diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'paper.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | paper.md | 98 |
1 files changed, 56 insertions, 42 deletions
@@ -12,10 +12,43 @@ nocite: '@*' <!-- Should we rethink the nature and limits of freedom of speech in the internet age? --> +The nature of free speech in our current society is questionable, yet +the internet paves its own path in this realm. To the internet, the +traditional considerations of freedom of speech arguably do not exist. +Firstly, the question of place and time is less significant in +relation to the internet in comparison with traditional thought on +freedom of speech. Whilst speech in person creates noise and, can such +as through the gathering of a crowd, causes genuine disruption to +people who may inhabit the area. Furthermore, such a gathering or loud +speech in the night may disrupt people who are trying to sleep and +thereby be considered a nuisance. On the internet, however, +there are no such considerations. Although actions online can spur in +person events, any published material on the internet cannot +immediately cause disruption through its time or place. As a +non-physical event, its existence cannot block a road, create noise, +or wake people in the night, unless individuals chose to do so in +person. Furthermore, whilst a person talking in the street can +indubitably be heard by any bystander, on the internet any material +being read, watched, or listened to is through the choice of the +reader, viewer, or listener. The speech that everyone must hear on the +street, is heard only by those who wish to when it is published +on some website. + +Thus, traditional limitations to absolute free speech that may seem +reasonable or indeed necessary, such as the prevention of somebody +shouting obscenities in public to the cause of major offence or +at public events where disruption to others and other behavioural +factors are considered significant [@sep-freedom-speech] seemingly no +longer apply on the internet. Truly the internet deals without the +physical constraints that may limit freedom of speech, allowing us to +potentially understand the nature of freedom of speech in a greater +sense, to one that is more open and wider through the existance of the +internet. + In modern society usage of the internet is clearly widespread and is noticeably an incredibly significant in our world today and will -continue to be so [@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access]. The nature -of the internet raises many questions in relation to our +likely continue to be so [@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access]. +The nature of the internet raises many questions in relation to our understanding of freedom of speech and allows the spread of information in a way that was once impossible. The significance and prevalence of the internet both now and in the foreseeable future, @@ -24,19 +57,20 @@ consider the internet's relation to freedom of speech and how we should, or rather shouldn't attempt to act on it. A significant feature of internet communication methods is its -resistance to regulation to limit freedom of speech. Although some -popular sites have been known to restrict their users' communications -at some times to the cause of some alarm [@twitter-suspends;@merkel]. -These platforms, however, must be considered for what they are: -popular, for-profit, private sites. Howevermuch we are invited to -consider them as communications that exist for the common good of -humanity, they are not. In this light, just as a newspaper may publish -the content of its choosing, a website may host and not host content -of its choosing as a private enterprise. For those who are not fond of -such measures, there are other platforms which do not moderate users' -content to such an extent such as the site 4chan, but they therby -naturally have content that others may find distasteful -[@4chan;@moot]. +resistance to regulation to limit freedom of speech. Some popular +internet platforms have been known to restrict their users' +communications, at times to the cause of some alarm +[@twitter-suspends;@merkel]. These platforms, however, must be +considered for what they are: popular, for-profit, private sites. +However much we are invited to consider them as communications +provides that exist for the common good of humanity, they are not. In +this light, just as an individual may say what he pleases, or a +newspaper may publish the content of its choosing, a website may host +or not host content of its choosing as a private enterprise. For +those who are not fond of such measures, there are other platforms +which do not moderate users' content to such an extent such as the +site 4chan, but they therby naturally have content that others may +find distasteful [@4chan;@moot]. On this level it is clear, that private regulation is fine, and indeed quite useful (cite), particularly on popular platforms that are used @@ -79,32 +113,12 @@ in the technology industry, such as Steve Jobs limit their own children in their usage of technology [cite], it can come as a surprise to us. We should consider how we allow our children to use technology and make use of the freedoms it already provides and will -seemingly continue to provide, perhaps to an even greater extent. For -governments attempting to promote ethical behaviour and enforce laws, -attempted regulation of the freedoms that the internet provides may be -fruitless or may have to be so draconian, as is visible in China, that -these very regulations are perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, -governments should consider instead promoting education on the use of -technology. - -The nature of free speech in our current society is questionable, yet -the internet paves its own path in this realm. To the internet, the -traditional considerations of freedom of speech may not exist. -Firstly, the question of place and time is less significant in -relation to the internet. Whilst a speech in person creates noise and, -if it gathers a crowd, causes genuine disruption to people who may -inhabit the area. Furthermore, such a gathering in the night may -disrupt people who are trying to sleep and thereby be considered a -public nuisance. On the internet, however, there are no such -considerations. Although actions online can spur in person events, -any published material on the internet cannot immediately cause -disruption through its time or place. As a non-physical event, its -existence cannot block a road or wake people in the night, unless -individuals chose to do so in person. Furthermore, whilst a person -talking in the street can undoubtedly [indubitably] be heard by any -bystander, in general, on the internet any material being read, -watched, or listened to is through the choice of the reader, viewer, -or listener. The speech that everyone must hear on the high street, is -heard only by those who wish to when it is published on some website. +seemingly continue to provide [@parenting], perhaps to an even greater +extent. For governments attempting to promote ethical behaviour and +enforce laws, attempted regulation of the freedoms that the internet +provides may be fruitless or may have to be so draconian, as is +visible in China [@bbc-moderation], that these very regulations are +perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, governments should consider +instead promoting education on the use of technology. # References and bibliography |