Internet for all

The internet has radically and undoubtedly changed freedom of expression. The internet has changed not only in what content is more widely available, but also who has access to free expression and its regulation. 

The shift in internet and free expression could be seen in Reno v. ACLU. In this case, which we studied in class, was when the Communications Decency Act tried to censor speech in cyberspace. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was ruled a violation of the First Amendment because speech deemed "indecent" or "patently offensive"  to some, may not be to others. 

I further read up on the case in a 1996 article from the ACLU — who quickly jumped to the First Amendment’s defense when former-President Bill Clinton signed the CDA into law. 

This case was only the beginning. 

Over multiple years and cases, different critics of free expression on digital platforms have risen. 

A modern case I found where the First Amendment and the internet coincide is in NetChoice v. Griffin. This ongoing case looks at Arkansas’s “Social Media Safety Act” — an act that would require parental consent for anyone under 18 to use social media. 

An argument that regularly comes up — including in NetChoice v. Griffin — is the protection of minors from mature content. 

While I don’t know if there should be a “ranking” per say, I think values and rights in the digital age should be considered by individual users. 

If there was a rank in which people should consider values I believe it should be privacy rights, freedom of expression, the ability to access others’ opinions, and the impact to others.

The internet can quickly invade privacy, which is why I think it should be a primary consideration when posting online. The UN, in its “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” says in Article 12 that no person should lose their right to privacy. 

Privacy is a matter of dignity and autonomy. 

Behind privacy, it’s important to emphasize the value of free expression. Free expression, in all forms, promotes democracy. Through all the other modules, it’s evident time and time again that free expression extends beyond free speech in America. 

Thirdly, it’s critical that the internet is an exchange of ideas. It’s important to consider the opinions of others on the internet — not every time — but in a meaningful way that promotes conversation. 

“The internet as a human right” explores the UDHR’s Article 19, which says “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

In countries without freedom of opinion and access to share such opinions, there is oppression. “Internet Freedom in Vladimir Putin’s Russia: The Noose Tightens” found Russia has mounting government overreach that stems from their control of the internet, proving there is a slippery slope between lack of access to internet freedom and oppression. 

The impact on others, while it should be considered, is up to the individual. What’s “offensive” to some, may not be to others. If we regulate speech based on who it impacts, we will lose the freedom of expression.