• THW strength the Internet Censorship

• Prepared by Li Nan from Class 083

Internet :

It is a network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array of electronic and optical networking technologies. The Internet carries a vast range of information resources and services. --wikipedia

Censorship :

Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. --wikipedia

Internet censorship

It is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.

In some cases, Internet censorship may involve deceit

Abundant of information / fast spread speed / wide range

http://www.internetworldstats.com/

What is best life?

The whole point of law is to shape character, to cultivate the virtue of citizens, to inculcate civic excellence, to make possible a good way of life.

--Aristotle

The purpose of law, the point of a constitution is not to inculcate or to promote virtue.

It’s to set up a fair framework of rights within which citizens may be free to pursue their conceptions of the good for themselves.

--Kant

a)Government policy to encourage Internet industry self-regulation and end-user voluntary use of filtering/blocking technologies.

b)Criminal law penalties (fines or jail terms) applicable to content providers who make content "unsuitable for minors" available online.

c)Government mandated blocking of access to content deemed unsuitable for adults.

d)Government prohibition of public access to the Internet.

Article 19.Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

--The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. --The Bill of Rights US

New York Times VS Pentagon

Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and in 1969 Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND. Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. He approached Nixon National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but nobody was interested.[3]In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The name "Pentagon Papers" for the study arose during the resulting media publicity. [3][4] Street protests, political controversy and lawsuits followed.To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. [5]Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates". [6] He added that he leaked the papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war". [6]

WikiLeaks is an international organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources and leaks. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press. [1] Within a year of its launch, the site claimed a database that had grown to more than 1.2 million documents. [3]The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[1] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4]WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[5] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International's UK Media Award (in the category "New Media") for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances",[6] a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[7] In May 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first in a ranking of "websites that could totally change the news".[8]In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9] In October the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations.

Wikileaks VS Pentagon

USA Communication Decency Act (CDA) enacted (Feb 96)

US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Feb 96)

USA Court ruled CDA unconstitutional (Jun 96)

USA Supreme Court struck down the CDA (Jun 97)

USA Child Online Protection Act (COPA) enacted (Oct 98).

US Court restraining order prevented its enforcement (Nov 98).

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the Act is a contrived acronym, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied.The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[2] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.

THW strengthen the Internet censorship

New

Political speech;

Pornographic material

Old

Cyber-bullying

Human flesh research

Surveillance

In September 2006, ABC News reported on a survey prepared by I-Safe.Org. This 2004 survey of 1,500 students between grades 4-8 reported:42% of kids have been bullied while online. One in four have had it happen more than once 35% of kids have been threatened online. Nearly one in five had had it happen more than once. 21% of kids have received mean or threatening e-mails or other messages. 58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online. More than four out of ten say it has happened more than once. 58% have not told their parents or an adult about something mean or hurtful that happened to them online.

A 2006 survey by Harris Interactive[10] reported:43% of U.S. teens having experienced some form of cyber-bullying in the past year

Similarly, a Canadian study found:23% of middle-schoolers surveyed had been bullied by e-mail 35% in chat rooms 41% by text messages on their cell phones Fully 41% did not know the identity of the perpetrators.

Cyber-bullying

Harmful effectsResearch had demonstrated a number of serious consequences of cyber-bullying victimization. For example, victims have lower self-esteem, increased suicidal ideation, and a variety of emotional responses, cyber-bullying back, being scared, frustrated, angry, and depressed.[6]One of the most damaging effects is that a victim begins to avoid friends and activities, often the very intention of the cyber-bully.Cyber-bullying campaigns are sometimes so damaging that victims have committed suicide. There are at least four examples in the United States where cyber-bullying has been linked to the suicide of a teenager. The suicide of Megan Meier is a recent example that led to the conviction of the adult perpetrator of the attacks.Intimidation, emotional damage, suicideThe reluctance youth have in telling an authority figure about instances of cyber-bullying has led to fatal outcomes. At least three children between the ages of 12 and 13 have committed suicide due to depression brought on by cyber-bullying, according to reports by USA Today and the Baltimore Examiner. These would include the suicide of Ryan Halligan and the suicide of Megan Meier, the latter of which resulted in United States v. Lori Drew.Lost revenue, threatened earnings, defamationStudies are being conducted by large companies to gauge loss of revenue through malicious false postings. Cyberstalkers seek to damage their victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. A 2008 High Court ruling determined that, generally speaking, slander is when a defamatory statement has been made orally without justification. Libelous statements are those that are recorded with some degree of permanence. This would include statements made by email or on online bulletin boards.[23]

NANCHANG, Jiangxi - Eight officials have been removed from their posts or placed under investigation over a property row in East China's Jiangxi province that left an old man dead and two others injured after setting themselves on fire. --China Daily

What is suitable information?

Who guarantee your rights?

How to deal with double sword?