The Justice System vs.

the Internet 1

Justin Simons
Engl.122
Paper #2
The Justice System vs. the Internet
The American legal system has faced many challenges in the past century, mainly due to
population growth throughout the nation. The American way-of-life has also changed
significantly as a result. The legislative and judicial systems need to adapt to these developments.
These include advances in information technology, particularly the Internet. This expanding
communication network has created different behavioral patterns within our society.
This paper will examine some of these changes and try to determine if indeed changes are in
order. Issues will be presented from the public managers perspective and the position of the
justice system, relative to their affect upon citizens. Is it necessary to institute some form of
desirable control or regulation over the Internet? If so, will an excessive amount of public
freedom be sacrificed in the process? These questions will be addressed, along with analyzing
present policy and possible directions for future legislation.
The introduction of the Internet as an additional mass communication media has created
new alternatives for information broadcast. The ensuing popularity of the Internet has created
many challenges that the public sector must deal with. Estimates in 1999 found that there are
approximately 171 million Internet users worldwide (Group Computing, Jan/Feb 2000, p. 56).
Change in the societal environment has made the Internet an essential part of the American
economy. An interesting historical paradox is that, although the Internet has U.S. Defense
Department origins, it is scarcely perceived as a public utility by most users anymore.
The Justice System vs. the Internet 2

(Abrahamson, JMQC vol 75, no 1, p. 16) Public reaction to the specific and continuing
privatization of the Internet has been anything but an organized protest. Greater portions of it
have, in name as well as effect, become privatized by larger corporations. This includes
Microsoft, the largest player in the nations information technology marketplace. This
conglomerate is widely recognized as a commercial enterprise with well-documented
monopolistic tendencies.
The justice system must consider the legal issues. New technology has led to a societal
issue that must be interpreted in its relevance to the First Amendment. The justice system is
supposed to guarantee the rights of every citizen, yet has instead elected to offer more protection
to private entities first. These include private companies such as newspaper publishers or, in this
instance, the private enterprises found on the Internet. The pertinence to this case is that this is
the assumed justification for otherwise allowing freedom of the Internet with little restriction.
Simply stated, freedom of the press has expanded its domain to include the Internet in its
jurisdictional context.
The abridgement of this communication method in any shape or form would infringe
upon the right to freedom of speech. This basic constitutional issue is addressed in the First
Amendment and questions have originated concerning its application to the new information
superhighway, the Internet. The need to know factor is justification for press freedom, but this
does not necessarily apply to information found on the web? Any form of censorship or prior
restraint is frowned upon in this country, so the Internet has become a virtual playground where
users are given freedom to roam and have access to literally anything they choose. It is extremely
difficult to gauge the level of controversy that might be revived if action is taken to regulate this
venue.
The Justice System vs. the Internet 3

The purpose of the Internet can be selectively perceived as different to its visitors based
upon their expectations from usage. It can be a useful service for both business and personal
needs. From a professional standpoint, the ability to provide reference material makes this source
a desirable application to have and retain. Some sites do contain research resource data being
compiled in a unified location for users to access. However, the majority of information does not
fit into this category. It contains data that is considered non-essential or not a useful benefit to the
nation, yet it is still allowed to remain on the network. This only seems fair to providers who
must endure the expense of maintaining and supporting the variety of locations that can be found
on the Internet.
Not surprisingly, the economic reality is that satellite-using companies give subscribers
what they want to see and read, offering visitors information that goes predominantly beyond the
scope of only news and reference data. Most Internet content is not "breaking" news but rather
postings and communication streams from sources that are basically anonymous to those
visiting the websites. This would encompass individual homepages, shared chat-room
conversations and personal e-mail communication. The fact is that the Internet plays a more
personal (rather than business) role in the lives of many of its users.
The influence and growth of the Internet has become cause for concern, specifically
highlighted by the fact that adapting to its presence has been difficult for certain sectors. The
result has been a changing economic structure that is requiring computer adaptive technology for
business people to interface with clientele. Initial attempts to compensate for its presence have
created a situation quite unlike any that the public sector has been accustomed to dealing with.
This progressive trend has developed some social and economic side effects that need to be dealt
with by the legal system. The incentive to act would be to curb any irreversible problems before
The Justice System vs. the Internet 4

