Criticising your lecturers – the ultimate in free speech Essay Example

anonymous offenders. However, it is important to consider broader concepts like free speech in oppressive societies and protecting employee anonymity for reporting safety concerns. The issue of criticizing teachers also highlights the crucial matter of free speech online. TeacherReview's attorney emphasizes this point.

The American Civil Liberties Union warned that a court case could negatively impact the main function of the Internet, which is to allow people to express their opinions. To explore this issue, I will examine such cases and provide an example of a speech on current issues found at

TeacherReview.com.
Furthermore,

Teacherreviews.com
is another website in America where students can evaluate or compliment their previous teachers.

Ryan Lathouwers established TeacherReview.com to offer an online resource worldwide, with a special emphasis on Irish colleges. The American Civil Liberties Union states that the website enables students to make educated decisions about their teacher and course choices. Thanks to the Communications Decency Act and First Amendment of US law, TeacherReview.com is safeguarded against accusations of defamation resulting from slanderous material uploaded by unidentified third parties. FriendsReunited.

According to the Guardian.co, co.uk is a British website that receives 3.6 million hits on a daily basis.

The UK website operates similarly to American sites, but focuses on reconnecting old schoolmates and requires payment. Despite potential charges from multiple teachers unions, the owners remain unaffected thus far.

Although TeacherReview.com has mostly positive reviews, searching for colleges with an 'F' grade only yields a small number of mixed reviews ranging from 2 to 5. In contrast, there are hundreds of reviews available for colleges with an 'A' grade.

Similarly, FriendsReunited.co.uk features predominantly complimentary and lighthearted

interactions, albeit with the unfortunate occurrence of misuse. This misuse entails instances such as the uncovering of discriminatory and derogatory remarks, including accusations of inappropriate conduct towards minors and physical violence against pupils.

According to Guardian.co.uk, a primary school teacher in co.uk expressed horror after a school governor called him to inform about being labeled as a sex offender.

Allegations that involve slander can pose problems and may seem unfair when laws regarding slander target service providers instead of the individuals who have posted the content anonymously. Suing ISPs for such cases is akin to taking Eircom to court over speech made through a phone. In many instances, the party with the most wealth gets targeted, even though they are not directly responsible for the content.

TeacherReview.com was able to avoid legal action in the USA thanks to the support of the law. The First Amendment upholds Freedom of Speech and the Communications Decency Act also provided protection, resulting in the case being dropped. Section 230 of the CDA was particularly significant, as it ensures that a service provider cannot be held liable for "information originating with a third party user of the service" (as seen in 'Zeran v. America Online', quoted in Cyber-Rights and Civil Liberties).

Recently in the case of National Bank of Mexico v. Narconews, it was found that Narconews, a media defendant, is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment. This demonstrates that the First Amendment also provides protection for Internet Defendants (Wired News). However, the legal system in the UK is quite different and more complex. The laws concerning defamation are far more rigid than in Ireland. In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet

Ltd (1999), it became clear how these laws apply to the Internet. Demon was held responsible for publishing a libellous post made by a third party using their service against Godfrey.

According to Cyber-Rights and Civil Liberties, every time a customer of the Defendants accesses the site containing defamatory content about the Plaintiff, it is considered a publication to that customer. However, the main issue in the case was not this, but rather Demon's failure to remove the libellous posting after being requested to do so. While this ruling may seem just, it raised concerns about future rulings. If simply receiving notice was enough to hold service providers responsible, it could be easily misused by multinational companies looking to silence public criticism of their products or activities.

Accountability presents an ethical challenge, as previously stated. Demon cannot be held directly liable for content posted through their service. However, due to the reliance on anonymity and being viewed as the most lucrative target, they are assigned responsibility. The same reasoning applies to FriendsReunited.

When it comes to online defamation, accountability is a crucial issue for both Demon Ltd. and FriendsReunited.

Co.uk bears the responsibility for messages published through their services due to the internet's anonymity tradition, which has caused problems. The technology was not originally intended for legal accountability and was later adopted by fringe groups who did not prioritize it.

