Cyber Libertarianism : A Declaration Of Independence

A person up to date in today's society must acknowledge the importance and the parcticality of the internet. Just as in other areas of society, personal freedoms are stretched to the very limit on this modern invention, raising isuues in regards to what type of information the internet should be allowed to broadcast. Since its inception, the internet has spawned overnight millionaires, served as the new information medium, and even played host to some heinous crimes. The topic of greatest concern though, is in how the people legislate the division between what is obscence and what is allowable. The way that these issues are dealt with will shape the very form in which the internet and other

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

In this paper, I will be arguing against the text by Lawrence Lessig by providing evidence and reasoning that proves that complete internet regulation would never be implemented on a global scale due to the privacy concerns that the United States would face while minimal internet regulation, like what Lessig suggests, would be unable to coexist with countries like China and Saudi Arabia who morally conflict with a global majority. Internet regulation will never be consistent in a global scheme and would require constant revision which makes it not provide enough utility to be considered when judging from Utilitarianism.

In the article “The Internet: A Clear and Present Danger?” written by Cathleen Cleaver presents a straightforward claim of the need for government laws to administer what is being displayed on the internet. The article begins with a few realistic examples of what is possible to occur to internet users when someone obtains a free entry to their confidential information in their computers. The point she addresses mostly throughout the article is how dangerous it is for children. The example she uses to demonstrate the danger it may have on children is that a pedophile could chat with your child, disguising as a “twelve-year-old.” They may establish an “online relationship” and arrange to meet someday after school, with the intention of molesting

Several years after the end of the American Revolution the United States Constitution was being drafted by some of the nations most important historical figures. Politicians such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were just three of the thirty-nine who eventually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787 (“United States Constitution,” 2015, “1787 Drafting,” para. 7). With the birth of the constitution, came the fear that our newly created nation might slip back under control of a monarchy once again. Therefore, on June 8, 1789, in order to combat such a situation, a group of anti-federalists headed by James Madison proposed a series of thirty-nine amendments to be added to the Constitution. These amendments were designed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public (“United States Bill of Rights,” 2015, “Introduction,” para. 1). The first ten of the new amendments, arguably the most important of the thirty-nine, were thus labeled the Bill of Rights. Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms such as the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, right to trail by jury, protection from quartering troops, and finally the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government (“United States

SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA: though different, these bills were all presented with a similar goal in mind. These bills were intended to stop the digital copyright infringement of American intellectual properties, mainly in foreign countries, but the overly vague wording in the bills made it hard to decipher their real intentions (Yu). For a multitude of reasons, these bills were staunchly protested not only by American citizens, but they also received protest from numerous international groups (York). Though some may argue that SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA may have had some value, they did not have the intended result of ending digital theft, but rather invigorated a retaliating movement. The main

Did you check your Facebook today? How about your E-Mail? If not, you may be missing something even now! In today’s fast-paced world of instant information, if you aren’t on the internet, you’re almost certainly uninformed. Networks and the internet make up an alarmingly large part of our life. We get our news (both personal and public) via the internet, we talk to friends, shop for things, pay our bills… but how vast is the monster that does all of this? This question, along with many others, is essential in the debate that rages on today: censoring the net. There are governments, not excluding our own, who believe in to some extent controlling who can access certain websites, and which are available to the general public. The very idea

"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?

"The government should not be control of the internet. The reason why the government should not be in control of the internet is because the government can restrict you to go on certain websites. If the government is in control of the internet they can tell what is going on certain things. If the government has too much power the government can take control any website and do almost anything to the website they are on. For example, the government can decide to make people pay on certain websites the government wants.

"To what extent does the Government have the duty to monitor the internet? The Internet is a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols. The Government should have control of the internet depending on the situation.

The influence of language in framing an issue is demonstrated in the 2009 article, which does not mention the word paedophile, nor describes Newman as a predator. Instead, the report is framed to emphasis the unregulated nature of the internet. Newman created, “a cyberspace alter-ego” with, “no more substance than a dream,” moreover his “internet construct” was part of a “complex web of false identities” (Fewster, 2009). Thus, the focus is shifted to the uncontrollable, unknowable nature of the internet, rather than the ‘evilness’ of the perpetrator. The 2010 report also frames the internet as a problem by making the aspects of Newman’s online presence more salient or applicable in the mind of the reader. “The 50-year-old paedophile was logged onto another chat room when police arrived to arrest him in his house in Victoria”, had “up to 200 fictitious internet identities he had created to […] have sex with young girls”, and “after murdering, upon [his] return home [he] appeared to have continued on with [his] internet communications with young girls as if nothing has happened” (Dornin, 2010). The attribution of responsibility shifts expands to include both Newton’s unrepentance, and the unregulated nature of the internet.

In Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Barlow uses pathos or an emotional argument in order to persuade the readers to think that the government does not have any control over cyberspace. Barlow also uses logos, or a logical argument by appealing to the reader’s logic by helping them to understand that if the government was not invited to govern cyberspace, they are not welcome. Barlow is making the argument that the government does not have jurisdiction over the in and outs of cyberspace. But with this, he makes a key assumption that is the backbone of his argument. This assumption is that cyberspace does not fall under the government’s reign because they were not invited and given the consent to join nor were they involved with the initial creation. If the reader agrees with this assumption, then they will agree with Barlow’s argument, and if they do not then they would appose his argument. He also uses phrases like “we” and “you”, we meaning anyone who uses the internet and you meaning the government. By making the reader feel as if they are a part of the argument he appeals to their emotions.

Regulation of the Internet is a volatile topic. One reason comes from the very nature of the Internet.  While not entirely different from

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in