Free Speech on the Internet

Freedom of speech has recently become a big problem on the Internet. However, I think the right way to think about "policy market" is to propose that freedom of speech is greater than recent prohibition of "obscene" Internet posting.

Let's begin with the question, "Why is freedom of speech?" Parliament is a process in which certain people make "obscene" remarks in response to the demands of other people who are violating such statements, and that of Congressional taxation on the payment of education or entertainment expenses of other people I forbid the fundamental difference. what is that? In any case, the profit is unpleasant, there are political winners and losers, and most people may tramples down certain specific "rights" of the minority. Why is an incident prohibited and another case permitted?

The most widely accepted argument by the court to abolish the law restricting "freedom of expression" is to protect communication that is meant to influence the political process. If you tend not to be able to find anything by themselves, even if the majority of people tend to prohibit swearing or to fund tax education, if they can not openly discuss the problem, I want it more. Instead, the government can fix current strengths and preferences by prohibiting doubts about the current law. Without free political rhetoric, there is a high possibility that a small number of people will trampling over majority (worse than the fate that few people take a bit). Therefore, political speech should receive further protection.

But please note that this discussion of political "speech" applies to any major outcome of dissemination of information to influence the political process (other results being burdened by others) there is no). For that reason it applies not only to newspapers, TV, the Internet, T-shirts, bumper stickers, window signs but also to political demos and other expensive political 'signals'.

As you can see, the main message conveyed by the political demonstration is not a word scouted or uplifted by the poster, but worried enough for these people to show enough time to show this cause It is the fact that it is. An expensive signal such as a demonstration may convey simple words that can not be done, that is, the power of feelings and opinions. (Of course, you can say that you really care about, but everyone says that.)

Unfortunately, many expensive political signals, such as campaign donations and political advertising, are widely restricted by law. In addition to communicating information to politicians and voters, these actions can also cause a lot of harm, and perhaps this limitation may be reasonable.

You may remember the 1996 Telecommunications Regulation Act (CDA) aimed at imposing severe restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet. The bill was strongly opposed by Internet users with the help of EFF, but in 1997 the Supreme Court tightened the bill reviewing provision. The important part of the bill is Article 230. Article 230 mediates individuals, companies, and organizations that provide a platform for sharing voice and content over the Internet to others. Article 230 stipulates that in order to enforce certain laws that affect online speech, intermediaries can not bear legal responsibility for content created by others. Therefore, the law protects intermediaries from a series of laws. This will be responsible for others speaking or acting on their platform.

In the late 1990s, I led the allegation of over-regulation of Internet content by the government, including Article 230 of the Telecommunications Regulation Law to maintain freedom of speech on the Internet. Likewise, I wrote an Internet tax evasion law prohibiting Internet access tax and prohibiting discrimination between digital goods and services and their physical counterparts. My priority from 1998 to 2017 has not changed. Then, like today, I am struggling with telecommunications policy. It is deeply rooted in the philosophy of openness, transparency, indiscriminate, competition, and online freedom. In 1998, this meant that a third-party Internet service provider (ISP) would ensure that it continues to evolve from "walled garden" services to today's services.