As the user base of the self-governing organization expands, there is a growing need for regulation despite its previous efficiency. One suggestion is to increase legal accountability.

It is suggested to hold administrators accountable for balancing anonymity and personal accountability by imposing liability. This would address their irresponsibility as the main

approach.

Bileta suggests implementing various measures to combat illegal activity by users, including using the . operator to obtain knowledge of the acts, establishing record-keeping rules, and offering protection to administrators who disclose the identities of responsible users in good faith.

Michael M. Mostyn suggests that holding service providers responsible for revealing the identities of individuals who post offensive content would be an effective solution. This would only apply if the providers were unwilling to comply with the request. Alternatively, current Free Speech and search seizure laws should be fully applicable without regard to the technology used to generate, store, transmit, alter or control information.

(Bileta.ac.uk. Author: Raymond Wacks.)

The Electronic Commerce Act 2000 in Ireland has declared that existing defamation laws should also be applied to all electronic communications within the country. Although this suggested law may seem feasible and uncomplicated, it highlights the lawmakers' inadequate understanding. Pre-existing legislation that addresses matters such as freedom of speech and copyright cannot simply be replicated onto the internet.

The complexity of ownership and accountability has yet to surface in Irish courts, with only two previous cases featuring clear protagonists: DPP versus Y and DPP versus Kenny. Nevertheless, knowledge of libellous content by the service provider is a recurring theme in legislation and self-regulation. This responsibility was apparent in the Godfrey/Demon case on FriendsReunited.co.

Despite being the owners of FriendsReunited.co.uk, Steve and Julie Pankhurst may have made a mistake in implementing a 'report abusive message' button on the site. This is because in both the UK and Ireland, it is the knowledge of the material's content that indicates responsibility, as stated in the Incitement of Hatred Act.According to Guardian.co.uk, if someone comes across

an offensive or unpleasant comment, they may alert operators who will take action to remove it.

Despite not having undergone thorough testing yet, the responsibility of removing and publishing an offending message lies with the site's managers, presenting an unsolvable problem due to the current technological limitations of tracking anonymous users. Even though the Internet connection can be potentially traced to a particular phone line or geographical location in case of mobile connection, it is impossible to track individuals using internet cafes and communication centres. However, legislative bills in the USA are aiming to address this issue, but it is only a concern in British legislation.

Current US law does not hold technology providers liable for the actions of third parties, but TeacherReview.com has sections for colleges from other countries such as Trinity College in Ireland and Cambridge University in England, which may potentially feature defamatory content. If a British libel case is brought against an American website, what legal implications will it entail? Additionally, how is US legislation changing following the World Trade Centre attacks? It is evident to those familiar with the internet that international legislation is necessary, especially given the Chinese government's current limitations on content regulation and the challenges it faces in enforcing these restrictions due to underground efforts on an international level.

It is clear that the creation of international laws presents difficulties because of variations in legislation across different countries, such as between the USA and Ireland. As an illustration, US law's First Amendment safeguards freedom of expression by asserting that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (White House Online).

According to the Irish Constitution, it is the duty

of the State to make an effort in stopping public opinion sources from being utilized for undermining public morality, authority of the State or public order.

In contrast to the US Constitution which emphasizes principles allowing for changes in social norms, the Irish Constitution prohibits the publication or speaking of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material and imposes legal penalties. This legislation is centered on religious matters and does not take into account the evolving dynamics of society.

Despite no successful convictions, the Irish Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred act from 1989 sets an example for flexible laws that could limit excessive US legislation on a global level. This type of law could have been used as guidance in addressing the issue of Yahoo sites selling Nazi memorabilia to French customers and would operate based on the principle that knowledge of content implies responsibility. Essentially, inciting hatred based on race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is considered an offense.

It is important to have relevant material in your possession with the intention of using it.

The Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act deems it unlawful to disseminate or transmit content that prompts hatred. Nonetheless, an individual could assert their lack of knowledge regarding said material or its inflammatory nature as a viable defence. This justification is accepted by the act for the accused party's benefit.

The Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act is notable because it addresses the issue of hatred towards a group in the State or elsewhere.

The issue of online accountability cannot be solved by technology or legislation alone within Irish jurisdiction. Even though a website cannot reside in Ireland while targeting a different country, monitoring

the internet is a larger issue. The control and monitoring of free speech online is desired and possible. President Clinton introduced an initiative in 1993 to improve telephone privacy and security in cooperation with industry and law enforcement.

The topic of discussion is the Clipper Chip.

According to Raymond Wacks at Bileta.ac.uk, the government is allowed to keep a 'back door key' for intercepting messages from criminals such as gangsters, terrorists, and drug dealers.

Even though a previous initiative was abandoned, a comparable Act has now been approved, known as the USA Act. The law has garnered support in American states, but some argue that it was rushed through as a hasty response to the September 11 attacks. Experts warn that the bill could introduce some of the strictest online surveillance laws to date (MediaGuardian).

Concern has been raised over certain sections of an initiative that will make it easier for authorities to obtain wire-tapping orders allowing them to record the online activities of individuals, according to MediaGuardian. The FBI's Carnivore system, in which agents set up covert systems within internet service providers, is also receiving international attention. Although the content of online messages will not be recorded, data about them will be saved, meaning that information such as the origin and posting times will be retained. Though the appearance of anonymity will be maintained, true anonymity will be lost.

The US government is implementing various strategies for monitoring the Internet, including 'Magic Lantern'. The software would enable investigators to covertly install robust eavesdropping software through the Internet, capturing all keystrokes on a person's computer, according to The Washington Post. Such a system could address concerns about accountability on

the Internet, providing clear evidence of the source of messages on platforms like FriendsReunited.co.

The Carnivore system, even without the 'Magic Lantern', could achieve the same goal under the USA Act as the Carnivore system originated in the UK. Legislation comparable to this is currently in development in Britain (MediaGuardian). However, is it advisable to progress toward a more closely watched Internet? One day sufficed to develop the first remailer, from concept to completion, with the purpose of promoting anonymous discussion among those affected by child abuse or AIDS.

According to Michael M. Mostyn of Bileta.ac.uk, anonymous online speech has expanded beyond its original purpose and has become a valuable tool for various legal activities. This includes allowing political dissidents in Singapore to openly criticize their government, empowering employees to report illegal activities that threaten health and safety, enabling AIDS victims to share personal experiences without fear of prosecution, and a myriad of other activities that deserve legal protection.

The focus on the value of content rather than the background of the author has led to a consideration of written material on its own merits without regard to characteristics like ethnicity, age, gender, or class. However, the anonymity is not necessarily guaranteed since the sender's identity may be revealed in cases relating to defamation or national security through a court order. David Blunkett, a leading voice on the upcoming British Bill, stated the importance of balancing respect for civil liberties with prevention of exploitation. While this is an admirable goal, its success remains to be determined. Although current laws may not sufficiently govern online activity, free speech must be protected at all costs, especially within a medium that

allows for global reach.

An international coalition is needed to create effective legislation that takes into account the benefits of anonymous speech, while also holding the perpetrator responsible for their online crimes instead of relying on service providers. The legislation should also address defenses related to political and religious speech in order to prevent a negative impact on freedom of expression. To ensure anonymity from other users online, technologies such as digital signatures, smart cards, and Carnivore can be used while still allowing authorities to trace activity. Expanding Data Protection Acts may control access to this information and effectively address issues faced by websites such as FriendsReunited.

While co.uk and TeacherReview.com offer potential solutions, the underlying issue with internet accountability and anonymity pertains to the public's lack of trust in governmental authorities. These solutions presume that users have confidence in the entities which hold these powers, highlighting broader concerns.

Through Indymedia.org and similar websites, people are able to freely express criticism towards political leaders. However, if these leaders were able to monitor such communication, people would likely refrain from using these platforms.