Post in Is the Internet legally a "public forum?" Limited public forums and e-government

On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Peter M. Shane wrote:

>
> 1. In the U.S. context does anyone know if the courts have found the
> Internet to be a "public forum" like courts recognize public
> sidewalks or
> public parks as "places" historically recognized for free speech.
>
> I know of no cases, but it's unlikely that the "Internet" would be
> considered a forum, anymore than "the telephone" is a forum.  The
> Internet
> is really a medium for information flow, and the hot policy topic
> these days
> is whether ISPs should be forced to act as "common carriers," like
> telephone
> companies, or whether they have some editorial control over what they
> transmit, like cable companies.  (Recall also that the networks
> comprised in
> the Internet are not publicly owned resources, like the land on
> which parks
> and sidewalks are located.)
>
> Even if the Internet were conceived as a "place," like a sidewalk,
> it would
> be hard to argue that something invented by the government within
> the last
> thirty years as a vehicle for scientific communication would amount
> to a
> traditional space for free speech.
>
> * * *
>
> 2. I've noticed a number of government websites with policy statements
> attempting to establish that their websites are not "limited (or
> designated)
> public forums." I bumped into one federal government online
> consultation
> that declared a limited public forum online for X days. Does anyone
> know of
> research in this area?
>
> (Due to the power of "one-way" e-government, I can imagine citizens
> pushing
> for two-way "designated public forums" on government websites within
> the
> context of public meeting agenda items for example in my lifetime.)
>
> * * *
>
> Again, I know of no specific research -- except for a paper on which
> I am
> currently collaborating -- but I think that, absent express
> disclaimers,
> government consultation web sites may already qualify as "designated
> public
> forums."  This does not make them free speech corners in the same
> way we
> think of Hyde Park; they can still be policed for subject matter
> relevance,
> and other norms appropriate to the purpose of the forum.  What the
> designation would mean in a U.S. context is that the government
> could not
> limit speech in the forum according to viewpoint.  Thus, for
> example, if New
> York City created an online consultation on public security issues,
> they
> could refuse to post comments about sports teams moving to New
> Jersey.  They
> could not, however, decide to post comments in favor of more community
> policing, but refuse to post comments in opposition.
>
>
>
> Member profile for Peter Shane:
> http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/petershane
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
>
> Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
> Network with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4T5aEjlTm7LPRjKo5b6Gic
>
> For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government
> Researchers Network,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
> Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.