Forum Moderators: open
[newsbytes.com...]
[aclu.org...]
(edited by: Marcia at 12:19 am (utc) on May 8, 2002)
lawman
Yep. Nothing like a frivoulous or malicious lawsuit, or (worse, IMO) a misbegotten criminal case to suddenly turn a lawyer into your best friend.
I see that as the same thing as agreeing to licensing agreements when downloading and using software. When we buy boxed software, opening the package constitutes agreement to the licensing agreement.
It's all part of protecting the rights of individuals and of companies. These are just covenants entered into between parties, and have a very simple, long-established basis.
I imagine it's very hard for auction type sites to set up their Terms of Usage thoroughly enough in advance to cover all the different situations that could come up.
Since this is interactive, and everyone who participates in Webmaster World.com is "in it together", please treat others the way you wish to be treated......Should anyone use agressively inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions.
I believe those are very sound principles, exemplary for online communications. I also personally believe in the validity of the Scriptural concept of entering into covenant relationships, which I believe is the foundation of Common Law in many instances, which in turn was the basis for much of the law we have here in the U.S.
In fact, I think this issue and these principles happen to have some degree of bearing on the topic being discussed in this thread. It certainly does with TOS imposed when advertising with companies such as Overture and Google's AdWords, where the companies have the option to accept or refuse submissions at their discretion, and that's agreed to mutually. It's offer and acceptance. Isn't that foundational to contract law, i.e. commercial covenants? Unfortunately, when there are loopholes, it ends up with litigation and court decisions.
Note: 24bit, the worst thing I've ever been called is a bureaucrat, which is true. I like "law and order."
Check your stickymail. ;)
Governments of the offline world are struggling to deal with critical questions about the limits of their jurisdiction over the Internet, and the ability of any nation to regulate its citizens' activities on the Internet.
On the other hand, though not specifically related to this case since it's geared to web design issues in the article, but pertinent and discussed briefly by Ivan Hoffman, is the little-known California Long-Arm Statute [ivanhoffman.com], in which Mr. Hoffman points out:
Whether the statute is constitutional under United States' laws is an open question. The current state of the law with regard to jurisdiction on the Net, which laws apply to who and whether geopolitical state and/or international boundaries have meaning any longer is much in debate.
This is a very landmark case, because the jurisdiction issue is a critical one, particularly since there are those trying to organize attempts at setting universal internet standards, especially in view of the difficulty in enforcement of statutes that are clear and already in place, because of the jurisdictional issues. The implications and impact go a lot further than just the type of instance in the Yahoo case.
I wonder if we'll end up with some kind of Internet version of Maritime Law... Things work a bit differently out in international waters. There would have to be treaties put in place, perhaps wherein an individual website creator would be subject to the laws of his/her home jurisdiction, and a corporation would be subject to the laws in force at their legal headquarters location, but beyond that there would just be a minimal legal framework in place to address actual site content/function.
And maybe Internet sales could be placed under the "duty free" category for purposes of taxation?
( [webmasterworld.com...] )
"This case hinges on one crucial question: do Americans' First Amendment freedoms extend into cyberspace or do foreign governments have the power to censor our online speech?" said Ann Brick
While that may be the crucial issue in the case I'm more interested in finding out why censorship is seen as viable.
Why is it important to keep Nazi memorabilia out of the hands of people that want it? What is the goal?
Censorship drives ideas and dogma underground where hate festers like mold. Allowing ideas and rhetoric to reach the light of day allows for the scrutiny that rational thought provides and for counterpoint arguments.
This French throwback to the Iconoclasts is much more threatening to me than some Aryan youth wanting a swastika. The current concensus that Friedrich Schegel was wrong in his assessment of what Indo-Europeans called themselves just adds a bit of irony to the "Aryan" movement. :)
So, is anyone else questioning why censorship is still being seen as viable or is the question simply one of implementation along international lines? Are there any good reasons for censorship? Can censorship be made to work? Is anyone feeling outrage that other nations want to restrict the rights of Americans? How is this moving the world closer to the Global Village.
DG
A good many people are still much more interested in maintaining strong national/cultural identities and national sovreignity than they are in being part of a Global Village.
I understand the fear that the culture/standards/mores of the biggest nations will engulf the unique cultures of smaller/less pushy nations. As much as I love the ideals behind the US Constitution's 1st Amendment, I would very much dislike living in a world where US culture/food/media had become "the norm," and that is what a lot of people see/fear happening... and there are those within the US who are afraid of our culture being "overrun" with foreign influence as well.
While I think it is totally possible to move closer to a global village ideal, while still having plenty of room for local culture and strong national identity, a lot of people don't. Hence the source of conflict...
Yes, 1> When freedom of speech is malicious (_and_is_untrue_) and harms another person or 2> When saying something that is not true like "the building is on fire" is likely to cause harm.
>> Can censorship be made to work?
Unfortionatly some people think they can make it work. It may have worked in the past for maybe a 20 year period but you need complete control over everything the people hear and see.
>> and there are those within the US who are afraid of our culture being "overrun" with foreign influence as well.
Not to agree with such fears but it seems to me that if the 1st ammendment is not protected in cyberspace they will convince many people their fears are true.
Personally I think if they want to block the www.yahoo.com version its their problem.
Disclaimer: They and Their are not defined as being any group or culture.