they have an adverse effect on the state of the nation. The computer monitor can be
metaphorically seen teetering on the scales of justice, and some regulatory provisions must be
established to compensate for this.
The innovation of the Internet has brought forward new societal standards and business
protocol in the process. On-line commercial trading and business websites are fast becoming
dominant fixtures as the convenience of the Internet is an appealing alternative form of
conducting transactions. The federal government can do little to restructure this in-balance, one
that small businesses must deal with. Public policy that tries to encourage small businesses with
financial assistance is lacking in this regard. The small business-people often find themselves at
a disadvantage, lacking the funds to purchase technological devices necessary to succeed in this
new business arena. Technological diversity is a desirable development that is almost required to
keep pace with an ever-advancing work environment. Knowing this, the presence of the Internet
has created an undesirable situation for many business entities. Smaller outfits are left in a
position where they do not have the resources and have not incorporated the capability to use the
Internet as part of their daily operation as of yet.
Legislators will argue that they have effectively addressed this question and already
found an effective solution to Internet usage abuse(s). The Telecommunications Reform Act of
1996 was deemed too harsh, however and was later overruled by the Supreme Court for
constitutional reasons. The Justices felt the reform would indeed be in conflict with or breaching
constitutional principles involving freedom of speech. Because of this, the justice system
essentially treats the Internet in the same context as the print media [press]. Included in this view
is the fact that enforcement (of the Act) would also be considered an invasion of privacy. The
constant and often unwarranted monitoring of personal communication would violate the
The Justice System vs. the Internet 5

sanctity of having some form of privacy when using the Internet in the process. The standpoint
that this right may have already been abandoned because of people now known as "hackers"
(those who enter into private Internet zones illegally) is irrelevant. Public administrators should
not highlight flaws now in existence and use this to justify incorporation of a public policy that
would betray an unwritten law, one based upon a code of ethics.
Present conditions exist where it possible for anyone to create and maintain their own
web-site to store and send information out. When a site is discovered to contain material
considered "indecent," the government can then censor the site, but only if the violator is
prosecuted for a crime. But the Supreme Court ruling that addressed this issue does not define
what should be considered "indecent," making its presence rather ineffective in stopping such
communication(s). This has made it more difficult to convict offenders in that a jury must be
convinced that the material found is indecent in nature. The irregularity is that will be determined
by people given no real guidelines to use as a basis for making this decision. Instead, jury
members will be compelled to interject their own personal value systems when determining the
criteria for what constitutes indecency. The prosecution will be further asked to present evidence
that the defendant is the guilty party, the perpetrator responsible for creating material that can be
found (and accessed) in an open data network. Because of possible editing by unauthorized
parties, the defense always has the argument that the site was tampered with to fall back on.
The criminal activity defined in the creation of child pornography is a specific issue,
while there is another more general problem caused by type of content available on the Internet.
Information found in cyberspace sometimes promotes violence and adversely influences
susceptible younger users with information they really don't need to know (and shouldn't have
access to). The transmission method of such propaganda makes finding a method of controlling
The Justice System vs. the Internet 6

it difficult. Also, parent awareness is lacking in that many do not understand that giving a child
an online accessible computer provides a 'vehicle' for their child to use while searching for a
wide variety of subject matter. Giving offspring a home personal computer is usually intended
for educational enrichment, but it can "brainwash" viewers with material accessible through the
Internet. Ironically, these same children are more learned in this technology than their adult
parents, mainly through classes offered in school, which assists them in deceiving their parents
about their computer activities.
Wicked perceptions can develop from two people who may have never met, person-to-
person. The conspirators may not be aware that their partner is only playing a game, acting out
some fantasy that should never come to pass. For all intense purposes, a child may be being
manipulated by an in-mate prisoner [they are often granted Internet access privileges as a
rewarded for good behavior] to do those things that party cannot accomplish because of
incarceration. Most people do not realize the amount of violence, pornography, propaganda,
perversion and indecency that exists on the Internet today. Impressionable youths are more
susceptible to the power of suggestion and become unknowing victims because they have less
personal experience to use for judgment purposes. The inquisitive younger generation is
constantly searching for new ideas on-line, while also seeking attention that can often be found
in chat-rooms. Joining on-line clubs and cults is not uncommon, and association with unknown
people can be very a pervasive influence and introduce new members to violent materials and
concepts that they might not otherwise be exposed to. A false sense of trust and belonging can
also be found from such association(s).
Depending upon younger users to be responsible for themselves can encourage a
tendency of corruption, especially in those instances when they feel there is no chance of being
The Justice System vs. the Internet 7

