I find it very interesting that this article brings up the point that “the printing press, books, the telegraph, the telephone, radio, and television were all considered revolutionary once upon a time.”
The author relates this to the fact that we now consider Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest “revolutionary” today–and that regardless of the times–regulation is always evolving and adapting alongside these technologies.
We discussed this notion of “unpredictability in the media” in my Advanced Reporting and Writing Class just the other day. We were assigned to read a similar article, Digital Connections, which also discussed the spread of new technology and how this explosion is both innovative, yet daunting to navigate.
The fact that everyone can be a news maker or news taker is somewhat of a frightening concept. But, it is also something totally awesome and fresh.
The only problem lies in finding our way around, as a world community, this newfound freedom.
I guess a question that I have about this aspect of this article is the following:
Will regulations concerning privacy and copyright ever be thorough enough to be full proof as technology continues to enhance?
My second connection to Lipschultz’s article is more centered on his deep exploration into the First Amendment as it relates to the Internet, but more specifically, obscenity.
As he discussed various cases relating to community judgments about online obscenities, such as Nitke v. Gonzalez, I can’t help but find myself enveloped in the gravity of the situation.
Yes, print pornography exists, but Lipschultz makes it a point to emphasize the fact that distributors of this material at least maintain some control of its dissemination.
With the Internet, there is no true control.
Though there are access restrictions that can be placed on certain addresses, filtering software programs, and other such content-monitoring measures; most of the time I feel we find ourselves simply relying on our own discretion as we use search engines. And the problem with filtering sites, as discovered by the district court mentioned in Lipschultz’s article, is that they tend to block sites that are not necessarily obscene…
AKA People argue this violates their First Amendment Rights.
This leads to my second question:
How can applicable segments of our aging government documents, such as our Bill of Rights, become adaptable to an age of digital marvel in such a way as to function without ambiguity? Is that even possible?