Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
cyberlaw:networks [2019/01/24 14:21]
witta
cyberlaw:networks [2019/02/13 11:37] (current)
witta
Line 46: Line 46:
 >"​We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,​ and the commonweal, our governance will emerge."​ >"​We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest,​ and the commonweal, our governance will emerge."​
  
-Barlow'​s argument is that the rules and social norms created by online communities to govern themselves will be better than anything imposed by territorial states. This was expressed by Johnson and Post in a famous 1995 article as a general principle that there is “no geographically localized set of constituents with a strong and more legitimate claim to regulate [online activities]” than the members of the communities themselves.((David Johnson and David Post, ‘Law and Borders--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1995) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367, 1375)) In addition to arguing that online communities should be able to govern for themselves, Barlow and Johnson and Post also contend ​that if territorial governments try to impose their own laws on a borderless internet, users will never be able to work out what set of rules they are subject to. The consequence of governments attempting to prevent online communities from regulating themselves, according to Post, would be:((Post, '​Governing Cyberspace: Law' (2008) http://​www.academia.edu/​2720975/​Governing_Cyberspace_Law)) ​+Barlow'​s argument is that the rules and social norms created by online communities to govern themselves will be better than anything imposed by territorial states. This was expressed by Johnson and Post in a famous 1995 article as a general principle that there is “no geographically localized set of constituents with a strong and more legitimate claim to regulate [online activities]” than the members of the communities themselves.((David Johnson and David Post, ‘Law and Borders--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1995) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367, 1375)) In addition to arguing that online communities should be able to govern for themselves, Barlow and Johnson and Post asserted ​that if territorial governments try to impose their own laws on a borderless internet, users will never be able to work out what set of rules they are subject to. The consequence of governments attempting to prevent online communities from regulating themselves, according to Post, would be:((Post, '​Governing Cyberspace: Law' (2008) http://​www.academia.edu/​2720975/​Governing_Cyberspace_Law)) ​
  
 > “... the chaotic nonsense of Jurisdictional Whack-a-Mole"​. > “... the chaotic nonsense of Jurisdictional Whack-a-Mole"​.
  • cyberlaw/networks.txt
  • Last modified: 7 months ago
  • by witta