caught. The risk factor and active participation to relieve boredom can also lead to violent
behavior. Finding and accessing info on how to make homemade bombs (i.e. pipe bombs) and
acquire weaponry is not difficult. Police suspect that much of the information on how to make
homemade bombs, where weaponry is available, and how to secure guns is acquirable through
Internet liaisons; strangers can offer encouragement and support to act in such a violent manner.
An event that demonstrates the power of this influence is the Columbine High School
massacre, where the guilty teenagers were members of an Internet group called the "Trench Coat
Mafia," a cult that had their own web-site. Evidence in the form of a diary has been discovered
documenting how both teens planned the rampage for almost a year previously, attesting to the
fact that it was an impulsive incident. Students at different schools have been arrested since, after
discovering that they had been actively conspiring and preparing a similar type of attack of their
own. With partial censorship of the Internet as a proposed solution, the public's inherent right-to-
know and be provided access to public information becomes a factor. What should be considered
confidential, or coded for privacy and protection, must be better defined, or invasion of privacy
will determine a course of action.
The Supreme Court will not react to a constitutional issue until a controversial case
justifies any action that might be taken. Changing law through the legislative branch could take
another decade, since no one wishes to set a precedent on an issue that could have political
repercussions. Current administrators will take a reactionary stance until there is no other
recourse. A pro-active policy-making decision would produce better results in its inception, yet
this country has disregarded censorship (controlled by government) in any shape or form.
Constant communication flow in chat-rooms is a difficult media to regulate, as it directly
conflicts with privacy issues. Partial control that will allow nonconformists the right to abuse this
The Justice System vs. the Internet 8

information resource appears to be the lesser of two evils, while not a permanent solution.
The use of software technology to limit youth access to pornographic content and sites
deemed undesirable in their influence has been ineffective. Devices designed to block certain
types of transmissions are already in use with the television media. More-sophisticated censoring
programs are under development, but they are often ineffective in that source identification of
content type is required. This is a subjective observation that relies upon either the integrity of
those posting information or extensive manpower to monitor content of all sites.
The child pornography problem on the Internet has been addressed, to an extent, yet other
undesirable subject matter is still readily accessible. These transmissions would never allowed in
the broadcast industry because of strict regulation by the FCC. The main obstacle is the fact that
modern technology has allowed users to copy and store web-page materials. Once indecent
material is removed (erased), the material is often re-introduced to the Internet again. This can
happen because the files used to generate the indecent material can be easily stored on back-up
disks. The diversity of Internet communication methods make parental control devices
ineffective unless properly set upon installation. Even then, such determents can be ineffective
without regularly updating blocked sites, once discovered. Also, statistical surveys show that less
than half of DVD player buyers ever bother to set the clocks to the correct time even once.
Asking these same people to program their computer modems is not a viable solution, as this
would be a more complicated procedure. Metaphorically speaking, "You can lead a horse to
water, but you cant make him drink it."
Internet users are essentially a captive audience in America, just like in movie theaters,
because there are no commercials and viewers rely on the integrity of those presenting the
information (or showing the imagery, in movies). This type of viewer is more susceptible and
The Justice System vs. the Internet 9

