Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Monday, November 27, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Anthony
Net Neutrality
The internet is a powerful tool for influencing people and ideas. Access to the internet can turn the uninformed into the formidable. The internet can help mobilize movements against war, hunger, aids and discrimination. It can be used to create whole new corporate powerhouses...ebay, Amazon.com, Google, AOL, etc. It can turn the little guy into the next best thing..Youtube. It can do all of this because it doesn't differentiate between who can use it and to a large degree how people use it, it's open. Without net neutrality, this openness would be significantly curtailed. This powerful tool would be given to people like AT&T, who would use it for their own commercial benefit. Personally, I like the idea that I don't know who or what will be the next big thing on the internet. I also like the idea that I can decide what and who it will be...not someone like AT&T.
Law in Cyberspace
Because the internet is such a significant tool in interstate commerce and the issues associated with regulation and use are somewhat unique to the internet, states should have limited ability to regulate its use. Additionally, current laws that have been introduced to regulate activity on the internet are limited in their effectiveness because they tend to be modifications of old law used to regulate activity taking place in a tangible space. Internet regulation needs to begin with a clean slate. The issues and challenges need to be looked at with a fresh perspective. It seems to be a different world and therefore it needs different rules to manage the activities of its inhabitants effectively. ¶ 11:07 AM 0 comments links to this post
Anthony
Net Neutrality
The internet is a powerful tool for influencing people and ideas. Access to the internet can turn the uninformed into the formidable. The internet can help mobilize movements against war, hunger, aids and discrimination. It can be used to create whole new corporate powerhouses...ebay, Amazon.com, Google, AOL, etc. It can turn the little guy into the next best thing..Youtube. It can do all of this because it doesn't differentiate between who can use it and to a large degree how people use it, it's open. Without net neutrality, this openness would be significantly curtailed. This powerful tool would be given to people like AT&T, who would use it for their own commercial benefit. Personally, I like the idea that I don't know who or what will be the next big thing on the internet. I also like the idea that I can decide what and who it will be...not someone like AT&T.
Law in Cyberspace
Because the internet is such a significant tool in interstate commerce and the issues associated with regulation and use are somewhat unique to the internet, states should have limited ability to regulate its use. Additionally, current laws that have been introduced to regulate activity on the internet are limited in their effectiveness because they tend to be modifications of old law used to regulate activity taking place in a tangible space. Internet regulation needs to begin with a clean slate. The issues and challenges need to be looked at with a fresh perspective. It seems to be a different world and therefore it needs different rules to manage the activities of its inhabitants effectively. ¶ 11:07 AM 0 comments links to this post
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Brian Weicker
1) Network Neutrality
Net neutrality is great as a broad concept, but generally such broad concepts scare me a little when you put them in a legislative arena. I tend to agree with the telco's point that there are certainly some distinctions which are ok, and even beneficial to make. The true job is in deciding which goals are worth government support, and then drafting legislation which is sufficiently tailored to achieve these goals without significant damaging effects. None of the legislation I've seen proposed fits this description.
2) Where We Go From Here
Clearly we have come a long way since 1996. Johnson and Post's assumption that something like "responsible self-regulatory structures" would emerge to regulate the internet as a stand-alone jurisdiction independent of any territory just doesn't work. The few regulatory bodies that have arisen are the subject of great controversy, and are not capable of dealing with the internet as a whole. From all we read about ICANN, it seems that this isn't a workable model.
Retulatory Arbitrage isn't a poor model on the surface. As Froomkin suggests, there are positives and negatives to consider in internet regulation. However, no one has ever denied this. The call for regulation has never come from a belief that the internet in it's current iteration has no value, it comes rather from a belief that certain negatives are unacceptible and are thus of suitable importance to rival or supercede the benefits of anonymity, the internet as a liberalizing force, etc. The idea that the internet should not be subject to any regulation is hard to stomach. When the negatives outweight the positives, it is necessary to have some regulation.
