Untitled Page

Freedom of Speech on the Internet by Anne Fiedler, Ph.D. Background Background for Teachers First Amendment and the Internet The First Amendment right to freedom of speech extends to the Internet. However, the First Amendment originally was only meant to prohibit direct government censorship. This definition has been expanded by the courts over the years, but, freedom of speech does not give a person the right to say anything that they want about a person. Another set of laws deals with defamation (The expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone). When these statements are published, either in hard copy or on the Internet, this is known as libel. To be considered libel by the courts, a statement must be provably false; further, if it is related to a political statement, most courts hold that the statement must involve the intent of "actual malice." The following case of A.B. v. State of Indiana is an example of how the protection of freedom of speech on the Internet might be viewed by the courts. Freedom of Speech Case and My Space A.B. v. State of Indiana A MySpace page was fraudulently created under the name of Shawn Golbert, the Principal of Greencastle Middle School in 2006. A female student, who did not post the original page, made an expletive-laden entry on MySpace criticizing the school's principal and the school's policies on decorative body piercings. The state filed a delinquency petition alleging that the student's acts would have been harassment if committed by an adult. The judge ruled that the comments were obscene and placed the student on academic probation for nine months. The student appealed the decision, arguing that her comments were protected under both state and federal law because they constituted political speech that dealt with school policy. A three-judge panel ordered the Putman Circuit Court to set aside the penalty against the student stating, "While we have little regard for A.B.'s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech." Another issue deals with the anonymous nature of the Internet. Often as in the case of cyberbullying, the identity of the person making the libelous statements is completely unknown. Cyberbullying According to the CBS Evening News (January 25, 2007), Cyberbullying (as defined in the vocabulary section above) is a prevalent problem. A recent study found that more than 40 percent of students claim to have been bullied online. According to Cyberbully.org, threats may include: Sending cruel, vicious, and sometimes threatening messages. Creating web sites that have stories, cartoons, pictures, and jokes ridiculing others. Breaking into an e-mail account and sending vicious or embarrassing material to others. Engaging someone in IM, tricking that person into revealing sensitive personal information, and forwarding that information to others. The case described below (Activity #3 - the Cyber-bullying of David Knight) is a real case that involved a high school student, David Knight. David's mother tried to stop the bullying but found it difficult to do so: The police will only investigate and intervene in cases like these when they involve death threats or other criminal offense, and most schools believe that such cases are not their responsibility unless the bully is using a school computer. Mrs. Knight contacted Yahoo, where the page was posted, but they also initially failed to respond, and because the law does not hold the ISP accountable, she had no legal recourse against them. After seven months of messaging, phone calls, and the threat of legal action, Yahoo finally removed the web page. While cyberbullying and the posting of hate messages are deplorable, a solution to the problem is not clear. Some have called for government censorship, but is this the answer? The Internet and Censorship Different governments have different policies on Internet censorship. There are various reasons why governments filter Internet content. Some governments cite the upholding of community-accepted standards -- as the American government tried to impose with the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Another reason often cited is the need to protect national security. While some governments may state that they are filtering material for national security reasons or for moral reasons, they may actually be taking these actions to curtail political dissent. Filtering is often done by installing software to filter material on the servers of the Internet service provider. Companies, such as Yahoo, are often not allowed to operate in certain countries outside of the United States unless they install this software.

Freedom of Speech on the Internet

by Anne Fiedler, Ph.D.

Background

Background for Teachers

First Amendment and the Internet

The First Amendment right to freedom of speech extends to the Internet. However, the First Amendment originally was only meant to prohibit direct government censorship. This definition has been expanded by the courts over the years, but, freedom of speech does not give a person the right to say anything that they want about a person. Another set of laws deals with defamation (The expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone). When these statements are published, either in hard copy or on the Internet, this is known as libel.

To be considered libel by the courts, a statement must be provably false; further, if it is related to a political statement, most courts hold that the statement must involve the intent of "actual malice." The following case of A.B. v. State of Indiana is an example of how the protection of freedom of speech on the Internet might be viewed by the courts.

Freedom of Speech Case and My Space A.B. v. State of Indiana

A MySpace page was fraudulently created under the name of Shawn Golbert, the Principal of Greencastle Middle School in 2006. A female student, who did not post the original page, made an expletive-laden entry on MySpace criticizing the school's principal and the school's policies on decorative body piercings. The state filed a delinquency petition alleging that the student's acts would have been harassment if committed by an adult. The judge ruled that the comments were obscene and placed the student on academic probation for nine months. The student appealed the decision, arguing that her comments were protected under both state and federal law because they constituted political speech that dealt with school policy.

A three-judge panel ordered the Putman Circuit Court to set aside the penalty against the student stating, "While we have little regard for A.B.'s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech."

Another issue deals with the anonymous nature of the Internet. Often as in the case of cyberbullying, the identity of the person making the libelous statements is completely unknown.

Cyberbullying

According to the CBS Evening News (January 25, 2007), Cyberbullying (as defined in the vocabulary section above) is a prevalent problem. A recent study found that more than 40 percent of students claim to have been bullied online.

According to Cyberbully.org, threats may include:

Sending cruel, vicious, and sometimes threatening messages.
Creating web sites that have stories, cartoons, pictures, and jokes ridiculing others.
Breaking into an e-mail account and sending vicious or embarrassing material to others.
Engaging someone in IM, tricking that person into revealing sensitive personal information, and forwarding that information to others.

The case described below (Activity #3 - the Cyber-bullying of David Knight) is a real case that involved a high school student, David Knight. David's mother tried to stop the bullying but found it difficult to do so: The police will only investigate and intervene in cases like these when they involve death threats or other criminal offense, and most schools believe that such cases are not their responsibility unless the bully is using a school computer. Mrs. Knight contacted Yahoo, where the page was posted, but they also initially failed to respond, and because the law does not hold the ISP accountable, she had no legal recourse against them. After seven months of messaging, phone calls, and the threat of legal action, Yahoo finally removed the web page.

While cyberbullying and the posting of hate messages are deplorable, a solution to the problem is not clear. Some have called for government censorship, but is this the answer?

The Internet and Censorship

Different governments have different policies on Internet censorship. There are various reasons why governments filter Internet content. Some governments cite the upholding of community-accepted standards -- as the American government tried to impose with the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Another reason often cited is the need to protect national security. While some governments may state that they are filtering material for national security reasons or for moral reasons, they may actually be taking these actions to curtail political dissent.

Filtering is often done by installing software to filter material on the servers of the Internet service provider. Companies, such as Yahoo, are often not allowed to operate in certain countries outside of the United States unless they install this software.