Managing Individual Performance
Posted by PhillipCooper on May 7th, 2020
With the global development of information and communication, technologies are particularly relevant issues of combating violations of freedom of expression. In the U.S., many attempts of state authorities to affect the legal regulation of the contents of the media and the Internet have been stopped by the courts on the basis of the first amendment to the Constitution. In this regard, prior to 2010, the Congress and the executive authorities gave them the opportunity of self-regulation, providing the freedom of legal relations in this sphere. The prevailing view is that the access and appeal to the mass media should be encouraged as a means of dissemination of knowledge and should not limit the racist, xenophobic, and other similar expressions, as they strongly oppose other valuables.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that Congress shall not make laws restricting the five fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech and press. However, the U.S. Supreme Court makes a number of exceptions from the rule of the protection that is afforded by the First Amendment in its decisions. In particular, the Supreme Court held that each person has a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution to possess obscene data in the intimate sphere of their homes, but there is no constitutional right for anyone providing obscene material for private use or purchase of such material for private usage.
In the case of “Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union”, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two provisions of the ethics of communication, which imposed a ban on the transfer of obscene messages to children on the Internet. In the decision, the court pointed out that the existing Act is encumbrance of speech and expression and is unacceptable in cases where there are less restrictive but equally effective means of achieving the legitimate purpose for which this legislation was enacted. Public interest in the protection of children from harmful material does not justify the use of unnecessary broad suppression of speech and expression, which are addressed to an adult. The U.S. government has no right to force the adult population be limited to what is suitable only for children.
The U.S. Supreme Court established the difference in substance between the Internet, on the one hand, and radio and television - on the other one, indicating that large-scale categorical prohibitions that are contained in the Act on communication ethics are not limited to certain time limits and do not depend on the assessment by one or another body who is familiar with the unique characteristics of the Internet. In contrast, it concerns Internet, radio, and television due to historical development of the most limited protection that is provided by the First Amendment, since warnings were not able to protect the listeners and viewers from unforeseen program content in a proper manner. On the Internet, the risk of accidental stumble on indecent material is unlikely, as it is to gain access to the specific material that are required to take one or the other of supporting a number of steps intention.
All nine judges who voted explained it with the fact that they were convinced that the Act did not have enough decency posts, the accuracy of which is required under the First Amendment, when law regulates the content of the messages. In order to prevent the minor access to potentially harmful content, Act Decency posts excessively restrict much information which adults have a constitutional right to receive and impart each other. The judges have repeatedly recognized the importance of the public interest to protect children against harmful materials. However, the interest does not justify the use of overly broad suppression of free speech that is directed at adults.
The basis of the protection of the government posts Decency Act was given the position that such laws were supported by Decency in three previous decisions of the Supreme Court: Ginsberg v. New York (1968); F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978); Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc. (1986). In the judgment F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose administrative sanctions on the radio station that broadcast George Carlin monologue, which was called “dirty words”. In the decision on the case of “Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union” (1997), however, the Supreme Court ruled that this is not a precedent for justification Decency Act of messages, since sanctions were not Fsg
criminal penalties, and radio and television broadcasting, as historically, most have limited protection of the First Amendment mainly because the procedure cannot properly guard the listener from unexpected program content, which is in contrast to Internet users, who have to take various purposeful steps to receive an access to explicit data.
Until 2010, the bodies of the U.S. government provided the possibility of self-regulation of the commercial Internet, proclaiming freedom of legal relations in this sphere. In 2010, the federal policy on this issue reached a turning point. The number of abuses of freedom of the Internet, in particular, the illegal collection of personal information about individuals for commercial purposes (phishing), consumer fraud, including the use of financial pyramids was increasing. According to the FBI, in 2007, over 200 thousand U.S. citizens have become the victims of scams on the internet. The total damage from various types of fraud amounted to more than $ 230 million.
