Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Internet and the Freedom of Expression
By its very nature raises a number of important issues of freedom of expression. There is no central location, no on and off button for the Internet, making it difficult to control for those who want to do so. For free expression advocates, however, this freedom from control is the medium’s primary strength. The anonymity of its users provides their expressions – even the most radical, profane and vulgar – great protection, giving voice for those who would otherwise be silenced. This anonymity, says advocates of strengthened Internet control, is a breeding ground for abuse.
Freedom of the Press for Whom?
Veteran New Yorker columnist A.J. Liebling, author of that magazine’s “Wayward press” feature and often called the “conscience of journalism” frequently argued that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. Theoretically, anyone can own a broadcast outlet r cable television operation
The net however, turns every user into a potential mass communicator. Equally important, on the Internet every “publisher” is equal. The Web sites of the government agencies, the most powerful broadcast network, the newspaper with the highest circulation, the riches ad agencies, and public relation firms, the most far-flung religion, and the lone user with the idea or cause sit figuratively side by side. Each is only powerful as its ideas.
In other words, the net can give voice to those typically denied expression. Kauffman said, “ The Internet is an agitator’s dream: fast, cheap, far-reaching. And with the planetary reach of the World Wide Web, activist networks are globalizing at nearly the pace of the corporate order they oppose” (as quoted in Cox, 2000,p.14)
Controlling Internet Expression
Freedom, or more specifically, the abuse of freedom, is behind the argument for greater control of the Internet. The very same medium that can empower users who wish to challenge those more powerful than themselves can also be used to lie and cheat. The Internet does not distinguish between true and false, biased and objective, trivial and important. Once misinformation has been loosed in the Internet, it is almost possible to catch and correct it.
Lies have always been a part of human interaction; the Internet only gives them greater reach. Users can help by teaching themselves to be more attentive to return addresses and by ignoring messages that are sent anonymously or that have suspicious origins.
Copyright (Intellectual Property Ownership)
Another freedom-of-expression issue that takes on a special nature on the Internet is copyright. Copyright protection is designed to ensure that those who create content are financially compensated for their work. The assumption is that more “authors” will create more content if assured o monetary compensation for those who use it.
Technically, copyright rules apply to the Internet as they do to other media. Material on the net, even on electronic bulletin boards, belongs to the author, so its use, other than its fair use, requires permission and possible payment. But because material on the Internet is not tangible, it is easily, freely, and privately copied.
The Virtual Democracy
The Internet is powered by freedom and self-governance, which are also the hallmarks of true democracy. It is no surprise, then, that computer technology I often trumpeted as the newest and best tool for increased democratic involvement participation.
The Technology Gap An important principle of democracy is “one person, on vote”. But if democracy is increasingly practiced online, those lacking the necessary technology and skill will be denied their vote. This is technology gap - the widening disparity between the communication technology haves and have-not.
The Information Gap Another important principle of democracy is the self-governing people govern best with full access to information. This is the reason our culture is so suspicious f censorship. The technology gap feeds the second impediment to virtual democracy, the information gap. Those without the requisite technology will have diminished access to the information it makes available. In other words, they will suffer from a form of technologically imposed censorship.
Information, Knowledge, and Understanding Some critics of the ides of online democracy are troubled by the amount of information available to contemporary citizens and the speed with which it comes. Add to this the difficulty of assessing the veracity of much online information, and they argue that the cyber world may not be the best place to practice democracy.
Critics argue that cyber world, by its very virtual nature, is antidemocratic. Before the coming of VCR, cable, and satellite television, and president could ask for and almost invariably receive airtime from the three major television networks to talk to the people. Today, however, these technologies have fragmented us into countless smaller audiences. This fragmentation of the audience is exacerbated by the Internet. Not only is there now an additional medium to further divide the audience, but simply virtue of the way it functions – chat rooms, bulletin boards, taste0specific Web sites – the Internet solidifies people into smaller, more homogeneous, more narrowly interested groups. This cannot be good to democracy, say some critics.