gullible, while being easier to deceive, because they are in already being a self-hypnotic state
where the power of suggestion can be implanted without them ever realizing it. Audiences are
easily attracted, as supported by a recent poll that found that "almost two-thirds of U.S. workers
surf the Internet for personal interest while at work." (www.ecommerce.com) The major concern
here is the present lack of ability to enforce the present law and maintain control over this abuse
of freedom. A private citizens right to protection from the creation of propaganda from an
outside media source is lacking. Terrorist and political activists are literally promoting violence,
broadcasts that continue to find its way into the homes of personal-computer users through the
Internet. Without action to control such a media venue, the end result may be riots, revolts and
dissension within this country. Ironically, this could be originated from international home bases,
from those who would benefit most from such turmoil in America.
Bank statements, credit card records and other credit information must also be considered
with their availability in cyberspace, positioned against the citizens right to privacy and
protection from credit card piracy. This problem deals with finding companies on the Internet
that are credible, those who can be trusted not to make public or illegally use credit card numbers
when purchases are made using them. A lack of security (control) in making sure that businesses
keep access codes secret could lead to credit card piracy, otherwise. Information means money
and larger organization are monopolizing this field, by providing free information that people
would have paid another to obtain. Researchers and non-fiction writers are discouraged while
competing with this media, because of financial limitations at their disposal.
The need to go visit government offices and pay to have copies of records has decreased.
The Internet is seen as a more convenient source for those who are seeking information with
having to pay little or no fees for obtaining records, thus increasing its desirability. On the
The Justice System vs. the Internet 10

upside, information about sex offenders and vindictive criminals is also provided. A means of
creating seemingly truthful, hot news is possible, by perpetuating incorrect information. This
includes spreading of rumors in the financial arena to manipulate the stock market. This can be
achieved by creating websites that contain false information about mergers and upcoming
deals/contracts or by infiltrating chat rooms and sending untruthful e-mails. This new type of
fraud has become a serious problem in the marketplace, hence Enron. Other Internet crimes are
possible because anyone can now use this media to promote or distribute information at will,
without regulation.
Internet rumors of a derogatory or character-damaging nature, particularly those referring
to public figures, are common. When taken to libel court in the past, accused parties have relied
upon the strength of the First Amendment for their defense. Finding conclusive evidence to
convict these felons is almost impossible in most cases, due to the continuously changing and
updating of websites that occurs. A concerted effort, by continuously retrieving and printing
information would be necessary in order to obtain physical evidence.
The Internet plays an influential role in the working life of the public manager, for a
variety of reasons. Those overseeing governmental agencies are often required to maintain
websites to reveal the goings-on within their department. Why is this necessary? The answer is
found in the right-to-know issue, where those placed in public service are duly obligated to make
public their activity(s). If that site is representing a city, community or municipality, it must be as
professional as possible in its appearance. It is an open reflection of the people of that area, and
must be administered to with caution and respect. Internet libel and fraud are issues that can
become factors when they come to light in controversial media coverage situations.
A natural question arises in just how much information should be made available to the
The Justice System vs. the Internet 11

public. It must be remembered that good public relation skills would facilitate a public manager
in making decisions that will influence those he is legally being employed by. The public
manager is also a public servant, indentured with the obligation to serve in the best public
interest possible. That person should find a comfortable or passive position as far as any Internet
activity goes. The main reason for this is that such public figures can easily fall prey to Internet
"bashing" for improper behavior while serving in office. The manager becomes a figurehead and
must realize that the role of both self and community apply to any actions on-line.
Also of concern is the security issue of any website the public manager is responsible for
maintaining. Advanced encryption technology is required to ensure that hackers do not gain
access to privileged information. Should a response mechanism to curb exploratory hacking be
installed, or would this in turn violate the privacy of visitors to sites? It is difficult to gauge the
communities true feelings when legal issues surrounding obscene information and censorship
are involved. Sensitive issues may include property rights, computer crime and cryptography.
Public employees working in offices almost always have personal computers at their
desktops. From the strictly supervisory perspective, it has already been revealed that the average
worker does devote on-the-job time to personal Internet business. Is it proper to monitor
employee activity in this respect, or is this an invasion of privacy? How can it possibly be
implemented in the workplace, if the effectiveness of an employee does come under question?
This addresses just a few of the issues about the information and services that a manager may be
faced with due to the popularity and presence of the Internet.
The legal system needs to do some agenda setting and ponder the ramifications of these
technological advancements, instead of maintaining a neutral stance. The U.S. Department of
Justice employs a Bureau of Justice Statistics, "bean-counters" who conduct surveys and study
The Justice System vs. the Internet 12

