Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Networked Communities (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 55-68
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 55... ...
As electronic networks become more pervasive, a new legal regime will inevitably evolve, involving new law as well as new interpretations of current law. The first steps are being taken today in debates and arguments among users and providers indeed, all participants in networked communities as they try to sort out what values we share and what behavior they find acceptable.
|
From page 56... ...
This chapter summarizes a discussion of two free speech scenarios that were examined by a panel at CSTB's February 1993 forum. NOTE: This chapter, and the three chapters following it, are based on the discussions held at the February 1993 forum described in the preface.
|
From page 57... ...
56 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN NETWORKED COMMUNITIES SCENARIO 1: EXPLICIT PHOTOS ON A UNIVERSITY NETWORK A large state university serves as a network "hub" for the state's high schools. The university itself is networked with every faculty member, staff member, and student having a network computer on his or her desk.
|
From page 58... ...
than like a lecture in a classroom. Lessig warned that the legal community has few tools to make sense of behavior on electronic networks, in part because judges, lawyers, and legislators have little or no experience with that world.
|
From page 59... ...
Because if you think of it strictly as a legal issue, you can make all the arguments you want to about pornography, Playboy, Playgirl, or getting into the harder-core and illegal pornography. But if you cannot recognize the public relations issues, I don't think you will ever get to the substantive legal issues." Since he made these remarks at the forum in 1993, Crawford's point has been underscored by scores of articles in the public press about "sex and the information superhighway."2 Lessig suggested that if users of a university network have an understanding that any subject is permissible, then it may be appropriate to have some technical means for segregating topics.3 This idea was seconded by Murray Turoff, who noted that New Jersey Institute of Technology electronic forums supported the discussion of very controversial subjects in private conferences that are advertised in a directory.
|
From page 60... ...
Given that electronic networks are a new medium with very few commonly accepted rules of behavior, Perry emphasized the need for providers to establish them. "I think it is absolutely critical that operators of these systems, whether they are universities or commercial operations, establish their rules ....
|
From page 61... ...
to which other mechanisms were needed to enforce those rules. SCENARIO 2: NEGATIVE COMMENTS HARM A THIRD PARTY In an investment forum bulletin board hosted by a commercial net work service provider, several users are discussing the merits of in vesting in XYZ Corp., a "penny stock" whose price can fluctuate widely on relatively small trading volume.
|
From page 62... ...
Thus, if the network is to gain credibility there must be some responsibility. Adler was disturbed by the National Enquirer analogy, arguing that credibility is essential if electronic networks are to evolve into the marketplace of the future.
|
From page 63... ...
(described in Chapter 3) Was a landmark free speech case that demonstrated that judges are beginning to understand electronic networks.
|
From page 64... ...
Given the flexibility offered by electronic networks to define the type of communication, Hughes and Foulger agreed that the selfdefinition ought to be the element that defines liability; for example, in the case of a commercial network whose contractual agreement with users declares that the network owns all data on its system, the network should be subject to all of the legal mechanisms used to hold an individual liable for that data. Hughes went on to note a further complication to the self-definition process: the extensive interconnection between networks means that a given network may be unable to control the input to it.
|
From page 65... ...
the U.S. Supreme Court held that a distributor's lack of editorial control precluded states from holding the distributor strictly liable for publication contents (A.J.
|
From page 66... ...
Perry argued that a user's liability on a bulletin board ought to be the same 8Anonymous use of electronic networks is nevertheless expected to increase. Even today, there are so-called "anonymous remailers" that accept e-mail messages and forward them to their intended recipient stripped of any identifying information.
|
From page 67... ...
In this case, the decision concerning whether to divulge the speaker's identity does not rest with the provider but with law enforcement authorities. If the provider in Scenario 2 maintained the confidentiality of the originator of the communication, thus shielding the only potential defendant, then the provider still would not be obligated to report a violation to law enforcement authorities, Hughes said, citing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-508~.
|
From page 68... ...
Still, users generally can be more outspoken on university networks than anywhere else. Kadie expressed the hope that those who determine rules for behavior on electronic networks will "learn from the experience (and, hopefully, wisdom)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.