measures taken by government agencies are not necessarily harmful to online free speech, either. As discussed earlier, hacking and cyber crime is a growing threat to many facets of life, and it is law enforcement agencies that respond [Cyber]. Finally, laws can actually protect our freedom of speech in the wireless world; ‘Net Neutrality’ was a highly publicized issue regarding Internet Service Providers being able to interfere with online content and bandwidth speed, and culminated with the ‘Open Internet Order’ to prevent just that. “An open Internet is one that allows users to explore the web, find and respond to information, and share their opinions without discrimination or censorship by the Internet Service Providers who carry their speech [Net].”
Even seemingly innocuous efforts such as mandating parental filters or taking ‘minors protection measures’ may fall under censorship; the language of the legislation could be too broad to be effective while stepping on too many liberties. In this case, a prime example is a law enacted by the State of Louisiana (case, Garden District Book Shop v. Caldwell), mandating that “If you are in Louisiana, and publish anything on the Internet, you have to either make sure that none of that content could be considered harmful to a minor of any age… or install an age-verification screen… before allowing access [Bhandari].”
However, there are cases where some measure of regulation can be beneficial to the wireless world and the ability to express oneself through it. Many sites, particularly social media, have to walk a fine line in determining whether the actions people take within their domain is free speech or not; in particular, this distinction is often in regards to harassment, and how the sites deal with these issues is a means of regulation. “...survey published in 2014 found that four out of 10 internet users… (have experienced) online harassment [Newcomb].”
Legislation from governments and measures taken by government agencies are not necessarily harmful to online free speech, either. As discussed earlier, hacking and cyber crime is a growing threat to many facets of life, and it is law enforcement agencies that respond [Cyber]. Finally, laws can actually protect our freedom of speech in the wireless world; ‘Net Neutrality’ was a highly publicized issue regarding Internet Service Providers being able to interfere with online content and bandwidth speed, and culminated with the ‘Open Internet Order’ to prevent just that. “An open Internet is one that allows users to explore the web, find and respond to information, and share their opinions without discrimination or censorship by the Internet Service Providers who carry their speech [Net].”