Which brings us to Reidenberg. We have seen from various topics discussed in this class that regulation of the internet is possible. (100% effective regulation, is of course, impossible, but we have discussed numerous examples of relatively effective regulation.) Reidenberg summarizes possible means of regulation into three categories. I'll agree that re-engineering has been successful in many cases. IF governments can be flexible enough and innovative enough to continue to create structural means of enforcing laws, that's great. I'm not convinced that this will ever be more than a reactionary means of regulation that lags behind general innovation, but perhaps this is as it should be. Intermediaries may become increasingly responsible/liable, but there are constitutional limits to this shift. The same is true of implementing technological methods of enforcement.
Despite these problems, I agree with the general idea that regulation will begin to be even more effective.
As the technology available to regulating institutions advances, these institutions will catch up with the rest of the internet community so to speak. There is a tendency to discuss this dichotomy in terms of two sides with one side eventually winning and the other losing. I think that the simple fact of the matter is that what is really being sought is a balance between the positives of the internet, and the need to control the negatives. The problem is that the internet community is constantly changing and advancing, and so no status quo of regulation will ever be ultimately successful. Thus it seems that the future of internet regulation is likely to be a constant debate. ¶ 2:03 PM 11 comments links to this post
Brian Weicker
1) Network Neutrality
Net neutrality is great as a broad concept, but generally such broad concepts scare me a little when you put them in a legislative arena. I tend to agree with the telco's point that there are certainly some distinctions which are ok, and even beneficial to make. The true job is in deciding which goals are worth government support, and then drafting legislation which is sufficiently tailored to achieve these goals without significant damaging effects. None of the legislation I've seen proposed fits this description.
2) Where We Go From Here
Clearly we have come a long way since 1996. Johnson and Post's assumption that something like "responsible self-regulatory structures" would emerge to regulate the internet as a stand-alone jurisdiction independent of any territory just doesn't work. The few regulatory bodies that have arisen are the subject of great controversy, and are not capable of dealing with the internet as a whole. From all we read about ICANN, it seems that this isn't a workable model.
Retulatory Arbitrage isn't a poor model on the surface. As Froomkin suggests, there are positives and negatives to consider in internet regulation. However, no one has ever denied this. The call for regulation has never come from a belief that the internet in it's current iteration has no value, it comes rather from a belief that certain negatives are unacceptible and are thus of suitable importance to rival or supercede the benefits of anonymity, the internet as a liberalizing force, etc. The idea that the internet should not be subject to any regulation is hard to stomach. When the negatives outweight the positives, it is necessary to have some regulation.
Which brings us to Reidenberg. We have seen from various topics discussed in this class that regulation of the internet is possible. (100% effective regulation, is of course, impossible, but we have discussed numerous examples of relatively effective regulation.) Reidenberg summarizes possible means of regulation into three categories. I'll agree that re-engineering has been successful in many cases. IF governments can be flexible enough and innovative enough to continue to create structural means of enforcing laws, that's great. I'm not convinced that this will ever be more than a reactionary means of regulation that lags behind general innovation, but perhaps this is as it should be. Intermediaries may become increasingly responsible/liable, but there are constitutional limits to this shift. The same is true of implementing technological methods of enforcement.
Despite these problems, I agree with the general idea that regulation will begin to be even more effective.
As the technology available to regulating institutions advances, these institutions will catch up with the rest of the internet community so to speak. There is a tendency to discuss this dichotomy in terms of two sides with one side eventually winning and the other losing. I think that the simple fact of the matter is that what is really being sought is a balance between the positives of the internet, and the need to control the negatives. The problem is that the internet community is constantly changing and advancing, and so no status quo of regulation will ever be ultimately successful. Thus it seems that the future of internet regulation is likely to be a constant debate. ¶ 2:03 PM 11 comments links to this post
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Anthony
As a society there seem to be few things that we can all agree on, however, I feel confident in saying that most everyone can agree that child predators are an element of society that need to be removed. As a parent, I cannot imagine having my child "stalked" or propositioned online. No parent wants to see their child hurt. It's a parents worst nightmare. I believe the government should do their part to help keep children safe from child predators, but I believe that with DOPA they are crossing the line between their responsibility and mine. My child's safety is my responsibility. I believe that my responsibilities extend to all areas of my child's life. From their interactions with others at school or others on the internet. The best way to keep children safe is to educate them about the things that can hurt them and constantly monitor their behavior until they have learned how to deal with the danger. DOPA is not educating them, it's isolating them. They won't learn about the world if they cannot experience the world...with a parents support and guidance. The major problem with DOPA is that it is too "vague" with regard to determining which sites are appropriate. I want to decide which sites my child can and cannot see. I don't want the government making that decision for my child. I also believe we should be able to work within our communities to determine what is best for children. That means we can work with our libraries and schools to determine how to handle our children's online experiences in those locations. DOPA is a typical political reaction to an issue, not a solution. The government should focus its efforts on tracking down child predators and let parents and their communities be responsible for raising their children.
