Transcript Gift of Fire

A Gift of Fire
Third edition
Sara Baase
Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech
Slides prepared by Cyndi Chie and Sarah Frye
What We Will Cover
• Changing Communication Paradigms
• Controlling Offensive Speech
– Pornography
– Spam, etc
• Censorship on the Global Net
• Political Campaign Regulations in
Cyberspace
• Anonymity
• Protecting Access and Innovation: Net
Neutrality or De-regulation?
이 장의 초점
• 초기의 미디어에 적용되던 표현의
자유(Freedom of Speech)가 어떻게
인터넷에 적용이 되고 또 한편으로
인터넷은 표현의 자유의 원칙에 어떤
영향을 주었는가?
미국에서의 표현의 자유
• 미 헌법 1차 개정(First Amendment)에서 규정한
표현의 자유의 보호
– The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is
the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly
prohibits the United States Congress from making laws
"respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the
free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech,
infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably
assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
– Opposition to the ratification of the Constitution was, in part,
based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for
civil liberties. In order to provide such guarantees, the First
Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was
submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789
and adopted on December 15, 1791.
전통적인 Communication
Paradigms
• 1차 개정에서의 보호와 통신 미디어에 대한
정부의 규정은 다음의 전통적인 다음의
세가지 종류의 미디어로 구분하여 적용하고
있다.
– Print media (newspapers, magazines,
books)
– Broadcast (television, radio)
– Common carriers (telephones, postal
system)
Printed Media
• 1차 개정의 가장 강력한 보호를 받고
있다.
• 가장 약한 정부의 통제를 받는다.
Broadcast Media
• 정부는 방송 산업의 구조와 프로그램
내용(content)을 통제한다.
– 왜?
Common Carriers
• 통신 채널(내용이 아니라)을 제공한다.
• 정부는 “universal access”를 제공할
것을 요구한다.
• 통신 사업자는 채널을 독점하고 있다는
논리로 그들은 자신들의 채널을 통하여
전달하는 내용을 제어하는 것을
금지하였다.
– 예, 전화망 사업자
Changing Communication
Paradigms
• 1980년대를 시작으로 컴퓨터 Bulletin board
system(BBS)이 등장하였고, 1990년대 Web의
등장하여 뉴스, 정보, 의견을 제공하는 수단이
되었다.
• 그러면 이전의 BBS와 Web은 전통적인 세
개의 유형에 어디에 속하는가?
• 비슷한 혼돈은 cable 사업자에게는 TV와
라디오의 방송 사업자 보다 더 많은 표현의
자유가 보장되었다.
Changing Communication
Paradigms (cont.)
1996년의 통신법(Telecommunication Act):
• Changed regulatory structure and removed
artificial legal divisions of service areas and
restrictions on services that telephone
companies can provide
• No provider or user of interactive computer
service shall be treated as a publisher of any
information provided by another informationcontent provider
Changing Communication
Paradigms (cont.)
표현의 자유의 원칙(Free-speech
Principles):
• Written for offensive and/or
controversial speech and ideas
• Restriction on the power of government,
not individuals or private businesses
Changing Communication
Paradigms (cont.)
Free-speech Principles (cont.):
• Supreme Court principles and guidelines
– Advocating illegal acts is legal
– Does not protect libel and direct, specific
threats
– Inciting violence is illegal
– Allows some restrictions on advertising
– Protect anonymous speech
Controlling Offensive
Speech
What is it? What is illegal?
• Answer depends on who you are
• Many efforts to censor the Internet with
a focus on child pornography or
sexually explicit material
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
What was already illegal?
• Obscenity
– Depicts a sexual act against state law
– Depicts these acts in a patently offensive
manner that appeals to prurient interest as
judged by a reasonable person using
community standards
– Lacks literary, artistic, social, political or
scientific value
• 1996년 의회는 Child Pornography Prevention
Act를 통과시켰다.
