Stay in School

It seems to me that we are discussing two very distinct issues this week. Filtering and student speech may both fall (potentially) under first amendment protection, but they operate in separate contexts (an Internet context for the former, and a school environment for the ladder). The school context is, in fact, the most contentious aspect of the cases concerning student speech. In the Doninger case, the issue of medium (namely electronic) of the message is barely mentioned; instead, it is a question of the relationship between a public school and a student. The response uses a pamphlet handed out around the school as an analogous example, but it would seem more appropriate to use the example of a pamphlet handed out outside of the school. In such a case it would have been much harder for the school to learn of the posted message. If the case hinges on the condition that the message was brought to the attention of the school administration, then Doninger has no grounds, as she knowingly published her remarks on a medium that is instantly and easily accessible to that administration. While I may think that Doninger’s rights were abused, it is an issue of laws concerning Public Schools not laws concerning the Internet.

Cases concerning filtration are of an entirely different nature. The banning of Usenet brings many alarming issues to light. The first is the ability of the government to influence independent corporations to carry out their agenda. The second is the egregious offense of the Bill of Rights in condemning an entire conglomeration of information due to a single component. It seems that such a maneuver is akin to pressuring bookstores to cease the sale of all the books of a particular publisher due to the provocative nature of one of its publications. In fact, it is worse, because Usenet never proclaims to review the content of its user-generated material. But, this case is of particular interest to us because it is entirely of an Internet context. We can make all the “real-world” analogies we want, but no progress can be made if the Internet can only be discussed in terms (laws) that concern a world it is no longer contained by.