Essay PreviewMore ↓
Freedom of speech has been a big issue on the Internet lately. But I'd like to suggest that, properly viewed, "policy markets" are a much bigger free speech issue than the recent ban on "indecent" internet posts.
First, let's start with the puzzle "why free speech?". What is the fundamental difference between a legislature forbidding some people from making "indecent" speech at the request of others who fear being offended by such speech, and a legislature taxing some people to pay for other people's education or recreation? In each case interests are opposed, there are political winners and losers, and a majority may trample on some "rights" of a minority. Why should one case be forbidden and the other allowed?
The strongest widely-accepted argument for having courts strike down laws which limit "free speech" is to protect communications intended to influence the political process. You see, even if a large majority preferred to ban indecent speech, or to fund education with taxes, they might never find out that they all preferred this outcome if they were prevented from publicly discussing the issue. Instead, a government might lock in its current advantage and preferences by forbidding any questioning of its current laws. Without free political speech, a minority might much more easily trample on a majority (a worse fate than a majority trampling a minority). Thus political speech deserves extra protection.
Note, however, that this argument for political "speech" applies to any action whose main consequence is to communicate information to influence the political process (and whose other consequences are not overly burdensome to others). So not only should it apply to newspapers, TV, the internet, T-shirts, bumper-stickers, and window signs, but it should also apply to political demonstrations and other expensive political "signals".
You see, the main information communicated by a political demonstration is not the words chanted or held high on posters, but that fact that these people care enough to spend their time demonstrating for this cause. (Thus it is important to demonstrate in clear public view, and to not look like you're having too much fun.) Expensive signals like demonstrations can communicate what mere words cannot - strength of feeling and opinion. (Sure you can say you really care, but everyone says that.)
Unfortunately, many expensive political signals, such as campaign contributions and political advertizing, are widely limited by law. Perhaps such limits can be justified by arguing that these actions can also do much harm, in addition to communicating information to politicians and voters.
How to Cite this Page
"Free Speech on the Internet." 123HelpMe.com. 25 Sep 2018
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- Free Speech on the Internet Freedom of speech has been a big issue on the Internet lately. But I'd like to suggest that, properly viewed, "policy markets" are a much bigger free speech issue than the recent ban on "indecent" internet posts. First, let's start with the puzzle "why free speech?". What is the fundamental difference between a legislature forbidding some people from making "indecent" speech at the request of others who fear being offended by such speech, and a legislature taxing some people to pay for other people's education or recreation.... [tags: Web Laws Politics Rights Essays]
1087 words (3.1 pages)
- Internet Free Speech Issues and Implications Abstract: The issue of free speech has been around since the founding fathers first ratified the constitution of the United States. With the emergence of new technology, especially the Internet, freedom of speech has been redefined and its limits tested. What are the limitations of free speech on the Internet, and how can they be enforced? These are the constitutional questions for the digital age. Imagine being in your home, a bastion of privacy and comfort, and having someone scream racial slurs at you as you sit placidly in a comfortable chair. Unlikely, you say? Just visit the website of the Aryan Nation or the Klu Klux Klan.... [tags: Internet Censorship Essays]
2158 words (6.2 pages)
- ... Great Britain has taken a literal interpretive attitude towards the legislation in contrast to the ‘proportionality’ approach used in other jurisdictions such as Germany. As a result the Act presents certain difficulties when using the law to prosecute offences such as flame trolling, as it was not until the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 that the law encompassed a wide spread variety of electronic communications. The MCA was applied in DPP v Connolly  1 W.L.R. 276, the respondent was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive and indecent message.... [tags: internet abuse and free speech]
1703 words (4.9 pages)
- The internet became a very popular and huge way of getting millions of different kinds of materials and information for everyday use in the later 80's early 90's. It became easy for anyone to access millions of different kinds of materials ninety nine percent of which is decent according to our governments standards and one or less percent which is considered to be material the is indecent or harmful to minors.(ABC) These facts maybe deceiving however because there are millions of internet sites so the internet may only be one percent indecent but that means there are thousands upon thousands of sites that are indecent.(ABC) The biggest question is how can we protect our children from these... [tags: essays research papers fc]
1680 words (4.8 pages)
- The Internet is a worldwide network of computers and databases that has evolved rapidly in recent years. Tremendous amounts of information are transmitted and are fairly easy to obtain. Although in the past the information available was for the most part educational and business oriented, in recent years it has become much more diverse and questions have been raised as to the appropriateness of the content being viewed and consumed. Another issue is whether or not the government should take an active role in censoring it, especially when it comes to pornography, or cyberporn, as it is more commonly referred to when it is displayed on the Internet.... [tags: Internet Pornography Essays]
1657 words (4.7 pages)
- The Internet offers a much greater potential for interactive communication between information senders and receivers than the more traditional methods of communication such as newspaper, radio and television. Freedom of speech ascertained by the constitution is not an absolute right. Depending on the medium through which information is delivered various degrees of the freedom to express one's self is protected. Internet communication may be analogous to either a specific existing communication medium or even several.... [tags: essays research papers]
