From our readings, I think it is most interesting and important to discuss issues pertaining to government restriction of what people can post online, as opposed to restrictions of what information people can access. This is not to say that government censorship is not an important issue, but it seems that the government has pretty much accepted that it has to let all people see pretty much everything that is online (with a few very rare cases, which seem to be perfectly legitimate). However, in the realm of what users can or cannot post online, and what consequences one may incur for online speech, there seems to be more important issues to consider.

Our readings discussed student speech, and this is indeed an important area of free speech to consider. I find myself agreeing with the current rulings, which say that (in public schools) students can only be punished if their online activity will disrupt the school and its academic mission. I think a more interesting issue, and one which could have even more significant implications for society, is how the government treats the online speech of ordinary citizens.

Speech online spreads rapidly, which can make the government inclined to enforce it in different ways than it might have enforced someone whose speech was only accessible to those living in his town. What also makes online speech different is that while the spoken word and print media can spread messages and hide them from the government for a period of time, as soon as someone posts something online, the government can see it and decide to take it down. How can laws ensure that the government does not abuse its power in regulating online speech? In what ways should online speech be regulated differently than actual speech?

Another sort of random point: It used to be the case that if someone would say or print something, he could get prosecuted for it, but what he said would have still gotten out to the public. If someone publishes something online, and it is immediately taken down, then the process has qualitatively changed, since that person’s viewpoint could never really get publicized. Is it important that censored opinions get heard before they are restricted? How does this affect how the government should deal with online speech?