Title: Freedom of Expression

The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Numerous court decisions have broadened the definition of speech to include nonverbal, visual, and symbolic forms of expression. Sometimes the speech at issue is unpopular or highly offensive to the majority of people; however, the Bill of Rights provides protection for minority views. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously as part of the guarantee of free speech. Obscene speech, defamation, incitement of panic, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition are not protected by the First Amendment and may be forbidden by the government.

The Internet enables a worldwide exchange of news, ideas, opinions, rumors, and information. Its broad accessibility, open-minded discussions, and anonymity make it an ideal communication medium. People must often make ethical decisions about how to use such remarkable freedom and power. Organizations and governments have attempted to establish policies and laws to help guide Internet use as well as protect their own interests. Businesses, in particular, have sought to converse corporate network capacity, avoid legal liability, and improve worker productivity by limiting the nonbusiness use of IT resources.

Controlling access to Internet information is one key issue. Although there are clear and convincing arguments to support freedom of speech on the Internet, the issue is complicated by the ease with which children can access the Internet. The conundrum is that it is difficult to restrict Internet access by children without also restricting access by adults. The U.S. government has passed several laws in an attempt to address that issue, and software manufacturers have invented special applications whose goal is to block access to objectionable material.

When anonymous employees reveal harmful information over the Internet, the potential for broad dissemination is enormous, and can require great effort to identify the people involved and stop them. Internet users who want to remain anonymous can send e-mail to an anonymous remailer service, but whether the communication is ethical is up to the person sending the e-mail.

A National Security Letter (NSL) requires organizations to turn over electronic records about the finances, telephone calls, e-mail, and other personal information of suspected terrorists or spies. Use of NSLs is highly controversial and is undergoing legal challenge.

The spread of defamation and hate speech is another important topic, especially for ISPs. In the United States, Internet speech that is merely annoying, critical, demeaning, or offensive enjoys protection under the First Amendment. Legal recourse is possible only when hate speech turns into clear threats and intimidation against specific citizens. From time to time, ISPs have voluntarily agreed to prohibit their subscribers from sending hate messages using their services. Because such prohibitions can be included in the service contracts between a private ISP and its subscribers and do not involve the federal government, they do not violate the subscribers' First Amendment rights. After an ISP implements such a prohibition, it must monitor the use of its service to ensure that the regulations are followed. When a violation occurs, the ISP must take action to prevent it from happening again.

Another issue involves the use of information technology to access, store, and distribute pornography. As long as companies can show that they were taking reasonable steps to prevent pornography, they have a valid defense if they are subject to a sexual harassment lawsuit. These steps include establishing a computer usage policy that prohibits access to pornographic sites, identifying those who violate the policy, and taking action against those users - no matter how embarrassing it is for the users or how harmful it might be for the company.

Question: Do you think exceptions should be made to the First Amendment to make it easier to prosecute people who send hate e-mails and use the Internet to recruit people to their cause? Why or why not?