Jeffery L. PietersProfessor Lycan First Year Writing Seminar E.docx

Jeffery L. Pieters
Professor Lycan
First Year Writing Seminar EN106
02 April 2020Is Income Inequality To Blame For Poor Student
Test Scores?
Studies ranging from psychology to economics all indicate that
early childhood education and development are vital to the
success of a child in all aspects of life, regardless of their
socioeconomic status. Despite the reality that children from
disadvantaged households often face more challenges and have
lower test scores, publicly funded programs can have a
significant and measured effect on success. Lawmakers have the
responsibility to shape fiscal policy in order to bridge the gaps
that face our nation's “persistently disadvantaged.” Although I
agree that eligibility to qualify for free or reduced school meals
is a poor measure of a student's actual needs as Susan Dynarski
points out, it is important to extend these ideas to include
access to quality early childhood education programs.
“A closer look reveals that the standard measure of economic
disadvantage whether a child is eligible for a free or reduced-
price lunch in school masks the magnitude of the learning gap
between the richest and poorest children.” (Greene, Kindle
Locations 11218-11220). This gap is an important aspect of the
disparity in which money is distributed to schools as it can be
misconstrued to divide the money based on numbers instead of
actual need. The disadvantaged children are those who are in
the most need for assistance both monetarily and educationally
and these funds should be focused on their needs specifically
instead of a school as a whole generically, though there is likely
no easy way to focus this money in a specific manner. One
possible way to address this need is to provide assistance and
education to all children across the nation from birth regardless
of financial need. Studies for years have shown that children
who attend preschool are more likely to be successful

throughout elementary and high school, and early childhood
brain development increases intelligence levels (Untangling the
Evidence). By providing this type of education and development
across the board we could raise the test score of children across
the nation. This would prove to be an expensive and extremely
difficult task to implement universally however, we do currently
have a federal program in place currently aimed at providing
these types of educational programs to low income families,
Head Start.
The Head Start Program is administered under the Department
of Health and Human Services and provides services to pregnant
women and children from birth to age five. The Head Start
Program is designed to teach early learning, health education,
and family well-being with the intention of promoting school
readiness to these children. In fiscal year 2018, the Federal
Government spent $9.47 billion dollars on this program which
helped 1,050,000 children and pregnant women in 2017 and
2018 (Head Start Programs). This program is delivered
nationwide through 1,600 agencies which tailor the program to
the needs of the local areas, both in centers, and homes. The
Head Start Program however was only able to serve just over
one million children and pregnant women, yet according to
www.childstats.gov there were 23.2 million children under the
age of five in 2018 alone. This one million served represents the
most needy in our nation yet provided services to only a
fraction of those who could benefit from this education.
Expanding the budget for this program in the area of childhood
education specifically would lead to a significant improvement
of test scores of all lower income and middle income families.
In addition to the Head Start Program, pre kindergarten schools
are another way that children can receive critical education
prior to entering elementary school. Yet as recently as 2017, six
states did not have state funded preschool programs, Idaho,
Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming (Early Childhood Education). These programs are
funded from state budgets and local municipalities in the form

of bonds or other taxes. Yet despite the studies and evidence
that shows for every dollar spent in one of these programs, the
return on investment can be from two to four dollars (Cannon,
2018), some lawmakers are still hesitant to expand the budgets
from preschool programs.
According to the New York Times article by Reardon,
Waldfogel and Bassok, “Greater availability of affordable
preschool programs particularly if they are high quality may be
part of the reason poor children are starting to catch up to their
affluent peers.” (Greene, Kindle Locations 11314-11316).
Preschool is proven to increase childhood development and
helps to close the gap of test scores from lower income to upper
income children. A common thought is that a more educated
society is a more civilized society, by this thought we should be
investing heavily in education while paying the teachers much
more than they currently receive as 80% of all Head Start
teachers have a Bachelor's degree or higher. Yet if we continue
to use the qualification for free lunch as the only measure to
receive public funds we will continue to leave the most in need
children behind.
Works Cited
Cannon, Jill S., et al. “High-Quality Early Childhood Programs
Can Change Lives.” RAND
Corporation, 3 Jan. 2018,
www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2018/01/high-quality-early-
childhood-programs-can-cha
nge-lives.html.
“Early Childhood Education.” Education Commission of the
States,
www.ecs.org/research-reports/key-issues/early-childhood-
education/.
Greene, Stuart,Lidinsky, April. From Inquiry to Academic
Writing: A Text and Reader (Kindle
Locations 11218-11220). Bedford/St. Martin's. Kindle Edition.

