Case Study: On Free Speech (I have to debate it!)

[[PX]Kal Bob]

This is a copy of the question that I have to post abount in an On-line course I am taking. I find the exersise pointless, but hey. Anyway I thought that some of you might be in for a riviting and meaningfull debate....Ok so I am puting off having to do, so what!

Anyway the question and story link is in the quote below. I will post my one topic and 4 post backs when I finish them. Have fun.

The Case:


The following is a case that was reported on the Cable News Service (www.cnsnews.com) on July 28, 2003. The story concerned the introduction of parental consent on Internet file-swapping services (e.g., Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.) in order to reduce the instances of children accessing pornographic material in the United States. Read the story on CNS at the link below, and use the detailed question that follows to guide you in your online discussion:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200307%5CNAT20030728a.html

In your opinion, is creating an anti-pornography bill an effective means to restrict children from accessing pornography? (Think of this question in light of Lessig’s discussion of constraint on behaviour.) Is creating such a bill in any way a violation of freedom of speech? State your position clearly and defend it with solid arguments.

[[PX]Kal Bob]

As promised my first responce

Title: 10 Commandments and Intellectual Property


While doing a little research, I stumbled on this--
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR COMPUTER ETHICS
-From the Computer Ethics Institute
1.
Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.

2.
Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.

3.
Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's files.

4.
Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

5.
Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.

6.
Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid.

7.
Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization.

8.
Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.

9.
Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write.

10.
Thou shalt use a computer in ways that show consideration and respect.

TekMom's Ten Commandments
Published (and reformatted) with the permission of Dr. Ramon Barquin,
President of the Computer Ethics Institute.


P.S - The most interesting thing on this website was this -
You may link to this page, but you may not copy the HTML to use on another website. See No. 8.
---------------------------------------
We tend to forget that each of us has a different style of putting forth information and that is unique to the individual. It's like a signature to your work and that is your intellectual
property. This makes Citation on one's work very important in Cyber Space.
But,A common argument against the term intellectual property is that information is fundamentally different from physical property in that a "stolen" idea or copy does not affect the original possession (see the tragedy of the commons). Another, more specific objection to the term, held by Richard Stallman, is that the term is, Stallman argues, implies a non-existent similarity between copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property which makes clear thinking and discussion about various forms difficult. Furthermore, most legal systems, including that of the United States, imply that intellectual property "rights" are a government grant, rather than a fundamental right held by citizens.

Very interesting I know there must be a lot of us who are in violation of at least one of the commandments.

Many people don't think twice about using software that we have "copied" from someone/where else.

Definatley something to think about, just how cyber ethical are we?

I think that most of us are probably in violation of at least one commandment, because like in other areas of the Internet are offenses are mostly anonymous. We can copy and share files without paying for them, because in many cases there are no consequences, and no one knows what we are doing besides ourselves. It is easy to rationalize that everyone does it, and no one is getting hurt, so perhaps more people are apt to break the 10 commandments of intellectual property than they would be to actually steal a physical piece of intellectual property, for example, a book or cd-rom. Any thoughts?

Since everyone is very interested in the idea of piracy, let me pose related question. This is an idea that I have debated with people many times.

Is there any ethical problem with using software for free if you would not have used it if you had to pay for it?

The main argument that the RIAA uses in its debate against music piracy is that artists are losing money for each song that is downloaded rather then bought. But is this really true? I have seen repeatedly that many people would never by this music anyway, they only listen because it is free. If this is the case the artist is not losing any money. A person cannot loss something they never had can they?

I am interested in your opinions does is argument hold any water?

[[PX]Kal Bob]

Responce 2

Title: The Rules Don't Apply


I would definietly have to strongly disagree in saying that this new bill will be effective in stopping children from viewing pornography.

As much as i'm against it (pornography), people have to understand that the Internet operates in a different way. Normal rules and regulations don't apply to it because they are not easily enforced. As mentioned in the artical, children are still going to be able to access this material through e-mails and chat rooms, so to try to stop it in one domain and not all of them is pointless.

Now as for the Act violating free speech laws, I would have to say that it does. My impression after reading some of the text book is that if these p2p file sharing sites required a parental signature before children could access the site then they would violate those artists rights whose material is acceptable for children.

Therefore although it may be wrong for children to access porn on the p2p sites, I believe the bill will not be effective in stopping it and it is in violation of freedom of speech.

As Canadians we do have the right to free speech, however it is not absolute. There are certain issues, such as pornography, that require condsideration from a moral stand point, as well as a legal one. Therefore, issues such as the one at hand, can be controlled without violation of the right we posses.

Because of this limited type of control, the rules on the Internet are different. Morality takes the front seat in the sense that if a kid wanted to look at pornography then he would anyways, despite any blockage. Legally passing a bill, won't stop anyone from accessing pornography if they really want to.

I agree with your points.
I think that the Internet should remian autonomous and free from regulation. I do believe we need to protect our children but it seems that this would be difficult to do. One of the things the program would do would be to warn people of pornography which is a good idea but then what? Can they still access the site? What are the trickle down effects that will result from this? As long as it's just a warning this is not an infringement on our freedoms but this opens the door to different types of control.

A warning is a step but I think that there is no way that this can be truly regulated without infringing on our rights and freedoms even if it does seem justified in this case. However regardless of the content in question the most important thing is that the Internet remain an avenue that fosters our freedom of expression. There are so many bad things that would come from regulation in the long run than the good that would come from regulating and controlling Internet porn. This is not a question of morals and ethics but a question of freedom of expression. Internet pornography does seem like a frivilous thing that I could definately live without but I think the principle of our freedom is the most important thing.
I don't think the proposed bill would work. I think the only thing that would work would be to ban pornography altogether and that would be a huge violation of our freedom of expression and would open the door for all types of regulation, which is the most important thing in this issue.