• 하지만 2002년 대법원은 이 법이 1차 수정
헌법을 위반한다고 판결
– “proscribes the visual depiction of an ideathat of teenagers engaging in sexual
activity-that is a fact of modern society and
has been a theme in art and literature
throughout the ages.”
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives:
• 1996년 Communication Decency Act (CDA)
– Federal judge stated that the Internet is the
most participatory form of mass
communication
– Attempted to avoid conflict with first
amendment by focusing on children
• 18세 미만의 사람에게 외설적인 통신이
가능하도록 하는 사람은 100,000불의
벌금과 2년 징역에 처한다.
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.):
• 1997년 대법원은 Communication Decency
Act (CDA)는 1차 개정 헌법에 위반된다고
판결
– The worst material threatening children
was already illegal
– It was too vague and broad
– It did not use the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the goal of protecting
children
표현의 자유 가이드라인
• Distinguish speech from action.
Advocating illegal acts is (usually) legal.
• Laws must not chill expression of legal
speech.
• Do not reduce adults to reading only
what is fit for children.
• Solve speech problems by least
restrictive means.
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.):
• 의회는 1998년 Child Online Protection Act (COPA)을
다시 제정:
– Federal crime for commercial web sites to make
available to minors harmful material by FCC
standards
– Found to be unconstitutional:
• Government did not show that COPA was
necessary to protect children
• Child Online Protection Commission concluded
that less restrictive means, filtering, was
superior to COPA
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives (cont.):
• Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA):
– Requires schools and libraries that participate in
certain federal programs to install filtering software
– Upheld in court:
• Does not violate First Amendment since it does
not require the use of filters, impose jail or fines
• It sets a condition for receipt of certain federal
funds
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
인터넷 검열(Censorship)에 대한 대안:
• Filters
– Blocks sites with specific words, phrases or
images
– Parental control for sex and violence
– Updated frequently but may still screen out
too much or too little
– Not possible to eliminate all errors
– What should be blocked?
•
도서관에서의 문제
– 도서관에서 터미널에서 포르노를 보는 것을 처리하기 위해 여러
방법을 강구
– 필터링을 하지않은 도서관은 부모로부터 고소당하기도 함
– 버지니아 주는 모든 도서관에 필터링을 하도록 함
• 반발, 자신들을 어린이로 취급한다.
• 헌법에 위반하는 것으로 판결
– 미네아폴리스와 시카고에서는 사서들이 자신들이 포르노를
봐야하는 작업 환경에 놓여있다고 연방 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission(EEOC)에 고소
• 성적 학대와 표현의 자유 사이의 마찰
– 주 마다 결정이 다름
• 미시간에서는 도서관에 필터를 설치하는 것에 반대
• 유타에서는 만장일치로 모든 도서관에 필터를 설치하도록 함
• 2000년 의회는 CIPA를 통과시킴
– CDA와 COPA의 문제점을 피해감
– 연방 프로그램에 참여하는 도서관을 필터를
설치하도록 함
– Civil Liberty Organization과 도서관 연합회는
CIPA가 위헌이라고 고소
– 2003년 대법원은 CIPA가 위헌이 아니라고 판결
• CIPA는 어떠한 금지도 하지않고 위반했다고
벌금이나 징역을 선고하지 않는다.
• 검열에 대한 대안
– 필터링
– 자체적은 회원 조사 추방
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Spam:
• What’s the problem?
– Loosely described as unsolicited bulk email
– Mostly commercial advertisement
– Angers people because content and the way it’s
sent
• Free speech issues
– Spam imposes a cost on others not protected by
free speech
– Spam filters do not violate free speech (free
speech does not require anyone to listen)
Controlling Offensive
Speech (cont.)
Spam (cont.):
• Anti-spam Laws
– Controlling the Assault of NonSolicited Pornography and Marketing
Act (CAN-SPAM Act)
– Targets commercial spam
– Criticized for not banning all spam,
legitimized commercial spam
Controlling Offensive
Speech
Discussion Questions
• Why is ‘least restrictive means’
important?
• Do you consider the Internet an
appropriate tool for young children?
Why or why not?