I agree with the verdict of the judges. I believe that it is impossible to restrict the rights and freedoms of the people. The rules need to specify the content of messages and make it clear what is allowed and what is prohibited. The best protection from children viewing inappropriate content will focus on the part of parents. At the moment, they have to regulate this issue. I believe that the ideal thing would be to use the time during which a child is not the media and the internet and for such activities as painting, swimming, and dancing.
In the U.S., the basis for the prosecution of violations of the rights of the web is the size of damage, which excludes the pursuit of individual users, for example, illegally downloading a movie. Law enforcement agencies are working only for the most active offenders, revealing the entire chain of owners of illegal resources, and, if necessary, interacting with colleagues abroad. For example, in December 2011, the U.S. District Attorney for the City of Nevada charged money laundering group consisting of 16 people with fraud. Within three years, the scammers have spread on the Internet information about the sale of various goods, including cars, ships, etc., making imaginary transactions with customers. Damage from the fraudulent scheme, common outside the U.S., amounted to $ 3 million. U.S. law defendants could face up to 60 years in prison and a fine of million. In addition, in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies identified an international group of Internet fraud, which extended malicious software on more than 4 million computers that were located in over 100 countries and belonging not only to individuals but also to governments, educational institutions, and commercial organizations. Fraudulent scheme brought to its participants the illegal income of million.
In recent years, various attempts to tighten U.S. law regulating the legal relationship on the Internet caused public outcry. In 2010, the bill, which is called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset, providing the protection of the virtual space radical methods was enacted. In accordance with this document, the President of the United States had the right to completely disable the Internet in the country for up to 120 days in case of emergency and prohibit search engines to process requests in the event of an emergency that is related to security on the Internet. The document was criticized and was replaced by the Executive Bill on Coordination in Cyberspace.
Active protest by the major Internet companies was directed at the bill that is called Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA, according to which, any member of the Internet on the treatment holder shall stop providing services to a resource that is accused of copyright infringement or any other illegal activity. The negative reaction of the public was perceived by the U.S. Congress, which decided to freeze the project indefinitely. The situation is similar to Protect Intellectual Property Act - PIPA, establishing censorship of the Internet.
Studies by American specialists suggest that an effective opposition to offenses on the Internet contributes to economic growth, security of the state, and development of health care. In this regard, the process for the formation of the legal framework governing relations on the Internet, the practice of identifying and bringing to justice those who violate the legal regime of the web, including methods of securing evidence in such cases, and organized system of state control of the Internet space are vital.
In addition, the rumor is spreading that the ACLU discovered the site of Echelon Watch. New Project ACLU is dedicated to investigate the circumstances of allegedly existing system of global electronic surveillance “Echelon”, which was allegedly organized by the U.S. National Security Agency.
Together with the ACLU support, site engaged Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Omega Foundation of Great Britain in time to prepare a report on “Echelon” for the European Parliament.
Neither Britain nor the United States has confirmed the existence of the system of total eavesdropping and spying. Experts from the ACLU, however, are almost certain that such a system exists. The two reports that were presented to the European Parliament, as well as the performance of the Inspector General of Security and Intelligence Australia, who reported on the facts of electronic surveillance of citizens and, in some cases, transmission of the data in the U.S. and the UK, are the proof. The new website will be collected in various ACLU documents, proving the existence of “Echelon”, and hold a public debate on the impact of such a system on civil liberties. Site visitors are invited to influence their representatives in Congress in order to achieve a formal investigation.
Thus, the application of restrictions on freedom of information, particularly on the Internet, requires states to reasonable and proportionate legitimate aim pursued measures, with properly formulated legislation with regard to the criteria that are discussed above. Thus, one should clearly distinguish information that may cause condemnation, violate the moral fabric of society, and be unsafe for the perception from illegal information, actions of which entail criminal responsibility.
Phillip Cooper, writer at https://writer-elite.com/ and a bloggerAlso See: Supreme Court, Civil Liberties, United States, Self Regulation, Internet, Court, Act
Forex Signals | Trusted Forex Trading Signals | 1000PipBuilder
Start making profits with 1000pip builder and get best forex signals for trading. We provide Forex Signals online with unbeatable performance and verified result. Join us today!