Background
for Teachers
First Amendment and the Internet
The
First Amendment right of freedom of speech extends to the Internet.
However, the First Amendment originally was only meant to prohibit
direct government censorship. This definition has been expanded
by the courts over the years, but, freedom of speech does not
give a person the right to say anything that they want about a
person. Another set of laws deals with defamation (The expression
of injurious, malicious statements about someone). When these
statements are published, either in hard copy or on the Internet,
this is known as libel.
To be considered libel by the courts, a statement must be provably
false; further, if it is related to a political statement, most
courts hold that the statement must involve the intent of “actual
malice.” The following case of A.B. v. State of Indiana
is an example of how the protection of freedom of speech on the
Internet might be viewed by the courts.
Freedom
of Speech Case and My Space A.B. v. State of Indiana
A
MySpace page was fraudulently created under the name of Shawn
Golbert, the Principal of Greencastle Middle School in 2006. A
female student, who did not post the original page, made an expletive-laden
entry on MySpace criticizing the Principal and the school’s
policies on decorative body piercings. The state filed a delinquency
petition alleging that the student’s acts would have been
harassment if committed by an adult. The judge ruled that the
comments were obscene and placed the student on nine months probation.
The student appealed the decision, arguing that her comments were
protected under both state and federal law because it was a political
speech that dealt with school policy.
A
three-judge panel ordered the Putman Circuit Court to set aside
the penalty against the student stating, “While we have
little regard for A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude
that her overall message constitutes political speech.”
Another
issue deals with the anonymous nature of the Internet. Often as
in the case of cyberbullying, the identity of the person making
the libelous statements is completely unknown.
Cyberbullying
According
to the CBS Evening News ( January 25, 2007), Cyberbullying (as
defined in the vocabulary section above) is a prevalent problem.
A recent study found that more than 40 percent of students claim
to have been bullied online.
According
to Cyberbully.org, threats may include:
• Sending cruel, vicious, and sometimes threatening messages.
• Creating web sites that have stories, cartoons, pictures,
and jokes ridiculing others.
• Breaking into an e-mail account and sending vicious or
embarrassing material to others.
• Engaging someone in IM, tricking that person into revealing
sensitive personal information, and forwarding that information
to others.
The
case described below (the Cyber-bullying of David Knight) is a
real case that involved a high school student, David Knight. David’s
mother tried to take action but reached a lot of dead ends. The
police will only pursue this kind of malice when it involves death
threats or other criminal offences, and most schools believe that
it is outside of their territory unless the bully is using a school
computer. She contacted Yahoo, where the page was posted, but
they also initially failed to respond, and because the law does
not hold the ISP accountable, she had no legal recourse against
them. After seven months of messaging, phone calls and, the threat
of legal action, Yahoo finally removed the web page.
While
cyberbullying and the posting of hate messages are deplorable,
a solution to the problem is not clear. Some have called for government
censorship, but is this the answer?
The
Internet and Censorship
Different
governments have different policies on Internet censoring. There
are various reasons why governments filter the Internet. Some
governments cite the upholding of community-accepted standards
as the American government tried to do with the Communications
Decency Act of 1996. Another reason often cited entails national
security issues. The reasons often become blurred. While some
governments may state that they are filtering material for national
security reasons or for moral reasons, they may actually be taking
these actions to curtail political decent.
Filtering
is often done by installing software to filter material on the
servers of the Internet service provider. Companies, such as Yahoo,
are often not allowed to operate in certain countries outside
of the United States if they are unwilling to install this software.
|