In addition, the digital divide issue is a legitimate concern. DOPA would most like hurt lower income children by limiting their exposure to internet without providing them anymore safety. ¶ 11:48 PM 1 comments links to this post
Anthony
As a society there seem to be few things that we can all agree on, however, I feel confident in saying that most everyone can agree that child predators are an element of society that need to be removed. As a parent, I cannot imagine having my child "stalked" or propositioned online. No parent wants to see their child hurt. It's a parents worst nightmare. I believe the government should do their part to help keep children safe from child predators, but I believe that with DOPA they are crossing the line between their responsibility and mine. My child's safety is my responsibility. I believe that my responsibilities extend to all areas of my child's life. From their interactions with others at school or others on the internet. The best way to keep children safe is to educate them about the things that can hurt them and constantly monitor their behavior until they have learned how to deal with the danger. DOPA is not educating them, it's isolating them. They won't learn about the world if they cannot experience the world...with a parents support and guidance. The major problem with DOPA is that it is too "vague" with regard to determining which sites are appropriate. I want to decide which sites my child can and cannot see. I don't want the government making that decision for my child. I also believe we should be able to work within our communities to determine what is best for children. That means we can work with our libraries and schools to determine how to handle our children's online experiences in those locations. DOPA is a typical political reaction to an issue, not a solution. The government should focus its efforts on tracking down child predators and let parents and their communities be responsible for raising their children.
In addition, the digital divide issue is a legitimate concern. DOPA would most like hurt lower income children by limiting their exposure to internet without providing them anymore safety. ¶ 11:48 PM 1 comments links to this post
Friday, November 17, 2006
Social Networking
After reading the articles about social networking sites, I was reminded how many sick people there are in this world. These sick people use these social networking sites to go after young children, and basically, it is just appalling. But are social networking sites the problem? I don’t think so. If we get rid of these sites, it is not going to get rid of these sick people. They have and always will go after young children. Parents are the people that are and should be responsible for their children’s safety. One of the articles said that it is not an excuse for parents to say that they do no know how to use computers. You can always find someone to teach you how to use a computer or let you know what to look for when monitoring a child’s activity. Even worse, parents who allow their children to have a computer in their bedroom are just asking for trouble. Parents have to know that the Internet can be a very dangerous place, if they let it be.