court statistics that paint the image of everything in America as being fine. Trends over the last
decade are based upon statistical comparisons, tainted by the fact that population growth is
increasing.
Crime percentages are not affected, shown as actually decreasing, but the fact remains
that the budding population is predominantly from newborn infants. Such individuals do not
have the capacity to use the Internet (yet) or consciously understand its influence over them. As
impressionable youth come of age, many are just beginning to display these crime-induced
tendencies to any significant degree. Examples of this behavior are reflected as in major
incidents such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.
Also apparent is the fact that most Americans value economic surveys that are analyzing
the nations state of affairs. The primary concern is just America, as a separate and distinct
entity, not affected by other nations. This country is economically rooted in capitalism and,
because of this; business entrepreneurs have the ability to manipulate society in economic ways.
The present judicial stance has left these tycoons with more powerful rights [from freedom of the
press/Internet] than are necessary. Bureaucrats are currently relying on "the good of the system"
and do not wish to address an important societal concern as of yet.
Taking only America into consideration is an implementation of tunnel vision, however,
as the American economy cannot survive alone. The countrys international dependencies are
increasing, and the Internet has been a driving force towards globalization. The venue has
international impact, emphasized by the fact that information contained within the domain is
being transmitted over a worldwide network. The Internet is capable of deceiving an individual
with its manipulative power, leaving users arguably defenseless and under control.
The presence of the Internet has caused many to ask whether the government should issue
The Justice System vs. the Internet 13

software anymore. Copyrighted software can be downloaded or given away on specially
designated sites. A different type of regulatory control is needed for the abuse of cyberspace
technology. The government must also consider that millions of revenue dollars and taxes
already being lost through purchases from international sources over the Internet. Such
transactions are becoming more and more popular to larger businesses, while circumventing
paying taxes that are necessary to support the nation these consumers live in.This is an economic
issue involving self-government and taxation. After pondering this, should it be considered a
crime against the state/country in the use of the Internet for business purposes, when tax evasion
or non-declaration of receipts is the main objective?
The issue of cyberspace must also be addressed, as cyber-technology has advanced where
parameters need to be defined for its use. Making justice maintenance more challenging in
regard to the Internet is the fact that many images used to construct websites are not locked, so
that anyone with the technological know-how can copy and use these pictures at will. It becomes
possible to generate misleading advertising, pirating pictures (i.e. of celebrities) and using them
as false endorsements to promote other products. This involves copyright infringement, because
permission is often not obtained to replicate these images and use them in advertisements.
Political issues are created by the existence of financial dealings. The application of
restraints must be made separate, with no political representative having the authority to
determine what may and may not be censored whenever trade issues exist. Politicians rely on
campaign contributions and can be influenced in their decision-making. The enforcement process
must not be linked to this group, as conflicts of interest would arise.
Solidarity in the nation-state needs to be restored as a newly expanding global
environment is having more influence over public affairs. This can be accomplished by forming
The Justice System vs. the Internet 14

an agency that functions like the FCC does now. A newly designated commission would be
better suited to regulate this type of communication, while counter-balancing the Internets
dominant economic influence with its presence. Only then will the true character and integrity of
the judicial system have reflected the values that those in this profession must maintain for the
security of the nation. The end result would be to reinstate and emphasize the benefits offered on
the Internet and restore integrity to those empowered to deal with the travesties that now exist,
while restoring credibility to both the information provided and the meaning of justice.
The formation of another commission to regulate Internet affairs seems inevitable to me,
and the Justices are in the best position to induce the formation of such an organization, through
the setting of a precedent that can only be enforced by having such a committee in the first place.
The First Amendment appears to be the most effective method for executing such a change. This
is because such an action would involve the restricting of the freedom(s) of a few to ensure the
preservation of freedom(s) that are the right of the majority of the people. While censorship
would be necessary in order to "cleanse" and control the Internet, this action should be tolerated
in such an instance. This only because it does involve a situation where freedom of speech and of
the press are preserved in the First Amendment, with cyberspace regulation being the only new
issue addressed and changed.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices are seemingly overwhelmed with the concept of freedom,
however. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as absolute freedom anymore. Most issues
and almost all regions on this planet have been explored, which allows for the statement that
nobody receives more freedom without someone, somewhere sacrificing something (or making a
The Justice System vs. the Internet 15

concession) in the process. The coveted issue of freedom is an ultimate justification for changing
constitutional law, particularly in the First Amendment, to adapt to the Internet.
Since censorship is deemed to be improper on any occasion, the Internet and other press media
are given the opportunity to broadcast and report at their own discretion. Whenever a public
official is the topic involved, the need to inform increases as the necessity to keep the public side
by side of this officials actions is one method of providing accountability for individuals
assigned to represent the best interests of the public. However, this does not apply to providing
information about other public figures to the masses also.

