留学生作业代写：言论自由下的合理监管
言论自由对于建立一个基于平等政治参与、知情决策和一个庆祝其多样性的富裕社会的充满活力的民主制度至关重要。同时,不合格的和绝对的言论自由的概念是厄运的阶梯,希拉里·克林顿,美国国务卿,美国因此所说,简洁,这些技术并非无条件地造福人类,因为技术促进人类福利也使全世界基地组织等恐怖主义组织发动袭击和恐怖网络构建(卡尔,2013)。
有趣的是，近15年前，在雷诺诉美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)一案中，美国法院推翻了《致命通讯礼仪法》(fatal Communications正派Act)，将“刑事犯罪”条款从法律范围内删除。向未成年人传播成人内容不仅涉及互联网服务提供商或媒体平台所有者。还有许多其他利益相关者，在没有完全追究责任的情况下提起刑事诉讼是不公平的。
留学生作业代写：言论自由下的合理监管
那么，合格监管从何而来?经验法则是，无论在何种程度上，言论自由都必须得到维护。与此同时，限制言论的标准必须有一个明确的定义，但是，这些标准必须根据具体情况和可能带来的危害来解释。这一点在网络空间中尤其需要，因为在网络空间中，行动者众多，审查/犯罪责任不能仅由一人承担。内容创造者或网络所有者应该受到惩罚吗?
留学生作业代写：言论自由下的合理监管
Freedom of speech is fundamental to building a vibrant democracy based on equal political participation, informed decision making, and an enriched society that celebrates its diversity. At the same time, the concept of unqualified and absolute freedom of speech is stairway to doom, as Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, United States thus put it, succinctly that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing because the technologies that promote human welfare also enabled the terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda to launch worldwide attacks and built terror networks (Carr, 2013).
Interestingly, almost a decade and a half earlier, the US Court in Reno vs ACLU case read-down the fatal Communications Decency Act to remove the clause of “criminal offence” from within the scope of the law. Proliferation of adult content to minors did not involve only the internet service provider or media platform owner. There are many other stakeholders and initiating criminal charges without pegging the responsibility completely is unfair.
留学生作业代写：言论自由下的合理监管
So where does qualified regulation proceed from here? The rule of thumb is that to whatever extent possible, the freedom of speech must be upheld. At the same time, a solid definition of criteria for restricting speech must be in place, however, they must be interpreted in-context of the situation, and the said harm that can be brought about. This is especially needed in the case of the cyberspace where the actors are plenty and the responsibility for censorship/onus of offense cannot be pegged to only one person. Should content creators or network owners be penalized?
