How Do You Regulate Expression?

Is it possible to put a boundary on expression, opinion or creativity?

In a Harvard Law paper entitled “Four Phases ofInternet Regulation,” John Palfrey discusses the different stages of online rules and censorships since the birth of the so-called ‘cyberspace’.

 Palfrey breaks down Internet regulation into four distinct stages:

This first phase is characterized as the Open Internet, where cyberspace was considered to be an entity separate from the real world, and thus exempt from the laws of the real world. However, when problems from offline space began trickling into the online environment, it made governments realize the need for control.

States started to think that activities and expression on the Internet should be blocked, managed and filtered in order to prohibit users from accessing certain information. Thus, bringing us into phase 2, otherwise known as Access Denied. During this time, filtering occurred on a national level, and different countries would block a wide variety of content – dealing with anything from social, to religious to political information. While some countries would use this to drastically prohibit users from accessing certain things, some censored in a more positive light (like the democratic countries who utilized censorship to block child pornography).

But with the advancements in technology, governments couldn’t keep up. Web filtering became inconsistent with the innovations of mobile devices and social networking, especially when it comes to the regulation of free speech.

The third phase of Internet regulation is referred to as Access Controlled. This stage acknowledges a hybrid world of interrelated online and offline lives, and accepts the fact that one can directly affect the other. To impose regulations, some states inflict registration, licensing, and identity requirements to control what users do online. Through this use of surveillance, those publishing know that they are being watched.

This brings us to the last and present phase, Access Contested. Cyberspace is currently seen as less of a separate space and more as a fundamental part of our lives. Online activity continues to increasingly be a part of everyday lives, and there is starting to be more pushback against some of these controls and restrictions. Citizens are becoming more and more resistant to Internet limitations.

Presently, Internet regulations have the capability of being opposed and backfiring. In an article from the International Media Conference, constitutional law professor Kyungsin Park stated that government policies have the capability of harming innocent users. The problem comes from the abuse of the law that requires users on heavily trafficked portals to register their personal identification data before they can post anything. However, those who post illegal content intentionally will simply submit somebody else’s identity. This type of verification inhibits the flow of ideas and innovation from users.

Palfrey leaves us with this question:

“Instead of asking whether the Internet can be regulated, the question should be whether  it will be regulated in precisely the same way, or more extensively, than the offline world…”

One side of the argument states that regulation of the Internet is counterintuitive of our human rights to free speech. We aren't prohibited from saying what we think in our offline lives, so should the same barriers extend to online activity? Monitoring what people say and when they say it directly infringes on the first amendment. The online world offers a gateway for people to express ideas and opinions freely and openly, in countless shapes and forms. However, on the flip side are arguments about national security, invasion of privacy, and criminal activity, which are also plausible. 

What is your answer to Palfrey's question? Should speech and expression be regulated the same way online as it is offline?