Greene, Stuart,Lidinsky, April. From Inquiry to Academic
Writing: A Text and Reader (Kindle
Locations 11314-11316). Bedford/St. Martin's. Kindle Edition.
“Head Start Programs.” ECLKC, 25 Mar. 2020,
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/head-start-programs.
“POP1 Child Population: Number of Children (in Millions)
Ages 0–17 in the United States by
Age, 1950–2018 and Projected 2019–2050.”
ChildStats.gov-Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp.
“Untangling the Evidence on Preschool Effectiveness: Insights
for Policymakers.” Learning
Policy Institute,
learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/untangling-evidence-
preschool-effectiveness-brief.
Chapter 3:
Freedom of Speech
Based on slides prepared by Cyndi Chie, Sarah Frye and Sharon
Gray.
Fifth edition updated by Timothy Henry
Copyright © 2018, 2013, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. All
Rights Reserved
Communication Paradigms
Controlling Speech
Posting, Selling, and Leaking Sensitive Material

Anonymity
The Global Net: Censorship and Political Freedom
Net Neutrality Regulations or the Market?
Rights Reserved
2
Regulating communications media
First Amendment protection and government regulation
Print media (newspapers, magazines, books)
Broadcast (television, radio)
Common carries (telephones, postal system)
Rights Reserved
3
Print:
Has strongest First Amendment protection
Trend toward fewer government restraints on printed words
Broadcast:
Government regulates structure of industry and content of
programs
Government grants broadcast licenses
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is the regulating
body
Common carriers:

Provide medium of communication and make service available
to everyone
Telecommunication Act of 1996
Changed regulatory structure and removed artificial legal
divisions of service areas and restrictions on services that
telephone companies can provide.
No provider or user of interactive computer services shall be
treated as a publisher of any information provided by another
information- content provider.
Rights Reserved
The Telecommunications Act significantly clarified the question
of the liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other
online service providers for content posted by third parties such
as members and subscribers.
Service providers remain at risk in many countries. For
example, the head of eBay in India was arrested because
someone sold pornographic videos on eBay’s Indian site even
though the video itself did not appear on the site and the seller
violated company policy by selling them.
4
Communications Decency Act of 1996
First major Internet censorship law
Main parts ruled unconstitutional

Rights Reserved
Free-speech Principles
Written for offensive and/or controversial speech and ideas
Covers spoken and written words, pictures, art, and other forms
of expression of ideas and opinions
Restriction on the power of government, not individuals or
private businesses
Rights Reserved
Publishers do not have to publish material they consider
offensive, poorly written, or unlikely to appeal to their
customers for any reason. Rejection or editing by a publisher is
not a violation of the writer’s First Amendment rights. Web
sites, search engine companies, and magazines may decline
specific advertisements if they so choose. That does not violate
the advertiser’s freedom of speech.
6
Free-speech Principles
Supreme Court principles and guidelines
Advocating illegal acts is (usually) legal.
Anonymous speech is protected.
Some restrictions are allowed on advertising.
Libel and direct, specific threats are not protected.
Inciting violence is illegal.
Rights Reserved

