Introduction to E-Commerce Law

Module 3 - Self Regulation Internet Sovereignty



NARRATIVE

ASSIGNMENTS

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS

CASE LAW

LINKS

IBLS ARTICLES

NARRATIVE

The major concern of folks who support Internet Self Regulation is that when governments inject political regulation into the Internet speech, rights may be adversely affected. Discussions revolve around the topics of Privacy, Pornography, Filtering, Censorship and Ethical Responsibility.

Central to the concept on the webpage provider is the question “Who is the "self" that is regulating itself?” On the user side of the question the consideration might involve throwing a loop around the definition of who should be protected. Should the “reasonable user” standard be defined by age group?

If the aim is to achieve an un-codified “Law of the Internet” that keeps political regulation aside, then who will undertake the censorship and punishment of offenders?

Groups like those mentioned below, are attempting to address the topic; however, the topic seems to have gotten away from these groups as the focus narrows to pornography and access by children.

For those who choose the path of governmental regulation, the European Union (EU), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Dept. of Commerce in the United States have many initiatives in process that do not rely on the Cyberpopulist precepts that may not protect democratic values or do not take due process into account.

As early as 1996 the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), (Pub L No 104-104, 110 Stat 133, codified at 47 USCA) turned the focus of self-regulation movement toward a legislated remedy. Since that time however, the focus has turned toward rating and filtering systems, and codes of conduct. It would seem that it is the consumer's responsibility to protect him and his family by adding on software products that are designed to keep objectionable material from coming onto his workstation. See the 1997 ACLU report: Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?: How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet.

(top)

ASSIGNMENTS

Discussion Board regarding NGOs.

(top)

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS

(top)

CASE LAW

ACLU v Reno, 929 F Supp 824, 832 (E D Pa 1995), affd, 117 § Ct 2329, 2348 (1997) Regarding the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

(top)

LINKS

(top)

IBLS ARTICLES

(top)