Skip to main content
Log in

Internet content regulation: what method?

La Réglementation des Contenus de L’internet : Quelle Méthode ?

  • Published:
Annales Des Télécommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The law and regulation of electronic communications in the United States (Us) is fragmented, overlapping, and controversial, with overarching First Amendment limitations for government action directed toward content. Because the law was written for “legacy” systems of telecommunications without regard for the present convergence of the industry and media, there are different laws, different administrative oversight, and sometimes conflicting legislative policies depending on the delivery mechanism and media. Because of this complexity, this article focuses on content regulation of internet communications broadly defined, how it impacts providers of telecommunications, and conversely how the private actions of providers impact content regulation. We begin with a discussion of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as it is essential to an understanding of the limitations to federal regulation. Then, federal statutory attempts to regulate internet content are examined followed by a discussion of the applicable administrative law. The last section of the article describes how private entities have filled in the gap in the absence of government regulation by private terms of use, and in conclusion compares this approach to other regulatory mechanisms.

Résumé

Aux Etats-Unis, les lois et réglementations sur les communications électroniques sont fragmentées, se chevauchent, sont sujettes à controverse, et sont soumises aux limitations fondamentales du Premier Amendement pour toute mesure gouvernementale sur les contenus. La loi a été écrite pour des systèmes traditionnels de télécommunication sans considérer la convergence actuelle entre l’industrie et les médias. Le résultat est l’existence de lois différentes, de supervisions administratives différentes, et parfois de politiques législatives contradictoires selon les mécanismes de distribution et les médias. En raison de cette complexité, cet article insiste sur la réglementation du contenu des communications par l’Internet (définies de façon large), la manière dont elle affecte les fournisseurs de télécommunication, et comment, à leur tour, les actions des fournisseurs affectent la réglementation des contenus. Nous commençons par une discussion du Premier Amendement à la Constitution des Etats-Unis, car il est essentiel à la compréhension des limitations à la réglementation fédérale. Ensuite, nous examinons les tentatives fédérales pour réglementer le contenu de l’Internet et nous discutons les textes administratifs qui s’appliquent. La dernière partie de cet article décrit comment des entités privées ont compensé le manque de réglementation gouvernementale en établissant des conditions d’utilisation privées et conclut en comparant cette approche à d’autres mécanismes de régulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Breckheimer (P.), A Haven for Hate: The Foreign and Domestic Implications Of Protecting Internet Hate Speech Under The First Amendment,75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1493 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kesan (J.), Gallo (A.), Optimizing Regulation of Electronic Commerce,72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1497, 1557-58 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aronowitz (S.), Brand X Internet Services v.Fcc: The Case of the Missing Policy Argument,20 Berkely Tech. L. J. 887 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reiter (H.), The Contrasting Policies of theFfc & ferc Regarding the Importance of Open Transmission Networks in Downstream Competitive Markets,57 Fed. Comm. L. J. 243 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Casey (T.), Magenau (J.), A Hybrid Model of Self-Regulation and Governmental Regulation of Electronic Commerce,19 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 1, 9 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gonzalez (O.), Regulating Objectionable Content in Multimedia Platform: Will Convergence Require a Balance of Responsibilities Between Senders and Receivers?,20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 609, 617–19 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hiller (J.),Cohen (R.), Internet Law and Policy,Prentice Hall (2002).

  8. Cannataci (J.), Bonnici (J.), Can Self-regulation Satisfy the Transnational Requisite of Successful Internet Regulation?17 Int’l Rev. L. Comp. & Tech. 51 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zynda (T.), Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.: Preserving Minimum Requirements of Contract on the Internet,19 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 495 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  10. di Bari (J.), A Survey of the Internet Jurisdiction Universe,18 N. Y. Int’l L. Rev. 123 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Albritton (M.), Swatting Spiders: An Analysis of Spider Activity on the Internet,3 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 137 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen (R.),Hiller (J.), Towards Theory of CyberPlace, A Proposal for a New Legal Framework,10 Richmond J. of L. & Tech, Fall (2003).

  13. Bellia (P.), Defending Cyberproperty,79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 2164 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang (L.), The can-spam Act: An Insufficient Response to the Growing Spam Problem,20 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 301 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson (D.), David Post (D.), Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace,48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lessig (L.), Code & Other Laws of Cyberspace,Basic books, 1st edition (1999).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Janine S.Hiller is a Professor of Business Law at Virginia Tech, where she served as the founding Director of the Center for Global Electronic Commerce, and one year as Associate Dean for Graduate and International Programs. She is coauthor, with Ronnie Cohen, of the book Internet Law and Policy (Prentice-Hall Publisher, 2002). She is an active researcher in the area of Internet law and a member of several American Bar Association committees relating to cyberlaw.

RonnieCohenis a professor of Business Law at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. She is the author, with Janine Hiller, of the book Internet Law and Policy (Prentice-Hall Publisher, 2002). She has published several articles in the area of online communications. She is a member and past officer of the Technology Section of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hiller, J.S., Cohen, R. Internet content regulation: what method?. Ann. Télécommun. 61, 830–846 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219867

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219867

Key words

Mots clés

Navigation