Cases in recent years have gone against the trend of treating
advertising as “second class” speech. Courts have begun to rule
that restrictions on truthful advertising do indeed violate the
First Amendment.
Similarly, since the 1970s, the government has severely
regulated political campaign speech, but recent Supreme Court
decisions have restored some First Amendment protection for it.
There have been serious attempts to limit or prohibit anonymity
on the Internet.
7
Offensive speech: What is it? What is illegal?
Answers depend on who you are.
Most efforts to censor the Internet focus on pornographic and
other sexually explicit material
Rights Reserved
The state of Georgia tried to ban pictures of marijuana from the
Internet. A doctor argued for regulating medical discussion on
the Net so that people would not get bad advice. The Chinese
government restricts reporting of emergencies (such as major
accidents or disasters) and how the government handles them.
The French government approved a law banning anyone except
professional journalists from recording or distributing video of
acts of violence.
The distinctions between categories such as erotica, art, and

pornography are not always clear, and different people have
very different personal standards.
8
What was already illegal?
Obscenity
Depicts a sexual act against state law
Depicts these acts in a patently offensive manner that appeals to
prurient interest as judged by a reasonable person using
community standards
Lacks literary, artistic, social, political or scientific value
Rights Reserved
The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, but how does
one determine something is obscene? The 1973 Supreme Court
Miller v. California decision established a three-part guideline
for determining whether material is obscene under law. The
second point – the application of community standards – was a
compromise intended to avoid the problem of setting a national
standard of obscenity in so large and diverse a country. Thus,
small conservative or religious towns could restrict pornography
to a greater extent than cosmopolitan urban areas.
9
Straining old legal standards
The definition of “community”
The definition of “distribution”
Rights Reserved

A couple in California opened a computer bulletin board system
(BBS) called Amateur Action that made sexually explicit
images available to members. Most legal observers agreed the
BBS operators would not have been guilty of a crime in
California. A postal inspector in Memphis, Tennessee, working
with a U.S. attorney there, became a member of the BBS and
downloaded sexually explicit images in Memphis. The couple,
who lived and worked in California, were prosecuted in
Tennessee and found guilty of distributing obscenity under local
community standards.
Did the BBS operators send obscene files to Tennessee? BBSs
were accessed through the telephone system. The postal
inspector in Tennessee initiated the telephone call to the BBS
and initiated the transfer of the files. Critics of the prosecution
of the BBS operators argued that it is as if the postal inspector
went to California, bought pornographic pictures and brought
them home to Memphis – then had the seller prosecuted under
Memphis community standards.
10
Freedom of speech guidelines
Distinguish speech from action. Advocating illegal acts is
(usually) legal.
Laws must not chill expression of legal speech.
Do not reduce adults to reading only what is fit for children.
Solve speech problems by least restrictive means.
Rights Reserved
Internet Censorship Laws & Alternatives

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA)
Attempted to avoid conflict with First Amendment by focusing
on children
Made it a crime to make available to anyone under 18 any
obscene or indecent communication
Found to be unconstitutional
The worst material threatening children was already illegal
It was too vague and broad
It did not use the least restrictive means of accomplishing the
goal of protecting children
Rights Reserved
The CDA was found unconstitutional in American Civil
Liberties Union et al. v. Janet Reno. That decision established
that “the Internet deserves the highest protection from
government intrusion.”
The courts found that the then newly developing filtering
software was less restrictive and more desirable than
censorship.
12
Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA)
More limited than CDA
Federal crime for commercial Web sites to make available to
minors material “harmful to minors” as judged by community
standards
Found to be unconstitutional
It was too broad

It would restrict the entire country to the standards of the most
conservative community
It would have a chilling effect
Rights Reserved
Law found to be too broad; would threaten art, news, and health
sites.
Courts noted that because the Web is accessible everywhere, the
community-standards provision would restrict the entire country
to the standards of the most conservative community.
COPA would restrict access to a substantial amount of online
speech that is lawful for adults and would have an
unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech.
After more than 10 years of lawsuits and appeals, the Supreme
Court declined to hear the last government appeal, and COPA
died in 2009.
13
Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA)
Requires schools and libraries that participate in certain federal
programs to install filtering software
Upheld in court
Does not violate First Amendment since it does not require the
use of filters, impose jail or fines
It sets a condition for receipt of certain federal funds

