Once again, I stole this clever blog post title from another site - found here: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/18/icann-has-xxx-domain-names-yes/. Being an avid Icanhazcheeseburger follower, I thought it was perfect. It also happens to relate to my paper for this class.
Last Month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a new Internet domain name for the world's adult websites. These websites will have to be registered through the ICM registry with a .xxx domain name at $60/piece.
One of the most interesting things about the debate is that a lot of the opposition to the .xxx suffix has come from anti porn and Christian groups, because they think that a .xxx suffix will draw more attention to the porn industry and become an endorsement. On the other hand, supporters of the suffix say that it will make it easier for the government to track adult sites and enable parents to block them from their children.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Internet is a Scary and Unknown Place
I came across a really interesting quote tonight while I was researching the balance between state laws that try to regulate the internet and congresses right to regulate interstate commerce. The quote is from 1829 - Martin Van Buren, the Governor of New York at the time, wrote to President Andrew in an effort to get him to forestall the development of a new form of transportation - the railroad:
"As you may well know, Mr. President, 'railroad' carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by 'engines' which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock, and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed."
I think it is pretty crazy to think about the railroad that way, but I can imagine that it was a big deal back then. The book (on page 332) discusses that Van Buren's thoughts about the railroad are similar to how we see the internet today, especially in the Courts. It is true that society is becoming more and more comfortable with our lives on line, but there are still a lot of questions.
"As you may well know, Mr. President, 'railroad' carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by 'engines' which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock, and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed."
I think it is pretty crazy to think about the railroad that way, but I can imagine that it was a big deal back then. The book (on page 332) discusses that Van Buren's thoughts about the railroad are similar to how we see the internet today, especially in the Courts. It is true that society is becoming more and more comfortable with our lives on line, but there are still a lot of questions.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Communications Decency Act
Most people know that porn is pretty easy to get on the internet. Right now, it seems as though it is almost just accepted for what it is, and not a lot is done to control it. There are some "filters" available that require users to verify that they are over 18, but that is usually done with a simple click. I am still not quite sure how all of this is happening without more regulation - but this does not mean that congress hasn't tried to regulate pornographic content on the internet. The first major attempt to do this was the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
The CDA was part of (title V) of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was an amendment made in an effort to make the internet "superhighway a safe place for our children and our families to travel on." According to an article that I read, the purpose of the CDA was to shield children from indecent material on the internet. The indecency portions of the Act made it a criminal violation to use the computer to transmit "any obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent communications, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person." President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, and on the same day, various groups that advocated for First Amendment rights moved for a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the indecency portion of the CDA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, who invalidated the indecency provisions of the CDA in Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997).
The Court found that it lacked the precision required under the First Amendment to regulate speech content. The government tried to argue that the CDA was consitutional because it was designed to protect minors from speech that was no obscene by adult standards (See Gingsberg). The Court distinguished this case though, particularly because of the "non-invasive" nature of the internet and because the provisions of the CDA were too broad and vague.
Stay tuned for a summary of Congresses's second attempt, COPA.
The CDA was part of (title V) of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was an amendment made in an effort to make the internet "superhighway a safe place for our children and our families to travel on." According to an article that I read, the purpose of the CDA was to shield children from indecent material on the internet. The indecency portions of the Act made it a criminal violation to use the computer to transmit "any obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent communications, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person." President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, and on the same day, various groups that advocated for First Amendment rights moved for a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the indecency portion of the CDA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, who invalidated the indecency provisions of the CDA in Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997).
The Court found that it lacked the precision required under the First Amendment to regulate speech content. The government tried to argue that the CDA was consitutional because it was designed to protect minors from speech that was no obscene by adult standards (See Gingsberg). The Court distinguished this case though, particularly because of the "non-invasive" nature of the internet and because the provisions of the CDA were too broad and vague.
Stay tuned for a summary of Congresses's second attempt, COPA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)