CS408 Mike Godwin Book Report Peer Response

timer Asked: Apr 17th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

When reviewing your classmate’s draft, focus upon both the correctness of their English composition and the clarity and effectiveness of their presentation or argument.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Louis Prof: Mike Gildersleeve CS408 Book Report The constitutional future of the internet has been hanging in the balance for several years since the discovery of the internet, that is, at the heart of the mid-1990s (Garry 10). There was confusion as to whether it should be handled as a mechanism or a channel of expression profiting from the full assurance of the first amendment or whether it should be a case to the content limiting regulation–where content moderators are responsible for content shared on the Internet, such as broadcasting under the Federal Covenant. This kind of remark is a loquacious account of an exceptional activist who was profoundly committed in looping the threat of ordinance and to some extent securing free expression rights in online platforms. Mike Godwin is a former journalist and was a counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation when his book was published, an organization dedicated to protecting and protecting people's freedom in cyberspace. Mike Godwin analyzes how the legal system applies to the Internet, an omnipresent space that is generally perceived as an area free of law (Milo 185-220). Basically defending the freedom of expression on the Internet while at the same time alleviating anxieties about its social consequences, Godwin presents how the performance of libel and intellectual property laws works against the Internet's free speech frameworkdeferring to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a means of protecting this right. The aftermath is an argument for, and an understanding of individual empowerment in cyberspace that blossoms from the discernment of society and constitutionalism, blending social consensus on the advantages of this medium that outweighs the current cynical speculations around it. Nevertheless, cyberspace is one of the dangerous places which has seen many people conned or preyed on by cybercriminals or by the government agencies who are alluding to be working or enforcing the law of the land (Volokh 55). The first half of this book collectively discuss the informal introduction of the status of the Internet First Amendment Law on topics such as libel, privacy, and copyright. In each of these topics, Godwin feels that the open and democratic nature of the online discourse will actually solve most of the issues relating to the freedom of speech in the cyberspace. To some extent, it would be right to agree with his accounts on this. Take an example where every individual is held personally responsible for the contents shared online. Everyone will have the rights to acknowledge the shared information and will be solely responsible for the outcomes of sharing such information Volokh, one of the greatest scholars, agrees with this in his article when he pointed out that these laws governing freedom of speech in cyberspace should be lawless online since there is a limited speech-limiting prospect that could cover children while utilizing the alternatives accessible to adult people (7): a selfcensored scheme that would recognize ideas. This strategy will nevertheless put some load on individuals, but it should be constitutionally sanctioned to do so (Volokh 7). The rest of the rest of the book focuses more on the intense personal chronicles of the Godwin and the deep involvement in what he calls the "cyber porn panic," which is the push or effort to control the contents that always involve a suspicious search generated at Carnegie University, a cover story during the writing of this book, and the eventual congressional passage of the Communications. Even though the internet is usually scorned by mainstream journalists as the source of rumor and dissipation of false information, Godwin is quick to point to something which is contradictory in nature, an Internet community united to remedy or correct the spread of false information through the internet Ultimately, Godwin presents that this strong response, laid foundation for the lawsuits which subsequently enabled the Supreme Court to declare the “decency” amendment as unconstitutional. Godwin argues strongly to support his ideas on this topic of his book, enable the reader to relive the tension surrounding the freedom of speech in the cyberspace, thus enabling the internet lovers to interact freely knowing that their rights are accounted for in the cyberspace laws. The following sections of the review breaks down the book into chapters for better understanding. The first chapter describes how strongly the individuals can respond to the social and legal issues arising from the interaction of the Net society. The reality is that most of the people are anxious about what will spell them when a legal investigations is directed towards their information on the Internet. Sometimes, people share pieces of information which are harmful to others even without knowing. Now, this is one of the issues which made Godwin publish an article that will enable people to understand the outcome and their rights of speech in cyberspace. This is accomplished by explaining how the First Amendment safeguards freedom of expression in cyberspace or should protect it (Godwin 2-380). Generally articulating, Godwin represents pictorially the medium as a territory in which power exists, generating a good number of legal and social issues. Some of these issues are as follows: If the First Amendment that grants assurance for conventional written and spoken discourse methods similarly pertains to the Net, a novel and balancing mechanism that is underlined by the absence of hierarchical mandate among its users Secondly, what sets of laws and systems are expected to sustain the induction and survival of virtual societies that, similar to mundane societies, orderly rely on tolerance for, and thus protection of freedom of speech and privacy? Third, at what moment must the discretion be uncovered between the right to free speech of an individual and the general prosperity of the community? Does writing such information lure more threats than when it appears in the conventional format such as books or journals, and thus oblige