Rights Reserved
Outside of public schools and libraries, the trend of judicial
decisions is to give the Internet First Amendment protection
similar to that of print media, that is, the highest degree of
protection.
14
Video Games
A California law banned sale or rental of violent video games to
minors.
In 2011, the Supreme Court of California ruled it violated the
First Amendment.
Rights Reserved
Some argue that the interactivity of video games has a more
powerful impact on children than passively watching television
or reading a violent story. Others point out that children have
played at killing each other for generations. Does falling down
“dead” on the grass compare to the repeated, explosive gore of a
video game?
The California Supreme Court ruled that “disgust is not a valid
basis for restricting expression.” The Court considered research
on the impact of video games on children’s feelings of
aggression and found that the impacts were small and differed
little from the impact of other media.

15
Alternatives to censorship
Filters
Blocks sites with specific words, phrases or images
Parental control for sex and violence
Updated frequently but may still screen out too much or too
little
Not possible to eliminate all errors
What should be blocked?
Rights Reserved
Alternatives to censorship
Policies
Commercial services, online communities, and social
networking sites develop policies to protect members.
Video game industry developed rating system that provides an
indication for parents about the amount of sex, profanity, and
violence in a game.
Rights Reserved
17
Discussion Question
Why is ‘least restrictive means’ important?
Do you consider the Internet an appropriate tool for young
children? Why or why not?

Rights Reserved
Child Pornography
Includes pictures or videos of actual minors (children under 18)
engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Production is illegal primarily because of abuse of the actual
children, not because of the impact of the content on a viewer.
Rights Reserved
Laws against creating, possessing, or distributing child
pornography predate the Internet. They cover a broad range of
images, many of which would not meet the definition of
illegally obscene material if the person depicted were an adult.
The mere possession of child pornography does not directly
abuse children, but the Supreme Court accepted the ban on
possession on the argument that the buyers or users of the
images encourage their production.
Law enforcement agents use surveillance, search warrants, sting
operations, and undercover investigations to build their cases
and make arrests.
19
Child Pornography
Congress extended the law against child pornography to include

“virtual” child pornography.
The Supreme Court ruled the law violated the First Amendment.
The Court accepted a later law providing harsh penalties for
certain categories of computer-generated and cartoon-type
images.
Rights Reserved
“Virtual” child pornography includes computer-generated
images that appear to be minors, as well as other images where
real adults appear to be minors.
20
Sexting
Sending sexually suggestive or explicit text or photos, usually
by cellphone or social media
Can meet the definition of child pornography if subject is under
18
Rights Reserved
Many young people (like many adults) do not think about how
quickly something intended for one person or small group
spreads to a large audience, or how difficult it is to remove
something from cyberspace once it is out there.
Possession of child pornography is illegal, so children who have

pictures of friends under 18 on their phones that prosecutors
think meet the definition of child pornography are potentially in
violation. Should it be a criminal felony with severe penalties
that can include being put in a sex-offender database for many
years?
What other mechanisms (besides child pornography laws) can
we use to discourage sexting?
Legislatures in a few states have revised their state’s law in a
variety of ways to reduce the penalties for sexting. Some have
made it a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, if a younger
person sends an illegal photo to another young person of similar
age. Some have reduced or eliminated penalties if photos were
distributed (among minors) with the consent of the person in the
picture.
21
Spam
What’s the problem?
Loosely described as unsolicited bulk email
Mostly commercial advertisement
Angers people because of content and the way it’s sent
Free speech issues
Spam imposes a cost on recipients
Spam filters do not violate free speech (free speech does not
require anyone to listen)
Rights Reserved
The term spam, in the context of electronic communications,

was adopted in the 1990s to mean unsolicited bulk email. It now
applies to text messages, tweets, and phone calls as well.
Spam developed because email is extremely cheap compared to
printed direct-mail advertising.
22
Spam
Anti-spam Laws
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and
Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act)
Targets commercial spam
Criticized for not banning all spam, legitimized commercial
spam
Rights Reserved
The CAN-SPAM act covers labeling of advertising messages
(for easier filtering), opt-out provisions, and methods of
generating emailing lists.
Commercial messages must include:
valid mail header information (that is, not faking the “From”
line to disguise the sender is prohibited)
valid return address
clear and honest subject lines
23
“Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
-Tim O’Reilly

