Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:37:25 -0500 Sender: Legal Scholarship Network From: Alan Lewine Subject: CYBERSPACE-LAW #51: Free Speech 12 To: Multiple recipients of list CYBERSPACE-LAW CYBERSPACE LAW FOR NON-LAWYERS Topic: Free Speech 12 (Number 12 of 27 on the topic FREE SPEECH) E-Mail Number: 51 Date Posted: 6 December 1996 * * * * * * * * * FREE SPEECH 12 of 27 ANNOYING / OFFENSIVE / HARASSING SPEECH, A DISSENT PART 3 OF 4 Given the topics that we've covered, and given the political differences that there are among the three of us, it is probably surprising that we haven't come to this point before. But it is impossible for three law professors to talk about first amendment law for long, without one of them finding a reason to dissent. And so one of us now has. I disagree with my colleagues about how the first amendment will apply to annoying/ offensive/harassing speech in cyberspace. And rather than trying to write a lesson that compromises our differences, we thought it best if we simply state the differences in the form of this dissent. I'll state my differences briefly, but I hope helpfully. We'll just have to wait to see which of us is right. The law of the first amendment depends upon the technologies that it regulates. It develops, given the technologies as they are. As technologies have changed, so too has the law changed. And there is little reason to expect this change to stop just now. Indeed, there are lots of reasons to expect it will change in ways we can't yet see. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to say what the law will be. (Some of us are constitutionally incapable, as it were, of keeping our opinions to ourselves.) But it does mean that we should be hesitant before assuming that the structures that were built to protect free speech in one technology will be carried over directly to another. On the whole, our posts have tried to be sensitive to this change. But in the last two posts, we've found real differences. The differences can be summarized like this: While two of us view cyberspace "spaces" (such as newsgroups) as public spaces, or best analogized to public spaces, I am not so sure that this is the correct first amendment model. And while two of us view speech in these cyberspace spaces as likely to be about matters of public concern, I think it possible that courts will see speech in these spaces as about matters of private concern. The difference these differences mean comes to this: If these are public spaces, or if the speech is of public concern, then the government's ability to regulate will be severely limited - where "regulation" here means protect individuals from harmful or destructive speech (such as harassment, or hate speech), and where "government" means any entity of government, whether the federal government, or a town council; whether Congress or a university. But if these are private spaces, or are considered to raise issues of only private concern, then the constitutional limitations on the government's power to regulate are less. (How much less is a whole other debate. Two of us again think not much less, but I think much less.) The bottom line is this: If the limits on governmental regulation are less, then the government could regulate to protect against annoying or harassing speech more. I am not as sure as my colleagues that the space will be viewed as public, or as raising matters of public concern, and I think this for a couple of reasons: First, these cyberspace "spaces" are in important ways something new. They are of course in *some* ways like public places, but they are also in *some* ways not. They are, or can be, like street corners, where public debate must be given broad protection; or they are, or can be, like private clubs, or living rooms, where individuals are able, ordinarily, to protect themselves against aggressive sorts. How the court considers such spaces will be a *choice* for the Court to make, not simply a *fact* for the Court to report. This choice should turn not on arguments about analogy, but upon how speech would best be advanced in this new space. Second, in many of these places, protecting against harmful speech is essential to preserving these spaces for constructive speech. (Remember IBEX from the beginning of the summer? See an earlier post at http://www.ssrn.com/cyberlaw/libe05.html) While in real space, we ordinarily punish and control the disruptive by simply excluding them, or punishing them for their acts, in cyberspace, the only acts are words. If cyberspace can't, in places, protect itself against behavior it doesn't want, then it won't be a place that attracts many of the sorts of people we want to attract. The next post will continue this dissent and propose some answers and predictions to these dilemmas. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * authors: Larry Lessig David Post Eugene Volokh * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Cyberspace-Law for Non-Lawyers is presented by the Cyberspace Law Institute (http://www.cli.org) and Social Science Electronic Publishing (http://www.ssrn.com). Please note that this is an announcement-only list and not a discussion list. Please, do not attempt to post comments to the list, as they will be ignored. We have, however, recently opened a discussion site at http://www.ssrn.com/cyberlaw/cyberspaceLawList.html. Just click on the word "Discussion" at the top of the page to enter and join or begin a discussion thread. --------------------------------------------------------------- We also now have an indexed archive of all the Cyberspace-Law for Non-Lawyers materials posted on the web at http://www.ssrn.com/cyberlaw. You can also use e-mail to retrieve all of the material posted to date on Cyberspace-Law For Non-Lawyers by sending e-mail to: LISTSERV@PUBLISHER.SSRN.COM with the (optional) subject line: GET INDEX and in the body, type the message: GET CYBERSPACE-LAW.LOG9608 GET CYBERSPACE-LAW.LOG9609 GET CYBERSPACE-LAW.LOG9610 GET CYBERSPACE-LAW.LOG9611 GET CYBERSPACE-LAW.LOG9612 Type all five lines above to get all the materials posted to date delivered by e-mail. If you want only some of the materials, you can type into the body of your message the line ending in "LOG9608" to get the materials posted through August '96. Type the line ending in "LOG9609" to receive all the materials posted in September, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------ To subscribe to Cyberspace-Law on the web, go to SSRN's homepage at HTTP://WWW.SSRN.COM/CYBERLAW/CYBERSPACELAWLIST.HTML where you will find a simple form to fill out. ------------------------------ OR you can subscribe by e-mail by sending e-mail to: LISTSERV@PUBLISHER.SSRN.COM with the subject line (optional): SUBSCRIBE and the body message in the first line: SUBSCRIBE CYBERSPACE-LAW FIRSTNAME LASTNAME replacing "FIRSTNAME" and "LASTNAME" with your first and last names (or such pseudonyms as you prefer). ------------------------------------------------------------ To signoff (unsubscribe to) Cyberspace-Law, send a message to: LISTSERV@PUBLISHER.SSRN.COM with the subject line (optional): SIGNOFF and the body message in the first line: SIGNOFF CYBERSPACE-LAW (Do NOT include your name in an unsubscribe message.) ------------------------------- Thanks for your interest and for joining us in this seminar on Cyberspace-Law for Non-Lawyers. Yours virtually, Alan Lewine Cyberspace-Law Listmeister Alan_R_Lewine@SSRN.com