The Melting World

I thought it might be beneficial to view the very
different approaches toward Internet regulation between
the US (although I am not sure how applicable to Canada,
sorry, please help me out there) and Japan, where I
live. Iastericked the word p*rn to avoid those devious
spammers from plastering my blog with p*rn links…:-)!

Here’s a synopsis from a comparative study concerning
p*rn regulation on the Internet:

“Protecting children from accessing p*rnography in
cyberspace is a legitimate concern. To achieve this
purpose, the U.S. enacted special legislation to control
the content of cyberspace communications by imposing
potential liability on Network Service Providers and
users. However, this approach is very problematic given
the lack of consensus about what speech to permit and
what speech to punish. The U.S. approach is also likely
to lead to protracted litigation that stymies rather
than encourages reasonable resolution of the problem of
how to protect children from cyberp*rn.

On the other hand, the “voluntary” approach in Japan
that places all responsibility for online contents on
network users and absolves Network Service Providers may
do little to constrain the most controversial features
of networked computer communications. Moreover, relying
upon extralegal administrative guidance creates a
dangerous precedent in the field of speech, where truly
coercive government action should be subject to judicial
review in order to help preserve free speech.”

Full text

In sum, in the USA, over regulation leads to
protracted litigation. In Japan, self-regulation leads
to social pressure to conform, and may stymie legitimate
voices on the Internet, and no legal ramifications for
governmental “pressure.”

There are words such as “co-regulation” and
“light-handed regulation” buzzing about these days…Any
thoughts on these attempts to control free speech on the
Internet? By taking an extreme topic (cyber p*rn), we
can test ideas of regulation limits best.