I don’t really think that DOPA will accomplish what it is trying to do. As Beth Yoke said, you shouldn’t have schools block these sites where they could actually learn how to use the website safely in school. Children also have other avenues to accomplish what they want to do. All they have to do is go over a friend’s house and use their computer- it is as simple as that. This is why ALL parents have to be conscious of what their children are doing on the Internet in order to protect their safety. No amount of legislation can keep a child safe as much as their parents can. ¶ 2:56 PM 9 comments links to this post
I don’t really think that DOPA will accomplish what it is trying to do. As Beth Yoke said, you shouldn’t have schools block these sites where they could actually learn how to use the website safely in school. Children also have other avenues to accomplish what they want to do. All they have to do is go over a friend’s house and use their computer- it is as simple as that. This is why ALL parents have to be conscious of what their children are doing on the Internet in order to protect their safety. No amount of legislation can keep a child safe as much as their parents can. ¶ 2:56 PM 9 comments links to this post
Monday, November 13, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Anthony
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
patents should be given sparingly. They should be given only when the creation clearly meets the requirements. Business processes or methods are rarely new or different enough. They tend to be applications of old ideas to new situations. I think the question is what do we value more and what should we use the patent laws to promote: An efficient open market where the company that competes at all levels, innovation, service, quality, cost, etc is rewarded. Or quasi-property interest that restrict the free market and inhibit competition. I vote for competition unless "real" property rights are infringe upon. Thankfully, appropriate patents will protect those rights adequately. ¶ 10:44 AM 1 comments links to this post
Anthony
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
patents should be given sparingly. They should be given only when the creation clearly meets the requirements. Business processes or methods are rarely new or different enough. They tend to be applications of old ideas to new situations. I think the question is what do we value more and what should we use the patent laws to promote: An efficient open market where the company that competes at all levels, innovation, service, quality, cost, etc is rewarded. Or quasi-property interest that restrict the free market and inhibit competition. I vote for competition unless "real" property rights are infringe upon. Thankfully, appropriate patents will protect those rights adequately. ¶ 10:44 AM 1 comments links to this post
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Cybersquatting
After reading the various approaches taken by the courts in different cybersquatting laws it seems that a Supreme Court decision would be helpful, but may not be necessary. According the Mazzie-Briscoe article, it really only seems that the 9th Circuit (via Bosley) strays from the normal approach most courts use to approach cybersquatting.
My only real issue with the 4th, 6th and 8th Circuit's approaches was the "diversion" from the copyright owner's goodwill, it seems more recent cases have a better approach. If a person is looking for profit then it is an obvious violation of ACPA. However, if they are merely using the address to criticize or inform the public of their experience they should be able to do this. One thing lacking from the Court's decision in Lucas Nursery was an analysis of whether it was distinctive or famous (was this necessary? I might just be wrong on when it is necessary to show this). It is pretty clear to me in a case such as Sporty's Farm, where the name of an opponent's company as a site was registered by a company who is looking to move into the field was a violation, used to disallow use to Sporty's.
The commercial-use debate between the Bosley and PETA courts is also interesting. I would side with the PETA court, saying that if someone wants to use the site its ok, but obviously couldn't violate other trademarks. ¶ 12:12 PM 10 comments links to this post
My only real issue with the 4th, 6th and 8th Circuit's approaches was the "diversion" from the copyright owner's goodwill, it seems more recent cases have a better approach. If a person is looking for profit then it is an obvious violation of ACPA. However, if they are merely using the address to criticize or inform the public of their experience they should be able to do this. One thing lacking from the Court's decision in Lucas Nursery was an analysis of whether it was distinctive or famous (was this necessary? I might just be wrong on when it is necessary to show this). It is pretty clear to me in a case such as Sporty's Farm, where the name of an opponent's company as a site was registered by a company who is looking to move into the field was a violation, used to disallow use to Sporty's.
The commercial-use debate between the Bosley and PETA courts is also interesting. I would side with the PETA court, saying that if someone wants to use the site its ok, but obviously couldn't violate other trademarks. ¶ 12:12 PM 10 comments links to this post
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Music Licensing & Podcasting
I'll get it started off. After examining some of the issues with the statutes last week with P2P and webcasting it is interesting to see how they take on a totally different form when it comes to webcasting.
It seems pretty easy to say that podcasting is "interactive" due to the legislative history Lang mentions. I still have a problem with that terming, however, because the music is not as on demand, although it does allow the user increased control and although it is transferrable. It still does not seem inherently interactive as you cannot hear a song unless it is on the podcast.
However, My larger isssue is at the end of Lang's article. It does seem, as the EFF argued, that copyright laws are broken. It seems they will always be responsive to new forms of technology which transmit music (or copyrighted work in general) in am ambiguous way which is unable to fit under the DMCA. While Congress should use the DMCA's allowance of webcasters as a base for establishing the same or similar rights for podcasters, it seems Congress is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ¶ 10:53 AM 10 comments links to this post
It seems pretty easy to say that podcasting is "interactive" due to the legislative history Lang mentions. I still have a problem with that terming, however, because the music is not as on demand, although it does allow the user increased control and although it is transferrable. It still does not seem inherently interactive as you cannot hear a song unless it is on the podcast.