I totally agree with you. I think that if children really wanted to get porn of the Internet, it won't stop them. It is so easy for people to get stuff from the Internet. The Internet changes everyday so even if you buy a software that can block certain information, it will not block 100% of the pornography. Kids would find other ways to get around the system to get porn.

I truly believe that there is one major problem that exists when parents try to block something from their children. This is simply that by out right denying something to the child makes them want it more. This is an age old problem that everyone of can relate to, it does not even have to be computer related.

I understand the need that people feel to block pornography from there children, but I believe it is best be done in a saddle way. “Access Denied” is just a challenge for children to find it another way

[[PX]Kal Bob]

Damn is all this shit boring to read, you guys only get about 10% of it.... Sorry just a midpost rant.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

I will read it later..............I gotta go bang some metal.

[[PX]Kal Bob]

My Third responce

Title: Anti-Pornography Bill


We have all heard the moral, ethical and legal stand points concerning many issues regarding the Internet and its uses. One of the more popular topics considers pornography and its availableness to youths.

My perspective on the Anti-Porn Bill Targets Internet “File Sharing” article is that the governments are not working towards restricting pornography on the Internet but restricting the types of viewers, in this case children. In my opinion the anti-pornography bill will not be effective in preventing children from “accidentally” viewing pornography. I cannot visualize what types of “do-no-install beacons” will or can be created that can determine if a parent is trying to download the software or someone not yet considered an adult is attempting to download it. The article explains how “youth-oriented” search terms such as “Britney” and “Olsen Twins” returned pornographic material. That’s just an example of the ways around certain beacons that will filter out pornographic titles. You could literally name your images and videos anything you want without the viewer’s awareness of the true contents of the file.

Another issue in the article details how children do not have to turn to P2P programs to view porn but find it elsewhere in free trial porn sites, chat rooms and email forwards. This brings up another issue, if children are old enough to understand computers and the Internet and P2P programs, no beacon or filter is going to stop a child from willingly searching out pornography. On the other hand, if a child is young enough to not know the difference between good videos and bad videos and good sites and bad sites, well maybe they should not be on the Internet just yet or at least alone on the Internet. It is not a shock to hear that a 16, 17 or 18 year was curious about sex and may have even downloaded porn. It is expected at that age to be inquisitive about these issues however it is shocking to hear that a 6, 7, or 8 year old was watching porn. We have to ask ourselves what a 6, 7, or 8 year old was doing downloading ANYTHING off the Internet whether it be accidental or intentional. I agree that it is the parent’s responsibility to protect their children from what they feel is harmful. If they feel their child is not mentally ready for certain adult issues, then I think it is their job to lay down the rules of such things as Internet viewing and downloading.

The second feature of the Anti-Porn Bill “requires that distributors of P2P software provide prominent notice that pornographic material can be accessed by downloading their software” (Morahan). To me this is a step in the right direction in terms of informing people of the possibilities of such Internet programs. Just like a DVD or a PS2 game, they have to indicate what it is rated and what material is found in these leisure’s. I do not feel that it is a violation of the freedom of speech towards the P2P distributors. Nothing is preventing them from distributing porn, the bill will just require that they make aware to all viewers and participants that certain things may not be suitable for younger viewers. Their freedom of expression according to the Fundamental Rights of a Canada is not being violated.

Re: Anti-Pornography Bill

I agree with you and your reasoning that the bill will be ineffectual in preventing the accidental viewing of pornography by children. I am however interested in what a parent can do to monitor there children’s net use.

Do you advocate a policy of no access without a parent present? If so I still feel that it is possible for Pornography to “pop-up”. I suppose that an adult might be able to defuse the problem but I highly doubt it. Do you think that a carefully constructed portal system would be a better solution?

I personally believe that the latter is possible. If all URL’s were block except those allowed by the parent, or from a list created by other parents that you trust. If placed any a platform such as a thin client that allowed only access to a web-browser link to such a portal, it would be nearly impossible for a child to circumvent with out root access to the central home server.

[[PX]IronFist]

While I haven’t taken the time to read all the posts and the responses (although I will at some point) I just want to say that in principal I think that limiting children’s access to pornography is a good thing as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of those of who are of age.

[Heidi18]

Hey Kal, I have nothing better to do with my time, so i'm reading everything on this, i'll get back to you with my opinion soon

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

This is where the special domain for pr0n may actually have some merit.



On a free speech side note:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/internet23.html

Kid says the school system is bullying him on his Xanga site so the school suspends him. That, to me, is bull$hit. He didn't threaten the school, didn't name individuals, and merely gave his opinion. I hope they fight it.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

AT&T on free speech:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speechless/a ... 305583.php

Say anything bad about us and we cut your service.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Stephen King on free speech and video games:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502_2,00.html

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

This would make V for Vendetta's author proud:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has added several Wikileaks pages to its controversial blacklist. The blacklisted pages contain Denmark's list of banned websites. Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine as the hosts of the popular Australian broadband forum, Whirlpool, discovered last week when they published a forum post that linked to an anti-abortion web-site recently added to ACMA's blacklist. The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian government's proposed mandatory ISP-level Internet censorship legislation. Wikileaks' response to notification of the blacklisting states: 'The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.

Linking to pictures of medically aborted babies gives you a fine for $11 000 a day. Also, why is this a blocked Danish website? When the f**k did looking at medical procedures become a crime?

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

In the same vein, the UK doesn't even know what, why, or who they're black-listing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/2321252

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

South Park episode 201 is censored, bleeped, and butchered by Comedy Central over its use of Mohammed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2252252/


They don't even have it available to watch on their website. Pretty ridiculous.