Internet service providers' responsibility to regulate web content

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. 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:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of -- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." (CDA 47 U.S.C. at: http://www.4law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html in: Cohen-Almago, 2011)

Summary and Conclusion

As shown in the literature reviewed in this study, Internet Service Providers are under both a legal and moral obligation in regards to web content however, in order that the tenants of free speech as contained in the Constitution are protected the laws regulating ISPs are such that protect the ISP from prosecution due to web content over which they have little control for having been made available on the web. The Internet Service Provider is instead held to a standard of good faith in restricting access to problematic material.