As Individuals Harness the Internet to Expand Their Ability to Speak and Listen

Sources

KANG, JERRY. "Internet and Freedom of Speech." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. 1391-1392. U.S. History In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

● “As individuals harness the Internet to expand their ability to speak and listen”

● “When the state responds, it confronts the FREEDOM OF SPEECH guarantee of the FIRST AMENDMENT”

● “As JusticeROBERT H. JACKSON wrote in KOVACS V. COOPER (1949), "[t]he moving picture screen, the radio, the newspaper, the handbill, the sound truck and the street corner orator have differing natures, values, abuses and dangers. Each, in my view, is a law unto itself."”

Araya, Agustin A. "Internet." Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 1048-1052. U.S. History In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3434900364&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=1fab0d13bcd9d787a06fbd5b74ec2c12

● “A variety of ethical issues arise with this technology, involving not only individual users, but also corporations and governments.”

● “Personal information is routinely used for purposes other than those originally intended, in most cases without the knowledge of the people involved. This situation constitutes a significant erosion of privacy.”

"Freedom of Speech." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 543-550. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1337701892&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=61400a8be7cbb7d59a647be1bb22a898

● “Freedom of speech is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.”

● “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.”

● If the law regulates the content of the expression, it must serve a compelling STATE INTEREST and must be narrowly written to achieve that interest (Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S. Ct. 948, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794 [1983]). Restrictions on speech in a public forum also may be upheld if the expressive activity being regulated is of a type that is not entitled to full First Amendment protection, such as obscenity.

"Internet." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 451-457. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3437702372&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=c0f607662c5310cda12cf71794550205

● “DEFENSE DEPARTMENT contractors put it up, the network remains free from official control. This system has no central governing authority for a very good reason: the general public was never intended to use it.”

"Free Speech." Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Jeffrey Wilson. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 1013-1017. Student Resources in Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2588700200&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=16d6a56cfa7dd997862ba758799ac961

● “The advent of the Internet and the huge variety of data it makes accessible has been hailed by free speech advocates as an incredible boon to the United States and the world. On the other hand, the notion that such a vast array of speech can be disseminated so easily and broadly, all without any restrictions or review, concerns and offends many individuals and groups. Some groups have called for an array of content regulations and restrictions, for example, legislative initiatives that would force electronic communications providers to censor the material they distribute or to deny access to various potential users. On the other side of the debate, there are concerns that such regulation contravenes the protections of the First Amendment, ultimately providing control at the cost of free speech.”

"Internet." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 5. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 489-495. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1337702362&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=fe0b5bec9d131696a7e7097d65e9ad63

● Top Ten Activities of Adult Internet Users in 2008

1. Send or read e-mail

2. Use a search engine

3. Get news online

4. Check weather reports and forecasts

5. Look for news or information on politics

6. Engage in social networking

7. Conduct banking online

8. Watch a video on a video-sharing site

9. Look up information using Wikipedia

10. Send instant messages

Feldman, Stephen M. "Freedom of Speech." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ed. David S. Tanenhaus. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 268-276. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3241200383&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=ff2c7dd0b9ed20ba736695e4c474fbd3

MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Internet Freedom Starts at Home." Foreign Policy (3 Apr. 2012). Rpt. in Internet Censorship. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ3010901222&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=a5a47fc3e3447d9c507ad5b116e52b47

● “ the U.S. government is the biggest and most powerful customer of American-made surveillance technology, shaping the development of those technologies as well as the business practices and norms for public-private collaboration around them. As long as the U.S. government continues to support the development of a surveillance-technology industry that clearly lacks concern for the human rights and civil liberties implications of its business—even rewarding secretive and publicly unaccountable behavior by these companies—the world's dictators will remain well supplied by a robust global industry.”

● “American tech companies are up to their eyeballs in bad behavior. Despite industry and government efforts to keep the media in the dark about a traveling trade show for surveillance technology known as the "Wiretappers' Ball," recent media reports have revealed the extent to which American corporate innovations in surveillance technology are driven by U.S. government demand. And the U.S. government is by far those companies' biggest customer.”

"Internet Rights & Principles Coalition: Internet Rights Bill." Legal Monitor Worldwide. SyndiGate Media Inc., 2014. General OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA367019929&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=7ec9a375050d5f18000b159bcbbc04d1

"SOPA." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CPC3010999117&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=10f41058fd49847653dea8809706d18e

● “The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a bill in the United States House of Representatives that aims to crack down on overseas Internet sites that sell pirated copies of films, popular music, and other intellectual property. Along with a parallel Senate bill called the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), the legislation could require Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access, links, and payment to suspected rogue websites. Similar legislation known as the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was blocked in the Senate in 2010. The bills appeared headed for passage in 2011, with bipartisan sponsorship and strong support from numerous industries, but this momentum was reversed due largely to the opposition of major Internet companies such as Google and Wikipedia, who mobilized their users to protest out of censorship concerns.”

● “Copyright infringement through unauthorized digital downloading and file-sharing deprives copyright holders of revenues and is strongly opposed by the film, recording, and other creative industries. It is part of a wider problem of intellectual property theft affecting other key sectors such as pharmaceuticals and reportedly costing US businesses upwards of $100 billion per year.”

"Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)." Gale Student Resources in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Student Resources in Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCIVUOF328678517&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=e6e4302e2e403698f36055cb1f82caef

● “the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was a proposed legislative approach for dealing with the piracy problem that met with fierce opposition from opponents who believed it posed a serious threat to online freedom, and it ultimately failed to become law.”

● “SOPA was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Texas congressman Lamar Smith”

● “They argued that while SOPA was mainly focused on foreign piracy websites, it also posed a significant threat to many American sites, especially start-ups lacking the capital to pay for the costly legal fees they would face if they were accused of hosting copyrighted material. SOPA, they said, would set a dangerous precedent that could easily stifle online innovation.”

Smith, Lamar. "The Stop Online Piracy Act Safeguards Property Rights and Does Not Threaten Internet Freedom." Internet Censorship. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Setting the Record Straight on SOPA." Hill 14 Dec. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ3010901223&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=bde799ba30c0d41507d0d6fca82162a6

Sanchez, Julian. "The Stop Online Piracy Act Will Not Prevent Online Piracy." Cybercrime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "SOPA Won't Hamper True Pirates." U.S. News & World Report (21 Dec. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ3010570260&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=0051eba8f4d81db2132ac8c0a5b6d81f

● Contains opposing viewpoints and counterpoints

"SOPA." Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary. Ed. Linda Hall. 41st ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2009. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1837530467&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=6a80ca05cd6c5da7cced636ac945fdb4

● What SOPA stood for

"WikiLeaks." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CPC3010999020&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=c231774e99840b6adca5e8bda6ef9e50

● “The site makes sensitive and classified information available to the public, with a focus on documents that expose actions the site administrators view as criminal or unethical. The material available on WikiLeaks is donated by anonymous individuals, and site staffers take great pains to ensure that those who leak the documents remain anonymous for their own protection. With its massive release of confidential reports on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, WikiLeaks has become recognized as one of the world’s leading sources of leaked information. It has also been called a terrorist organization, and has been targeted by numerous politicians, governments, and corporations in an attempt to shut it down.”

"Introduction to WikiLeaks: At Issue." Wikileaks. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ3010831101&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=6162b7e15461a80c1705bf20ea9fefa9

● “WikiLeaks—a self-identified nonprofit electronic media outlet whose professed mission is to reveal secrets and thereby promote accountable and transparent governments—published nearly seventy-seven thousand classified intelligence documents related to the War in Afghanistan, some four hundred thousand related to the Iraq War (known collectively as the War Logs), and a quarter of a million secret diplomatic cables from the US State Department (known as "Cablegate").”

"Top Ten Topics Discussed in the WikiLeaks Cables, by Number of Mentions." Hacking and Hackers. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ2220014811&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=fd83c7bdeffe4abfdeffa3b6bc8baca3

● Link to Washington post article

Thiessen, Marc. "WikiLeaks Is a National Security Threat and Should Be Censored." Internet Censorship. Ed. Margaret Haerens and Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Obama Administration Is Weak in the Face of WikiLeaks." Washington Post 29 Nov. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEJ3010901209&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=2fce976eede378daf75695c26067fc49

● Counterpoints and arguments against Wikileaks

"10 things you need to know about SOPA and PIPA." VentureBeat. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/19/sopa-pipa-facts/>.

● General information about SOPA PIPA, the controversy and related things

Garry, Patrick M. "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ed. David S. Tanenhaus. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 226. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3241200848&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=bcf8b74af7d2c35a57fc6b222a0cc430

● Court Case

Bhagwat, Ashutosh A. "Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ed. David S. Tanenhaus. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 293-294. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.

Document URL

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3241200648&v=2.1&u=nm_s_eldorado&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=66c20c24209529cc43c0f8a1510995a1

● Court Case