further assurance? Finally, how best to reconcile these features of' old' and' new' media in order to effectively implement the right to freedom of communication on the Internet? Are the current Internet communications trends consistent with the rules and procedures set out to protect the rights of speech in cyberspace? The major fusing theory that draws together each of these four principal concerns into a cohesive unity is that in regards to the Constitution, free speech on the Net warrants uniquely protection. And according to Godwin, the right to speak what you believe is as fundamental to the 'virtual citizen' in cyberspace as it is to the 'citizen' in the natural setting without the concern of irrational censorship. There is an element of bond in both of these two worlds -the virtual world and the natural world or at least a contingent associated connecting the right to freedom of speech and a community's prosperity. Chapter 2 talks about the relationship between these two communities' social features. The objective is to illustrate the parasitic characteristics of virtual societies to prove that they are just extensions of physical societies and that both are wrapped with respect for freedom of speech and a desire for intimate connection with other people. A series of 'memes'- an opinion that is purposed and countered from character to character, extend the Net's lawless, immoral and' unreal' representations, and suppressing its line of symmetry with the real world. It is extremely frustrating that when contesting against the Net's negative implications, Godwin did not strongly defend his judgement. Nevertheless, the mentioned Internet as a threat issue is carried through to Chapter 3, although this point with reference to its generate by the administration and the press who tries to raise concerns about the application of freedom of expression in cyberspace. Godwin argues that these institutions fret about a loss of authority over the mass media as a result of the ability of common civilians from their own computer systems to connect with thousands of other people around the world. As a result, politicians and journalists combine the concept of cyberspace with concepts of bomb-making information, hackers, and child pornography to pilfer some of the layman's reposed power, conclusively resulting to opposition to its use. The scholar or the reader is familiarized with the distortions imputed to the Net by the general society, media, and the government in these first three chapters. They equip the reader with prongs of a drive to withstand such fears, comparable to a step-by-step guide. This is achieved by way of the campaign for the security of individual rights under the First Amendment, which is favorable to support the rights of others and guides to the formulation of societies and the nation in general. From chapter 4 to chapter 10, Godwin outweighs these emphatic perspectives of free speech with the aim of recognizing its concerns, which encompasses issues like privacy, copyright, cyberporn, and online slander, acclaiming the First Amendment as a way to resolving them, and citing cases as real-life illustrations of these concerns. Moreover, Godwin pitches to the reasoning that advocates for the assurance of free speech on the Net, casually overlooking the pieces of evidence that counter it, and thus leaning the rules with immense partiality towards one end of the spectrum. For instance, Godwin suggests that the greatest solution accessible to an individual who has been defamed on the Net is self-help, such as engaging the person who has distributed the libelous remarks or simply enduring assaulting idioms. However, this strategy overlooks the right to pecuniary compensation for reputational ruin and hurts feelings, particularly when such a solution is warranted by the scope of the publication, its significance, and financial loss. Furthermore, 'flaming' one's critics is solely pleonastic in the sense that an individual is apt to do the identical thing, and thus the cycle of deformation between the two parties recapitulates as infinite. A tarnished honor without a promptly accessible solution is absolutely against the objective of libel law, regardless of the medium through which it is done (Garry 14). The final chapter latches on a thought for tolerance of those who offend others on the Net, resolving that the Internet's general nature makes it impracticable for shared opinions and experiences to ever be united. He claims that empowering societies to speak openly on the Internet in all the ways we've said they can speak freely in other media, and with all the secrecy we've allowed them in other media, is a prerequisite for all the advantages the online world has to offer us. The book is valuable reading material for law students alike who have to come to terms with the social and legal issues that emerge from the Internet technology. The predominance and universality of concerns emerging from the Net and related case-law, even though specific to the American context. The employment of active voice, non-legal language, and personal renditions are achieved favorably to sustain motivation via what can contrarily be the boring and obscure topic. This confidential and informal tendency seldom operates to the detriment of Godwin, eliciting a tone of teaching. Works Cited Garry, Patrick M. "Reno Versus ACLU and Internet Speech Freedom." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2007. Godwin, Mike. Cyber Rights: Defending Free speech in the Digital Age. MIT P, 2003. "New frontiers: a visitor's guide." Index on Censorship, vol. 22, no. 2, 1993, pp. 11-13. Milo, Dario. "Fault and Defamation Liability." Defamation and Freedom of Speech, 2008, pp. 185-220. Volokh, E. "Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace from the Listener's Perspective: Private Speech Restrictions, Libel, State Action, Harassment, and Sex." SSRN Electronic Journal, 1997, doi:10.2139/ssrn.44402. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: Duke University

Attached is the complete work. Feel free to ask for any corrections or clarifications

Surname 1
Title page-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Peer Review----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Surname 1
April 17, 2019
Peer Review
The internet has been very helpful ever since it was discovered in...

flag Report DMCA

Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors