Shockingly, for an entity that only a few insanely dedicated countries have ever even *tried* to regulate, the Internet does have "rules."And even more shockingly, from years of lurking and trolling in various blogs and forums (most notably 4chan and its clones), I've observed that these "rules" do apply.
Whether it's a funny case of self-fulfilling prophecy, or the wisdom of the masses at work, the Rules of the Internet certainly give us a quick introduction into the interactions between Free Speech and the Internet.
Take the most famous rule, which states:
Rule 34. There is porn of it. No exceptions.As soon-to-be lawyers, we love exceptions in our rules, including the constitution. But like "living wage" and "political dynasties," no amount of exceptions will ever eliminate porn and all its variants, the kiddie kind included.
Rule 34, and I think many of the other rules (see rules 8, 21, 41 and 53) just states the obvious -- that there are no real limits to what (internet) speech can do, and any real rules, statutes, or constitutions trying to regulate this, are, now more than ever, at risk of being exposed as artificial, naked exercises of power. Wait, did I just describe "law" in general?
Anyway, our generation of internet users need to take a long, hard look at our free speech regulations (or the lack thereof), and determine what do we really want to protect -- Love of ideas? Convenience of transactions? Perpetuation of power? And how do you regulate something which is inherently, well, formless?
5 comments:
Interesting that you posted this. US Senate has a new bill called the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act". (read: 1. http://www.herpig.de/dms/ 2. hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files 3. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2010/06/protecting-cyberspace-as-national-asset.html, sorry didn't use proper hyperlinking)
How to regulate it? I'm not sure too. If you can't regulate, just allow it?
Ooh, those links have a good point: That while it is very inspiring to see that Internet speech has surpassed the limits of traditional speech, and in so doing, putting into question all of what we've learned in Con Law, it's still a fact that the Internet is run by standards created by, well, US-dominated interests.
But anyway, censorship is one thing, and information warfare is another. I agree that whatever influence the US has on Internet regulation shouldn't go into censorship.
Bigla ko naalala 'yung kanta sa Avenue Q. Hahaha.
Which one? Everything is only for now? I like that song. :) And the musical! :D
Hahaha. NO, Pau! I was referring to the one about the internet. *evil grin*
Post a Comment