By its very nature raises a number of important issues of freedom of expression. There is no central location, no on and off button for the Internet, making it difficult to control for those who want to do so. For free expression advocates, however, this freedom from control is the medium’s primary strength. The anonymity of its users provides their expressions – even the most radical, profane and vulgar – great protection, giving voice for those who would otherwise be silenced. This anonymity, says advocates of strengthened Internet control, is a breeding ground for abuse.
Freedom of the Press for Whom?
Veteran New Yorker columnist A.J. Liebling, author of that magazine’s “Wayward press” feature and often called the “conscience of journalism” frequently argued that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. Theoretically, anyone can own a broadcast outlet r cable television operation
The net however, turns every user into a potential mass communicator. Equally important, on the Internet every “publisher” is equal. The Web sites of the government agencies, the most powerful broadcast network, the newspaper with the highest circulation, the riches ad agencies, and public relation firms, the most far-flung religion, and the lone user with the idea or cause sit figuratively side by side. Each is only powerful as its ideas.
In other words, the net can give voice to those typically denied expression. Kauffman said, “ The Internet is an agitator’s dream: fast, cheap, far-reaching. And with the planetary reach of the World Wide Web, activist networks are globalizing at nearly the pace of the corporate order they oppose” (as quoted in Cox, 2000,p.14)
Controlling Internet Expression
Freedom, or more specifically, the abuse of freedom, is behind the argument for greater control of the Internet. The very same medium that can empower users who wish to challenge those more powerful than themselves can also be used to lie and cheat. The Internet does not distinguish between true and false, biased and objective, trivial and important. Once misinformation has been loosed in the Internet, it is almost possible to catch and correct it.
Lies have always been a part of human interaction; the Internet only gives them greater reach. Users can help by teaching themselves to be more attentive to return addresses and by ignoring messages that are sent anonymously or that have suspicious origins.
Copyright (Intellectual Property Ownership)
Another freedom-of-expression issue that takes on a special nature on the Internet is copyright. Copyright protection is designed to ensure that those who create content are financially compensated for their work. The assumption is that more “authors” will create more content if assured o monetary compensation for those who use it.
Technically, copyright rules apply to the Internet as they do to other media. Material on the net, even on electronic bulletin boards, belongs to the author, so its use, other than its fair use, requires permission and possible payment. But because material on the Internet is not tangible, it is easily, freely, and privately copied.
The Virtual Democracy
The Internet is powered by freedom and self-governance, which are also the hallmarks of true democracy. It is no surprise, then, that computer technology I often trumpeted as the newest and best tool for increased democratic involvement participation.
The Technology Gap An important principle of democracy is “one person, on vote”. But if democracy is increasingly practiced online, those lacking the necessary technology and skill will be denied their vote. This is technology gap - the widening disparity between the communication technology haves and have-not.
The Information Gap Another important principle of democracy is the self-governing people govern best with full access to information. This is the reason our culture is so suspicious f censorship. The technology gap feeds the second impediment to virtual democracy, the information gap. Those without the requisite technology will have diminished access to the information it makes available. In other words, they will suffer from a form of technologically imposed censorship.
Information, Knowledge, and Understanding Some critics of the ides of online democracy are troubled by the amount of information available to contemporary citizens and the speed with which it comes. Add to this the difficulty of assessing the veracity of much online information, and they argue that the cyber world may not be the best place to practice democracy.
Critics argue that cyber world, by its very virtual nature, is antidemocratic. Before the coming of VCR, cable, and satellite television, and president could ask for and almost invariably receive airtime from the three major television networks to talk to the people. Today, however, these technologies have fragmented us into countless smaller audiences. This fragmentation of the audience is exacerbated by the Internet. Not only is there now an additional medium to further divide the audience, but simply virtue of the way it functions – chat rooms, bulletin boards, taste0specific Web sites – the Internet solidifies people into smaller, more homogeneous, more narrowly interested groups. This cannot be good to democracy, say some critics.
0 comments:
Post a Comment