Rights Reserved
Policies of large companies
A Web site with risks
Rights Reserved
Do search engine providers have a social or ethical obligation to
provide complete search results to all queries, or do they have a
social or ethical obligation to omit very offensive sites from
search results?
People should consider potential risks of posting material. They
should consider unintended readers or users and should consider
ways to prevent access by unintended users.
25
Leaks
Type of material
Value to society
Risks to society and individuals
Rights Reserved
The Web is a convenient and powerful tool for whistleblowers.
Some leaks serve valuable social purposes.

We should remember that leaking begins with a strong ethical
case against it. Leaked documents are often obtained by hacking
into someone else’s computer or by an insider who violates a
confidentiality agreement. Freedom of speech and press do not
legitimate stealing files and publishing them. This does not
mean that leaking is always wrong. It means that the reasons for
leaking the material must be strong enough to overcome the
ethical arguments against it, and the publisher of the leaked
material must handle it responsibly.
Documents that include significant evidence of serious
wrongdoing are reasonable candidates for leaks.
26
Leaks
Examples
WikiLeaks
Climategate
Rights Reserved
WikiLeaks released U.S. military documents related to the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, including videos of shooting incidents.
When a long, costly war is controversial, does the public have a
right to see the internal reports and vivid video that can inform
debate? WikiLeaks released a large set of confidential U.S.
diplomatic cables that included, among much else, discussions
of the personalities of foreign leaders.
Climategate emails leaked in 2009 and 2011 showed that
researchers at the University of East Anglia pursued a variety of
methods to deny access to their temperature data by scientists
who question some aspects of global warming. The emails also

described efforts to stop scientific journals from publishing
papers by scientists who are considered skeptics about global
warming. Investigations by the British government and other
groups concluded that the emails did not show scientific
misconduct, but the research center had broken Britain’s
Freedom of Information Act. The reports criticized various
procedures the research group used but not its scientific
conclusions. Some emails discussed criticisms and uncertainties
related to details of the argument that human activity causes
global warming. Researchers discuss such uncertainties in
papers and conferences, but news reports often exclude them. Is
it important for the public to know what is in the emails? What
criteria argue for or against these leaks?
When evaluating the ethics of leaking documents on political or
highly politicized issues, it can be difficult to make judgments
that are independent of our views on the issues themselves.
27
Leaks
Potentially dangerous leaks
Releasing a huge mass of documents
Rights Reserved
WikiLeaks released a secret U.S. government cable listing
critical sites, such as telecommunications hubs, dams, pipelines,
supplies of critical minerals, manufacturing complexes, and so
on, where damage or disruption would cause significant harm.
Some might defend publication of the list by arguing that it
encourages better protection of the sites or that terrorists
already know about the sites, but the risks seem to overwhelm

any public value of this leak.
Some cables named whistleblowers, confidential informants,
human rights activists, intelligence officers and Chinese people
(in business, academia, and the Chinese government) who
provided information about social and political conditions in
China. The release of these documents put those people at risk.
The U.S. government documents that WikiLeaks made public
included approximately 250,000 diplomatic cables and
thousands of other documents. The Climategate leaks included
thousands of documents. Did the leakers review and evaluate all
the documents they released to be sure they met reasonable
criteria to justify the leaks? Should they have?
In the spirit of the Web, leakers can now let the public search
through the documents for those of special interest. This can be
valuable, but it can be wrong. Recall that an important
justification for leaking documents that belong to someone else
is that the leaker knows they contain information that the public
should see. On the other hand, selective disclosure can distort
information by presenting it without context.
28
Discussion Question
Does the value of informing the public of controversial and
sensitive information outweigh the dangers and risks?
Rights Reserved
29

