Paper Proposal

Research Question:

“How do United State’s censorship laws of print media differ from censorship laws of digital media?”

Relevance:

The 1^st Amendment of the Constitution[i] guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Nonetheless when our country entered into an age of mudslinging tactics in the political realm, the Supreme Court clearly defined the unlawful use of slander and libel in the 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[ii]. New York Times articles from that time period not only document that this case allowed them to print the truth about this particular politician[iii], but also reveals that the ruling was upheld in other cases as well[iv].

The creation of the internet threw our society into a new media age. We have more access to information and people around the world than ever before. However, unlike print media the internet lacks the clearly defined censorship or slander laws that print media must abide by. One example of this problem is the efforts of the Church of Scientology to force Google to not show anti-Scientology links[v]. At first Google did sever the links to anti-Scientology websites[vi], however this went against their freedom of information policy and the links were reinstated[vii]. The Church of Scientology is sighting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[viii], a vague law that the congress instituted as it raced for recess[ix], as the reason Google must cut the links.

Answering the Question:

When the topic of discussion is internet censorship, it would seem appropriate to have it presented on the internet. The vehicle for explanation would be in a blog format that would allow the author to pull information from many different sources and write on a variety of different cases. The first few entries would be an explanation of 1^st Amendment rights and an analysis of Supreme Court cases laying out the frame work for censorship in the newspaper press. This would be complimented by an interview with Professor Youm, who has expertise in 1^st Amendment law.

The blog would then progress into the laws that involve internet censorship. The entries would involve both the governmental law that has been enacted and cases in which the law was used. This would give the blogger the ability to cover multiple cases without the infringement of writing in a strict essay format. It is also imperative to gain perspective and relevant information from secondary sources, such as an overview of censorship[x] as well as Google’s attitude[xi].

Primary Sources:

1) Professor Youm, Communication Law Professor at the University of Oregon. Personal Interview. Date to be determined.

2) 1^st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 15, Dec. 1791.

3) Supreme Court of the United States. New York Times Co. V. Sullivan. 09 Mar. 1964.

4) Lewis, Anthony. "Court Broadens Freedom of the Press." New York Times 15 Mar. 1964, sec. E: 10. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

5) "Newspaper Cleared of Libel Accusation." New York Times 26 Apr. 1964: 65. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

6) Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "Copyright as Cudgel." Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (2002): b7. LexisNexis. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

7) Gallagher, David. "Technology Briefing: Google Removes Anti-Scientology Links." New York Times 22 Mar. 2002, sec. C: 4. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

8) Gallagher, David. "New Economy: a Copyright Dispute with the Church of Scientology is Forcing Google to Do Some Creative Linking." New York Times 22 Apr. 2002, sec. C: 4. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

9) “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” 28 Oct. 1998. www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. 29 Jan. 2008

10) Clausing, Jeri. "Technology Bills Languish as Congress Races for Exit." New York Times 12 Oct. 1998, sec. C: 2. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

Secondary Sources:

11) "Censorship." Serendipity. 29 Jan. 2008 .

12) Hafner, Katie. "We're Google, So Sue Us." New York Times 23 Oct. 2006. 29 Jan. 2008.

---