However, My larger isssue is at the end of Lang's article. It does seem, as the EFF argued, that copyright laws are broken. It seems they will always be responsive to new forms of technology which transmit music (or copyrighted work in general) in am ambiguous way which is unable to fit under the DMCA. While Congress should use the DMCA's allowance of webcasters as a base for establishing the same or similar rights for podcasters, it seems Congress is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ¶ 10:53 AM 10 comments links to this post
Monday, October 30, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Anthony
Even though I hate to admit it, the decision in Grokster was correct. There was entirely too much anecdotal evidence that both Grokster and Streamcast were promoting the use of the software for copyright violation. Given that, I believe Justice Breyers opinion was the most enlightened. The balance between copyright protection and technological innovation must be carefully observed. In part, the objectives of the copyright laws were the promotion of innovation and creativity. If would be ironic if the laws were so narrowly interpreted as to stifle both in the name of profit. The music industry has controlled the distribution, marketing, and in fact the creation of music for years. It is no secret that the artist receive only a fraction of the revenue generated from their talent. In most cases, they don't even maintain the rights to their own music. The peer-to-peer technology and the internet could reduce the distribution and marketing cost of music to a fraction of the current cost. However the music industry does not want it unless they can control it like they control everything else in their world. I'm not sure if the majority hasn't given them that control...at the cost of technological innovation. ¶ 10:36 AM 1 comments links to this post
Anthony
Even though I hate to admit it, the decision in Grokster was correct. There was entirely too much anecdotal evidence that both Grokster and Streamcast were promoting the use of the software for copyright violation. Given that, I believe Justice Breyers opinion was the most enlightened. The balance between copyright protection and technological innovation must be carefully observed. In part, the objectives of the copyright laws were the promotion of innovation and creativity. If would be ironic if the laws were so narrowly interpreted as to stifle both in the name of profit. The music industry has controlled the distribution, marketing, and in fact the creation of music for years. It is no secret that the artist receive only a fraction of the revenue generated from their talent. In most cases, they don't even maintain the rights to their own music. The peer-to-peer technology and the internet could reduce the distribution and marketing cost of music to a fraction of the current cost. However the music industry does not want it unless they can control it like they control everything else in their world. I'm not sure if the majority hasn't given them that control...at the cost of technological innovation. ¶ 10:36 AM 1 comments links to this post
Friday, October 27, 2006
Your comment here
If you want, publish your thoughts on peer-to-peer and webcasting as comments to this post. Or make a new post of your own . . .
¶ 9:20 PM 12 comments
links to this post
More on privacy
CNN, in this story, reports that the Arnold Schwarzenegger re-election campaign has stockpiled millions of voter names, addresses, and phone numbers linking each voter to his or her consumer preferences and buying habits ("Gin or vodka? Ford or BMW? Perrier or Fiji water?"), voting history, and other demographic information. In a similar vein, the Bush campaign in 2004 knew individual voters' "favorite vacation spots, religious leanings, the music and magazines they liked, the cars they drove." All this is possible, as we discussed, because of the collection and sale of personal information by retailers, intermediaries such as credit-card companies, and others.
¶ 9:10 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Monday, October 23, 2006
electronic health records
Insurance companies and doctor's offices are already disorganized and unguarded enough that anyone who wants to steal my medical information could probably do it. Your only protection is that these records don't talk to each other, so in all likelihood one security breach is only going to get you one record. But it seems to me you don't want to pin your long-term medical security hopes on disorder and incompetence, or on hiding from, or holding back, the new technology.
Putting together a standardized online system gives each breach more reach, but the reach and efficacy of online security systems designed to combat such breaches is afforded by the same architecture. Given how much business is conducted over the Internet and how few large-scale data-theft fiascos we've seen I think online security on average is probably as good as anything else we've got, and market pressures keep it that way.
Even if we assume that security is a wash when you move medical records online, you still have the enormous time and cost savings, and what seems to be a huge decrease in medical errors of all kinds.
Give the government a crack team of developers a couple years to beta test a working model until it's good and tight, then publish the result, declare it an industry standard and let the private sector take over. No problem!
