Literature Review
The internet grew from a small idea whose entirety could be contained in a small text document on all computers that used it to a ubiquitous asset to nearly all things economic and social in the modern world. The case for “Network Neutrality”, the idea that all users of the internet should have equal in that no user should be prioritized or blocked to content based on how much they pay. Is “Network Neutrality” just, or should we apply the same capitalist values that live in America? Can we capitalize on prioritization of the Internet? Is it right to regulate content on and access to the Internet?
In The Global War for Internet Governance , Laura Denardis explains “the various things that could be blocked, prioritized, or delayed include specific content such as pirated movies, indecent material, controversial speech, or speech critical of government…or premium subscriber traffic over lower priced service” (Denardis 132). Essentially the biggest threats would be that of freedom of speech violations, and the ability of rich corporations to control more/ access more than those with less money.
These questions were being raised even in 1998, before the Internet reached the level of omnipresence that it has today, as we see in an essay titled The Internet and the Abiding Significance of Territorial Sovereignty where Jack Goldsmith points out that “ A distinguishing feature of the Internet is that protocol addresses do not necessarily correlate with physical location” (Goldsmith 477). It’s difficult, nay impossible, to regulate or legislate something when the jurisdiction cannot be clearly defined and can be constantly shifting across borders. While it is not impossible to impose regulation to the extent of your jurisdiction, “It does not tell us whether such a regulation will be efficacious”(Goldsmith 479) and that regulation can only be applied if the acts are traced to the locality where the laws are applied (Goldsmith). Basically, internet regulation is only effective when you can prove infractions occurred in the proper jurisdiction, which can be very difficult.
Along with these difficulties in regulation, Denardis points out that the Internet may already have a sufficient governance of its own, of a self-sufficient nature. Denardis explains that the Internet is governed through “the sinews of power that exist in the architectures and global institutions of Internet governance”(Denardis 2). It could be that instead of trying to figure out ways to governt this abstract force, a system of system of rules already exists that has risen organically. How this clashes with our existing laws is something touched on in an edition of Economic and Political Weekly, where it states “the key question is how to allow for free expression of views on the internet within the framework of what the Constitution defines as ‘reasonable limits’” (8). Suggesting that this existing unwritten structure of the Internet does not mesh with the ideals laid out in the Constitution, but still keeps the debate on what the Constitutions jurisdiction actually covers.
Works Cited
DENARDIS, LAURA. “Internet Access and Network Neutrality.” The Global War for Internet Governance, Yale University Press, 2014, pp. 131–152, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkz4n.8.
DENARDIS, LAURA. “The Internet Governance Oxymoron.” The Global War for Internet Governance, Yale University Press, 2014, pp. 1–32, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkz4n.3.
“Regulating Internet Content.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 46, no. 53, 2011, pp. 8–8. www.jstor.org/stable/23065623.
Goldsmith, Jack L. “The Internet and the Abiding Significance of Territorial Sovereignty.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1998, pp. 475–491. www.jstor.org/stable/25691116.