Leaks
Responsibilities of operators of Web sites for leaks
Rights Reserved
A person or organization establishing a site to publish leaked
documents that serve an important public purpose should
consider the various points already raised, but also has
responsibilities to avoid abuse of the site. The site must have
sufficient security to protect whistleblowers – the people who
supply the documents. There should be a well-thought-out
policy about how to handle requests or demands from law
enforcement agencies (of various countries) for the identity of a
person supplying documents. Verification of the authenticity
and validity of leaked documents, while it can be difficult, is
the responsibility of the site operators.
Freedom of speech and of the press leave us with the ethical
responsibility for what we say and publish.
30
Common Sense and Federalist Papers
Rights Reserved
Thomas Paine’s name did not appear on the first printings of
Common Sense, the book that roused support for the American
Revolution.

The Federalist Papers, published in newspapers in 1787 and
1788, argued for adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The authors,
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, used the
pseudonym, Publius.
31
Positive uses of anonymity
Protect political speech
Protect against retaliation and embarrassment
Anonymizing services
used by individuals, businesses, law enforcement agencies, and
government intelligence services
Rights Reserved
Anonymizers are services available to send anonymous email.
Reporters, human rights activists, citizens in repressive
countries, and ordinary people use anonymous email to protect
themselves.
Businesses, law enforcement agencies, and government
intelligence services also use anonymizers. A business might
want to keep its research and planning about new products
secret from competitors. If competitors can get logs of Web
sites that a company’s employees visit, they might be able to
figure out what the company is planning.
Anonymous Web surfing aids law enforcement investigations.
Suppose law enforcement agents suspect a site contains child
pornography, terrorist information, copyright-infringing

material, or anything else relevant to an investigation. If they
visit the site from their department computers, they might be
blocked or see a bland page with nothing illegal. (Web sites can
determine the IP addresses of a visitor and can block access
from specified addresses or put up alternate pages for those
visitors.)
32
Negative uses of anonymity
protects criminal and antisocial activities
aids fraud, harassment, extortion, distribution of child
pornography, theft, and copyright infringement
masks illegal surveillance by government agencies
Rights Reserved
Glowing reviews (such as those posted on eBay or
Amazon.com) may actually be from the author, publisher, seller,
or their friends.
U.S. and European countries are working on laws that require
ISPs to maintain records of the true identity of each user and
maintain records of online activity for potential use in criminal
investigations.
33
Is anonymity protected?
Many legal issues about anonymity are similar to those
discussed in Chapter 2.

Rights Reserved
Should ISPs be required to notify a member when the ISP
receives a subpoena for the member’s identity, so the person has
an opportunity to fight a subpoena in court?
Should it be the responsibility of law enforcement to develop
tools to find criminals who hide behind anonymity, or should
the task be made easier by requiring that we identify ourselves?
Does the potential for harm by criminals who use anonymity to
hide from law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy and
restraint on freedom of speech for honest people who use
anonymity responsibly?
34
Discussion Questions
Where (if anywhere) is anonymity appropriate on the Internet?
What are some kinds of Web sites that should prohibit
anonymity?
Where (if anywhere) should laws prohibit anonymity on the
Internet?
Rights Reserved
35
Tools for communication, tools for oppression