By the way, since I've decided to be Mr. Sunshine about this issue: what's the worst that can possibly happen if my medical records get jacked? Medically customized spam? Who cares! Google sends all my spam straight to the trash anyway! Insurance companies not covering me for some rare genetically inherited disease that's expensive to treat? Doesn't HIPAA protect me from that? What am I missing?
-- Bruce B ¶ 12:55 PM 1 comments links to this post
Putting together a standardized online system gives each breach more reach, but the reach and efficacy of online security systems designed to combat such breaches is afforded by the same architecture. Given how much business is conducted over the Internet and how few large-scale data-theft fiascos we've seen I think online security on average is probably as good as anything else we've got, and market pressures keep it that way.
Even if we assume that security is a wash when you move medical records online, you still have the enormous time and cost savings, and what seems to be a huge decrease in medical errors of all kinds.
Give the government a crack team of developers a couple years to beta test a working model until it's good and tight, then publish the result, declare it an industry standard and let the private sector take over. No problem!
By the way, since I've decided to be Mr. Sunshine about this issue: what's the worst that can possibly happen if my medical records get jacked? Medically customized spam? Who cares! Google sends all my spam straight to the trash anyway! Insurance companies not covering me for some rare genetically inherited disease that's expensive to treat? Doesn't HIPAA protect me from that? What am I missing?
-- Bruce B ¶ 12:55 PM 1 comments links to this post
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Slapping down Orkut
In light of our conversation in class yesterday (Oct. 16), take a look at this story about a court order directing the government of India to take action against orkut (a social networking site owned by Google with about 30 million users worldwide), because of an anti-India group on the site. Are the issues here different from those we discussed in connection with China's Internet policies? from the fact that access to orkut is blocked altogether in Iran and the United Arab Emirates?
-- JTW ¶ 11:28 PM 10 comments links to this post
-- JTW ¶ 11:28 PM 10 comments links to this post
Monday, October 16, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
I cannot agree with Newbold because the liablilty she would impose on corporations like Cisco and Microsoft are not in alignment with our political policies with regard to China. It seems to me that we would be sending inconsistent messages to the US corporate community and to the people and government of China. In addition, unless all other countries recognized the same "human rights" violations and held their corporations liable, we would do serious harm to the economic health of the US without effecting the desired social change in China. When our political policies and economics policies are in line we can effect change like Apartheid in South Africa. We legislated divesting and stood as one with the international community. When we have failed to address human rights issues like Darfur, it has been because we have not aligned our political and economic polices. Cisco and Microsoft should be liable for their actions but our current laws do not make their current relationship with China actionable. If we believe that they should be liable, then US legislation can make it so. We should not have to depend on interpretation of ATCA. Our current legal system is struggling with interpretation of international law within our system of justice. Clarification by our legislature can clear up some of the ambiguity. Then there is the whole issue of sovereignty. I think we need to respect the right of other countries to control their own destiny, unless we are willing to take on a more involved role.
---Anthony ¶ 11:07 AM 1 comments links to this post
I cannot agree with Newbold because the liablilty she would impose on corporations like Cisco and Microsoft are not in alignment with our political policies with regard to China. It seems to me that we would be sending inconsistent messages to the US corporate community and to the people and government of China. In addition, unless all other countries recognized the same "human rights" violations and held their corporations liable, we would do serious harm to the economic health of the US without effecting the desired social change in China. When our political policies and economics policies are in line we can effect change like Apartheid in South Africa. We legislated divesting and stood as one with the international community. When we have failed to address human rights issues like Darfur, it has been because we have not aligned our political and economic polices. Cisco and Microsoft should be liable for their actions but our current laws do not make their current relationship with China actionable. If we believe that they should be liable, then US legislation can make it so. We should not have to depend on interpretation of ATCA. Our current legal system is struggling with interpretation of international law within our system of justice. Clarification by our legislature can clear up some of the ambiguity. Then there is the whole issue of sovereignty. I think we need to respect the right of other countries to control their own destiny, unless we are willing to take on a more involved role.
