Public Participation and Internet Regulation

Government officials may want to regulate the internet but no matter how hard they try it will be nearly impossible to complete because of how rapid the internet it growing. So many different sites are created everyday there is no way of keeping up with how many there are or how big the internet actually is. Not only is the internet an ever changing

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.

If we look at the tobacco industry we clearly see that the manufactures that make tobacco products help fund and provide research on the use of their product, not hinder it. We the people have access to that information, and our right to choose whether or not we use tobacco products remains in our hands.

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

Many individuals still believe in the progressive ideals that the Internet was founded upon, and want to see that it continues to be a place for innovation, where information is free and available. They don’t want large corporations having very strict control over that. Only a few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to limit the FCC’s authority on net neutrality. The debate on net neutrality is far from over, and no one knows how the Internet will operate a decade from now. One thing is clear, however: the American people have a huge influence on what will ultimately happen, so if they want to maintain the privacy and freedom that they desire, they need to continue to make their voices

There are many Special Interest Groups involved in the influence of public policy. The view about the influence these Special Interest Groups create is that their attempts are biased to their special interest and the interests of their clients. Unfortunately, the influence of the most well funded interest groups overshadows even the most well intentioned under funded interest groups. This paper will focus on one special interest group that certainly is biased to the civil liberties of the public in general, and does not have the greatest of funds as backing but does have the ingenuity to get their voice heard. “The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is a

In the Age of Information or the Era of the Internet, everyone is connected. Everyone carries around a computer in their pocket with more than enough computing power to send a man to the moon. Invisibly, data is constantly flowing. Virtually everything we interact with in today’s world has one thing in common: the internet. It plays a huge role in everything from sharing pictures with friends to the election. It is widely accessible and houses a wealth of information. Anyone should be able to access the network of data that is the internet. However, just as this Swiss Army Knife of innovation can be applied towards the common good, it can also be limited and used nefariously—an action that manifests itself in the form of censorship. Internet

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

Health concerns are the primary issue for nearly all of the stakeholders. Employees care about their job security and integrity for their occupations. The government is responsible for ensuring the safety and overall welfare of its community. If tobacco is known as a health hazard to the citizens, then it is the responsibility of the government to act on it. The customers of the tobacco industry are another huge factor. Of course, they care about their health, the ingredients of the product, the quality, the cost, etc. Then there are the owners and shareholders who, while they may also care about the reputation of the business, they are mainly concerned with the continuation of the corporation and the profits from it.

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

Fortunately, the tobacco industry's behavior is likely to change due to the increasing legal and societal pressures. Much legislation has been imposed to tobacco firms based on codes of behavior, different government strategies and litigations, especially after 1980 where anti-smoking groups reactions, led to higher restrictions throughout

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

In today's day and age, internet and wireless technologies are increasingly able to provide a way for citizens to engage in political discussions, which is much more involved than in traditional democracy and government action. As such, in this technological realm, the government is able to enter unstructured data into these citizen-created dialogues, which has begun to pave the way to mainly e-democracy and also m-democracy. In viewing this new political environment, one can begin to understand how the fostering of such new democracies based in technology has the capacity to change the political and government landscape from the ground-up.

Many people believe the Internet has become the World’s Emancipation Proclamation. They believe that this newfound cyber-freedom will free countless generations of people. These people will be of every race, creed and color, whose lives, up until now, have been restrained by the paradigm of governments. Whether it is the United States Government, or the government of a foreign nation, the Internet will be our new Underground Railroad of cyberspace.