Authoritarian governments have impeded flow of information
and opinion throughout history.
The vibrant communication of the Internet threatens
governments in countries that lack political and cultural
freedom.
Rights Reserved
Email and fax machines played a significant role during the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the democracy demonstrations
in China’s Tiananmen Square. Facebook and cellphones were
key tools in organizing the 2011 Arab Spring.
Dissidents in Iran, Vietnam, various Middle Eastern countries,
and elsewhere use Skype to communicate because of its strong
encryption. Some countries ban Skype. Others subvert it. Before
the revolution in Egypt in 2011, the Egyptian government, for
example, used spyware to intercept Skype communications.
They did not break Skype’s encryption scheme. Instead, it
appears they planted spyware on people’s computers that
intercepted a communication before it was encrypted on the
sender’s computer or after it was decrypted on the recipient’s
computer. During the revolution, the government temporarily
shut down the Internet and cellphone service entirely.
In some countries, government agents, using social media,
pretend to be dissidents and distribute information about
planned protests; the police arrest anyone who comes.
36

Attempts to limit the flow of information on the Internet similar
to earlier attempts to place limits on other communications
media
Some countries own the Internet backbone within their countries
and block specific sites and content at the border
Some countries ban all or certain types of access to the Internet
Rights Reserved
The government of Iran, at various times, blocked the sites of
amazon.com, Wikipedia, the New York Times, and YouTube. It
also blocked a site advocating the end of the practice of stoning
women. Generally, the government says it blocks sites to keep
out decadent Western culture.
37
Avoiding censorship: the global nature of the Net allows
restrictions (or barriers) in one country to be circumvented by
using networks in other, less restrictive countries.
Creating censorship: the global nature of the Net makes it easier
for one nation to impose restrictive standards on others.
Rights Reserved
38

“The office of communications is ordered to find ways to ensure
that the use of the Internet becomes impossible.
The Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of
Vice is obliged to monitor the order and punish violators.”
- Excerpt from Taliban edict banning Internet use in
Afghanistan (2001)
Rights Reserved
39
Discussion Question
Will the Internet and related communication technologies be
tools for increasing political freedom, or will they give more
power to governments to spy on, control, and restrict their
people?
Rights Reserved
40
Aiding foreign censors and repressive regimes
Yahoo and French censorship
Yahoo, eBay and others make decisions to comply with foreign
laws for business reasons
Skype and Chinese control

Chinese government requires modified version of Skype
Rights Reserved
To operate in China, the Chinese government requires Skype
work in a joint venture with a Chinese communications
company (TOM), use a modified version of the Skype software,
and filter out sensitive topics from text chat. According to a
study by a Canadian university, the modified software allowed
widespread surveillance, and TOM stored information from
millions of messages.
41
Aiding foreign censors and repressive regimes
Companies who do business in countries that control Internet
access must comply with the local laws
Google argued that some access is better than no access
Rights Reserved
In 2006, Google disappointed many free speech and human
rights advocates by introducing a Chinese version in China,
google.cn, that would comply with Chinese law. Its search
results did not show sites with banned content.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who was born in the Soviet
Union and experienced totalitarian government, was uneasy
with the 2006 censoring decision. Google stopped operating the
censored search engine in 2010. The company withdrew most

operations from China but offered its search service through
Hong Kong, which, though part of China, has different laws.
The main impetus for the change was the highly sophisticated
hack attack originating in China on Google and about 30 other
companies. A primary goal of the attack appeared to be access
to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
42
When U.S. or other non-Chinese companies set up branches in
China and comply with restrictive laws, should we view them as
providing more access to information in China than would
otherwise exist, albeit not as much as is technically possible?
Should we view them as partners in the Chinese government’s
ethically unacceptable restriction on debate and access to
information by its citizens?
Should we view them as appropriately respecting the culture
and laws of the host country?
Rights Reserved
43
What impact does the global net have on free speech?
Does censorship in other countries have an impact on free
speech in the U.S.?
How does free speech in ‘free countries’ impact more restrictive
countries?