---Anthony ¶ 11:07 AM 1 comments links to this post
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Comment on Reading for October 16
I tend to agree with Newbold's suggestions regarding finding US companies liable for giving restrictive technology to the Chinese government. Every country has different rules and regulations. In the United States we have very expansive freedom of speach rules which allow such actions as Neo-Nazi rallies and symbology, which is banned in many european countries. To try to impose those rules on another country is extremely intrusive, however. Finding companies liable in the United States is much easier. It is better in principle than in practice. Even if China did not get the products from US (or partially-US) companies it could likely find them somewhere else. Also, while it is a good principal to uphold human rights it is also a tough practice. Becuase ATCA is based on the very abritrary "international human rights" via Filartiga, the Courts must then define every act that is an is not a violation of international human rights. It is also awkward that companies would then be liable for what seems like a very large amount of potential violations if they are invested in another country. Their option is either to not invest, or to be subject to liability.
-- Nick K ¶ 1:28 PM 8 comments links to this post
-- Nick K ¶ 1:28 PM 8 comments links to this post
Journalist privilege and the Internet
First Amendment rights, the Internet and China. On the one hand, we are horrified at the filters China places on the Internet, at how much time, effort, money, and hi-tech development is spent on limiting the ability of the people to obtain information. On the other, we are still debating whether somebody fullfills the category of "journalist" to limit his accountability to the state, when, even within the category, a journalist would still be accountable to the government if a "compelling public interest" determined his journalist priviledge is to be set aside. And, what to do when the piece of new is posted on the Internet, where no credentials for posting are necessary. Socalawblog says " not all bloggers deserve consitutional journalist priviledges"; why not? The dissent in Banzburg sees the limitation of journalist priviledges as the media becoming "another investigative arm of the government". Moreover, I agree with the court in O'Grady, which says there are no differences between legitimate and illegitimate news; that otherwise it would be a violation of the First Amendment. It is all in the broad or narrow reading of the word "journalist" and its functions, and in the broad or narrow reading of the First Amendment; and that varies with the political tides.
-- Betina S ¶ 1:18 PM 0 comments links to this post
-- Betina S ¶ 1:18 PM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, October 09, 2006
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Law in Cyberspace -- LEX 8256
Anthony
There are some issues that are too important and essential to be resolved by the free-market. ICANN has been a dismal failure because it seems that no one wants to look at the the evolution of the internet as one of those issue that is beyond the power of the free-market to resolve longterm. What I mean is that for example, healthcare is something everyone needs...must have. We are having difficulty resolve the issue of healthcare costs because no one wants to say that even though we think it is an essential to a productive worth while life, we have limited resources and therefore not everyone can have healthcare. Therefore, people who cannot afford it will have to go without. We don't take that position because as a society, we know that good health and healthcare make our entire society better...more creative and productive people, less violence, crime...better citizens. The internet can be that important in our lives and the future of our society. It has the power to connect people with different opinions and ideas. It sparks creativity and innovation. It can help to enlighten and educate...creating better citizens. ICANN needs to live in the econmic reality of today but have their eyes on the future. They need to maintain a balance between those who see the internet as a economic tool and those who see it as tool to inform and enlighten. ¶ 1:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
Anthony
There are some issues that are too important and essential to be resolved by the free-market. ICANN has been a dismal failure because it seems that no one wants to look at the the evolution of the internet as one of those issue that is beyond the power of the free-market to resolve longterm. What I mean is that for example, healthcare is something everyone needs...must have. We are having difficulty resolve the issue of healthcare costs because no one wants to say that even though we think it is an essential to a productive worth while life, we have limited resources and therefore not everyone can have healthcare. Therefore, people who cannot afford it will have to go without. We don't take that position because as a society, we know that good health and healthcare make our entire society better...more creative and productive people, less violence, crime...better citizens. The internet can be that important in our lives and the future of our society. It has the power to connect people with different opinions and ideas. It sparks creativity and innovation. It can help to enlighten and educate...creating better citizens. ICANN needs to live in the econmic reality of today but have their eyes on the future. They need to maintain a balance between those who see the internet as a economic tool and those who see it as tool to inform and enlighten. ¶ 1:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
