From:
Steven Clift
Date:
Mar 13 20:05 UTC
Short link
A few questions:
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.
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.)
3. Is anyone aware of similar legal or court established concepts of "public
forum" outside of the U.S.?
Thanks,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
From:
Peter Shane
Date:
Mar 25 20:41 UTC
Short link
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.
From:
Andrea Kavanaugh
Date:
Mar 25 22:45 UTC
Short link
Peter,
does the question #2 that you pose below refer to government e-
rulemaking procedures?
Andrea
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.
From:
Aldon Hynes
Date:
Mar 25 23:38 UTC
Short link
I've been following very close the case of Avery Doninger in Connecticut.
Avery is a high school student who wrote a blog post criticizing the school
administration, using language some consider vulgar or offensive. She was
barred from running for re-election as class secretary as a result of the post
and the case has ended up in the U.S. Federal Courts.
One of the very important aspects about this is understanding how we view
internet speech. The freedoms that high school students enjoy are
significantly limited by various court decisions over recent years, with Bong
Hits 4 Jesus as a recent example.
One of the key issues is whether or not the speech is taking place on the
school property or is likely to be brought into the school properly. The
school district is essentially arguing that given the pervasiveness of the
Internet, any speech online should be considered likely to be brought into the
school property and should face the same limitations as speech expressed on the
school property.
Arguements where heard in the U.S. Second Circuit recently, and you can read my
commments about it on my blog,
http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2843
While it does not directly address whether or not the Internet is legally
considered a "public forum", I believe it is related. In addition, I believe
there have been some cases that look at it from different aspects of the
internet, e.g. blog entries versus emails or IMs.
Aldon
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Shane [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:30 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Is the Internet legally a "public forum?" Limited
public forums and e-government
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.
From:
Peter Shane
Date:
Apr 02 15:48 UTC
Short link
Andrea, Sorry for the slow response. I did not pose question #2 -- Steve
did. But my answer is how I would analyze the E-RM situation.
Best, peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Kavanaugh [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:05 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Is the Internet legally a "public forum?" Limited
public forums and e-government
Peter,
does the question #2 that you pose below refer to government e-
rulemaking procedures?
Andrea
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.
Member profile for Andrea Kavanaugh:
http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/kavan
-----------------------------------------
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/5pUjExK0iqvaYFEhoovP3t
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.
Add to the topic
Is the Internet legally a "public forum?" Limited public forums and e-government
[?]
You cannot post because you are not logged in.
If you are a member
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network,
login to post to this topic.
Otherwise
sign up,
become a member of
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network,
and post to this topic.