2366 words (6.8 pages)
- With the bountiful amount of unrestricted information available on the internet many people believe that some of this information should be censored by the United States Government. Who's to say what should be accessible and what should not. Where does it start and stop. Does internet censorship make a nation a safer place to live. There are many countries that don’t allow the use of the internet at all and some countries only censor what they don’t want their citizens to know. Daniel Calingaert said “The internet has provided greater space for free expression in countries where traditional broadcast and print media are restricted” (64).... [tags: free speech, freedom, United States]
1199 words (3.4 pages)
- Free Speech in Cyberspace ABSTRACT: Reno v. ACLU, the 1997 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court providing sweeping protection to speech on the Internet, is usually discussed in terms of familiar First Amendment issues. Little noticed in the decision is the significance of the ontological assumptions of the justices in their first visit to cyberspace. I analyze the apparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ontological issues and problems with their approaches. I also argue that their current ontological assumptions have left open the door to future suppression of free speech as the technology progresses.... [tags: Technology Internet Computer Essays]
3073 words (8.8 pages)
- Free Speech “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” These words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin, one of our nation’s founding fathers, when the United States was still a newly independent country. Free speech, which is defined as the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, is a subject that is still present in the minds of many people today. At one extreme of the spectrum is a group of folks that do not care the slightest bit about free speech issues and at another end is a group of people who will vehemently fight to protect their right to free speech.... [tags: Liberty Rights Papers Internet Censorship]
2104 words (6 pages)
- I. Introduction “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” as stated by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Most subsequent democracies have adopted this view as well, believing that it is a fundamental part of what makes a democratic system effective. For example, Canada has given their citizens the right to freedom of speech; but like the United States, they have placed certain limitations which restrict its usage.... [tags: Free Speech in Cyberspace]
2532 words (7.2 pages)
Imagine that we had a market which traded a stock market basket contingent on who became the next president (e.g., trading cash for S&P500 futures, with trades called off if Clinton is not the next president.) The price in this market would constitute a simple easily-understood consensus estimate about which current candidate would be best for the stock market (and be insensitive to who actually wins). Anyone who thought the market price was a bad estimate would expect to make money by trading and helping to correct this estimate.
Since it would be expensive to bet wrong in such a market, the market price would be an expensive signal, aggregating and communicating information not easily found in the "cheap-talk" of media commentary, nor easily disentangled from prices in other markets (if it can be found there at all). In most of the world, however, it would be illegal for you or I to start such a market -- it would be considered illegal gambling or a regulated-out-of-existence security.
Similarly, we might have a variety of "policy markets" estimating the consequences of various political choices. We might have markets in the average sea levels conditional on whether or not a bill limiting CO2 production passed, markets estimating student test scores average and variance conditional on whether school choice programs were implemented, and there might have been markets estimating U.S. employment had NAFTA passed or not.
The primary effect of such markets would be to aggregate and communicate political information. Secondarily, such markets would allow more hedging of political risks, but this is a good thing. So what arguments can there be for banning this political "speech"? Consider standard arguments for forbidding gambling. The markets I propose might make it a bit easier for compulsive gamblers to blow their savings, but given existing financial markets and state-run lotteries, this seems a weak argument. And the paternalistic goal of preventing people from wasting their time and money on unproductive games is hardly relevant to a rule forbidding political participation, which such paternalists are constantly trying to encourage.
Now consider standard arguments for highly-regulated securities, which raises the cost of persuading regulators to allow a new market, and the cost of running such a market, well beyond the means of you or I. Perhaps one could argue that it is more important to protect ordinary investors from con men than to have more kinds of public markets, and that the private markets available only to big businesses (such as one-off derivatives) satisfy most of business's hedging needs.
But the idea of limiting political speech to only big business for fear that ordinary voters might be conned into sending the wrong political signals is not an idea we would accept for any other form of political speech. Could you imagine requiring expensive petitions to regulators who decide which demonstrations or letters-to-the-editor are in the public interest? So why should we accept this idea for market political speech?
To review, the core idea of "free speech" is that efforts to communicate information to influence the political process deserve special protection, because otherwise the current government might prevent a majority of us from realizing we would rather get rid of it. This argument applies not just to "cheap talk" words, but also to any expensive signals which can uniquely communicate strength of opinion, as long as any negative effects beyond that of communicating political information are not too severe.
This argument applies directly and with great strength to policy markets, which would estimate the consequences of political choices. Such markets would have a unique ability to aggregate and communicate information, and seem to have few negative side effects. While efforts to defend indecent speech now may help us prevent a slide down the slippery slope toward state regulation of political speech, a far greater improvement in political information might result from legalizing policy markets.