Rights Reserved
Selling surveillance tools
Repressive governments intercept citizens’ communications and
filter Internet content.
Companies in Western democracies sell them the sophisticated
tools to do so.
Rights Reserved
The companies say the tools are for criminal investigations.
45
Shutting down communications in free countries
Public safety
In the U.S., the Supreme Court would probably declare
unconstitutional a law that authorized a government agency to
order a private communications service to shut down.
Rights Reserved
Does shutting down communication services in free countries
give excuses to dictators in unfree countries?
Mobs used cellphones to coordinate attacks in Britain. People in
the government (and others) argued that Research in Motion

should shut down BlackBerry Messenger. It did not.
Shortly after the violence in England, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit system (BART) in the San Francisco Bay Area shut off
wireless service at some of its subway stations after learning of
a plan to “use mobile devices to coordinate…disruptive
activities and communicate about the location and number of
BART Police.” BART is a government agency. It owns the
communications equipment and said its contracts with cell
service companies allow it to shut off the service when it thinks
necessary. Did it threaten freedom of speech, or was it a
legitimate safety decision.
46
Net Neutrality
Refers to a variety of proposals for restrictions on how
telephone and cable companies interact with their broadband
customers and set fees for services.
Rights Reserved
There are two different but related issues: (1) whether the
companies that provide the communications networks should be
permitted to exclude or give different treatment to content based
on the content itself, on the category of content, or on the
company or organization that provides it, and (2) whether the
companies that provide the communications networks should be
permitted to offer content providers and individual subscribers
different levels of speed and priority at different price levels.
The latter is sometimes called “tiered” service.
47

Net Neutrality
Argue for equal treatment of all customers
Market
Flexibility and market incentives will benefit customers
Rights Reserved
Net Neutrality
Equal treatment includes charging all customers the same rate
for sending information over the Internet and not giving priority
to any particular content or customer.
Would restore part of the concept of common carrier (as
described in Section 3.1), based partly on the view that
telephone companies (now telephone and cable) have a
monopoly on transmission of information and that companies
that control transmission should not be permitted to control
access to content as well.
Many Internet content providers and large companies such as
eBay, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, and Google, argue for net-
neutrality rules. Without the rules, some argue, they will have
to pay higher rates and communications companies will give
special treatment to their own content providers. Some groups
argue that allowing communications companies to set varying
rates would be devastating for the Internet as it would squeeze
out independent voices. Only big companies and organizations
will be able to afford the prices necessary to ensure that their
content moves fast enough to be relevant.
Market
Charging different rates for products and services is not unusual
and makes economic sense in many areas.
Before the FCC relaxed older regulations (in 2003-2005),
telecommunications companies had little incentive to invest in

broadband capacity. In the few years afterward, they invested
hundreds of billions of dollars. Speeds increased, prices fell,
and the added capacity was essential for new phenomena such
as streaming video.
Opponents of additional regulations say there should be no
major new regulation without evidence of harm in the current
system.
48
Should companies be permitted to exclude or give special
treatment to content transmitted based on the content itself or
on the company that provides it?
Should companies be permitted to provide different levels of
speed at different prices?
Rights Reserved
The huge surge of traffic due to smartphones and tablets
heightened issues of net neutrality. In 2010, video made up
more than 75% of mobile data traffic. Does it make sense to
treat such traffic differently? Should it have high priority (like
voice calls) because delays are annoying to the customer?
Should it have lower priority because it uses so much
bandwidth? Should service providers make such decisions, or
should Congress and the FCC make them?
When people watch a video on a smartphone, they often do not
watch the whole thing. A company developed techniques to send
a video to the user in segments as he or she watches (without
increasing delays), rather than sending the entire video as fast
as possible. The company said this approach could cut data

transfer in half. Can regulators write net neutrality rules that
allow and encourage such technological solutions for reducing
traffic, or will rigid rules stifle or discourage them?
49

Jeffery L. PietersProfessor Lycan First Year Writing Seminar E.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Jeffery L. PietersProfessor Lycan First Year Writing Seminar E.docx

Similar to Jeffery L. PietersProfessor Lycan First Year Writing Seminar E.docx (9)

More from vrickens

More from vrickens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jeffery L. PietersProfessor Lycan First Year Writing Seminar E.docx