The separation of powers within our government often stagnates or mires the processing
of corrective measures. Even worse, another apparent deadlock is present, in that current U.S.
Supreme Court Justices, viewed as a whole, are very conservative. Getting the current group of
Justices to take an assertive step forward and clearly define a new precedent for dealing with the
Internet will not be easy, because of this. The current bench will always argue that they have no
jurisdiction or have not been presented with the opportunity to act, but they would be wrong in
both instances. Cases pass before them on a regular basis that involves the Internet, including
fraud, misrepresentation (libel), pornography, indecency and the proliferation of violence. The
problem is that the Internet is now currently considered as a print media, rather than broadcast,
where rules and laws concerning communications within this medium would be subject to
restriction that would be regulated by the FCC. The print media are allowed much more levity in
their business(es), with the justification being that this is required for them to research and
provide the most accurate information about all affairs of state, those which the people have the
right to know about because of the First Amendment.
The Justice System vs. the Internet 16


The Supreme Court in the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling in 1964 clearly reiterated
this. The opinion of the court in this decision clearly infers that print media (such as the New
York Times) serve a purpose by providing relevant, up-to-date information about governmental
affairs, facts that are only available to those given special privileges (i.e. press passes) in order to
investigate these matters. The precedent of the Sullivan ruling helps keep legislators, politicians,
bureaucrats and even members of the judiciary branch in check, by reminding these officials that
no one is completely above the law.

In Conclusion, a considerable amount of controversy would ensue after incorporating the
remedy for the problem I proposed, as the decision would adversely affect a large number of
companies and profiteers now engaging in Internet businesses, as a result. The justification
would be that many of these businesspeople are those who are currently selectively abusing the
economic system. Besides using the Internet as an economic bypass from taxation, others are
using this privilege to promote subjects and items that are illegal anywhere else, with child
pornography being a perfect example. The Supreme Court had fought to rid the Internet of such
material(s), even to the point of declaring them illegal, but their efforts have not had any
significant impact on Internet programming, in general. More regulation is needed before an
effective solution might be realized and it would be wise to act before it becomes too late. This is
a relevant issue, economically and internationally, that will only become more difficult to deal
with as time progresses.


The Justice System vs. the Internet 17


Bibliography
1) Abrahamson, David. Editorial. The Future of the InternetThe Visible Hand: Money, Markets, and Media
Evolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://com.miami.edu/car/Luton-BG.pdf>.

2) Craig, Robert J. Editorial. The First Amendment, Electronic Media, and the Internet Indecency Issue.
. N.p., June 1998. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/view/777/686>.

3) Guenther, Nancy W. Editorial. Good Samaritan to the Rescue. N.p., June 1998. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
<http://books.google.com/
books?id=0eMafpE7A0YC&pg=SA11-PA27&lpg=SA11-
PA27&dq=Guenther,+Nancy+W.+Good+Samaritan+to+the+Rescue&s
ource=bl&ots=upeXXJdFqO&sig=XJ9RY9U-
6SyBKdL6w0FscMHnrtY&hl=en&ei=T7TSTpukEsXy0gGL29zLDA&sa=X&oi=book_

result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Guenther%2C%20Nancy%20W.%20Good%2
0Samaritan%20t
o%20the%20Rescue&f=false >.


4) newsletter posting Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ecommerce.com>.


5) newsletter posting. N.p., 7 May 2000. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://ecommerceguide.com>.


6) "Vol. 4, No. 4 ." Editorial. Group Computing Magazine. N.p., Jan.-Feb. 2000. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.groupcomputing.com>.