Internet Service Provider (ISP) Web Content Law

Internet Service Provider (ISP) Web Content Law and Ethics

The objective of this work is to answer whether Internet service providers have a responsibility to regulate the content that is available on the World Wide Web? This work will additionally answer as to whether the presence and ease of availability of pornography to the general public a tribute to free speech and a reflection of social maturity or an example of the potential damage that unregulated markets and the hegemony of technology have reaped upon society?

The Internet is such that allows consumers, businesses, and industry, alike to "do many new things in unique and efficient ways." (Tekxam, nd) There are however, reported to be areas of both legal and ethical concern with regards to the responsibilities of Internet Service providers. Some of those areas include protection of intellectual property, fraud prevention, protection of freedom of expression, protection of privacy, control of Internet indecency vs. free speech, and spamming controls. (Tekxam, nd, paraphrased)

I. Free Speech

The Internet is reported to have become the "great equalizer" and specifically stated is in terms of enabling the individual "regardless of background, location, income, etc. To access and provide information and to make their views known." (Tekxam, nd) The Internet too has been used to spread material that is offensive to many individuals including such as "pornographic, hate and other potentially dangerous material." (Tekxam, nd) These sites may possibly be accessed by children creating a general agreement among the public that some method should be used to ensure that children do not access such material.

II. Provisions of Law

There are reported to be several Acts passed by the Congress that focus on concerns surrounding use of the Internet by children. (Turban, et al., 2000, p.359 in Tekxam, nd) Included in laws that address these issues are the following:

(1) The Child Online Protection Act of 1998 -- this act makes a requirement that the adult's age is verified prior to their accessing material online that is deemed as 'harmful to minors'. This Act also makes a requirement of parental consent prior to the solicitation of personal information from a minor child;

(2) The Family Friendly Internet Access Act -- makes a requirement that ISPs offer screening software when the customer signs up for the ISP that enables members to filter harmful web content;

(3) The Internet Protection Act -- this act limits government regulation of the Internet and places a prohibition on ISPs from making provision of accounts to sexually violent predators.

(4) The Internet School Filtering Act -- this act seeks to use funding and grants to schools as a tool for providing encouragement to schools to install and use filtering software. (Tekxam, nd)

II. Internet and Free Speech

The First Amendment is reported in the work of Raphael Cohen-Almagor (2011) to be designed "to guarantee the freest interchange of ideas about public matters. If the Constitution withdraws from Government all power over subject matter in areas such as speech, press, assembly and petition, there is nothing over which authority may be exerted." (Black,1960)Another legal authority Meiklejohn (1965) made the assertion that the First Amendment declares that "with respect to belief, political discussion, political advocacy and political planning, the citizens are the sovereign and the Congress is their subordinate agent." (Cohen-Almago, 2011) From this view "the public responsibilities of citizenship in the free world are in a vital sense beyond the reach of any legislative control." (Cohen-Almago, 2011) The result is that freedom of expression "in the American tradition occupies an especially protected normative position." (Cohen-Almago, 2011) The general view is that "expression is perceived as doing less injury to other social goals than action. Only when expression might immediately translate to harmful action, when one is able to prove a clear link between the harmful speech and the resulting action, is it possible to justify restrictions on freedom of expression." (Cohen-Almago, 2011)

Hate speech is more regulated in most European countries due to their experiences with the consequences of hate speech include the horrors of the Nazi's against the 'inferior races' during World War II in the form of mass murders and in the Netherlands, Section 137 of the Criminal Code outlaws the deliberate public expression of views that serve to insult a group of individuals "on account of their race, religion or conviction or sexual preference.' (Cohen-Almago, 2011)

III. Internet Service Providers and the Law

The ISP generally asserts the right to terminate service "under any circumstances and without prior notice, especially if content violates the terms of service agreement or if law enforcement or other government agencies request the removal. " (Cohen-Almago, 2011)The U.S. Congress reportedly passed the Good Samaritan provision which was included in the 1996 Communication Decency Act (Section 230-c-2) which provides protection to ISPs that voluntarily "take action to restrict access to problematic material" and specifically stated is the following: