By Zaid Shuhaibar
I recently read an article entilted “Suicide spurs Internet debate” on the Hollywood Reporter website. The article explains how the South Korean government is now questioning their original web 2.0 plan of “Internet Democracy”. Controversy about this issue began when a girl named Choi Jin-shil committed suicide because of rumors that were posted on the Internet about her. To prevent other suicides and such occurrences from happening, the South Korean government plans to pass news laws. The new laws would make real-name registrations mandatory on most news Websites, and it would require all Internet portals to have operators moderating the Internet to delete defamatory opinions that are posted. Although the cyberspace laws seem like the right thing to do, many people disagree with them. Many South Koreans feel as though this is a “politically motivated scheme” to take over the Internet.
This article relates significantly to our class discussions where we have discussed ways for the Internet to become safer, and ways people’s privacy could be protected on the Internet. However, would the South Korean government be taking it too far by passing these laws? Should the United States pass similar laws to protect their people from danger on the web or are people suppose to take care of themselves on the web? If such laws were to be passed in America, are they going against the first amendment? Is freedom of speech extended to include Web 2.0 or can the argument argue against that?
3 Comments
October 23, 2008 at 12:35 am
The first notion that deals with mandatory posting of names seems like it would be a good measure to implement on many websites. We already read about certain internet blog sites and informational sites where credited doctors and lawyers needed to have some sort of credentials to join and post information. This would force people to take more responsibility for the actions that they take. This would make cyberbullying and other such acts less likely as the prospective bullier would be a bit more reluctant to post certain comments. However, the mandatory posting of names has a big weakness because there are people that will let others know what they really think about them. This can be countered by the second idea of censoring posts. Unfortunately, many people will see censoring as an infringement on their rights, thus that sort of law would undoubtedly fail in the US.
October 24, 2008 at 7:55 pm
i think that having names on all websites and posts could be a good idea, yet it is easy to lie and make up a different name, or a screename which is already invented. i think that this was attempted with the first generation of the internet, and then became less personal as people wanted more anonymity.
This would never fly in the US if it was mandated to all users; people would definitely protest.
I am not sure of the social situation in South Korea, so maybe it would work better there, if the citizens are not as obsessed with freedom as americans are.
It could be a good idea, but i dont think it would have much effect, since it is not in place now, and hackers or users would find a way around the new laws if they are put in place and restrict activity.
October 27, 2008 at 11:54 am
I agree with Charles in that names should be posted on all blog posts, websites, forums, etc., to credit those who post research or even information and opinions. Regardless to whether the information or opinion will cause turmoil or will go against popular belief, every written word should be backed up behind someone. South Korea is able to do such because it is still a developing country that doesnt practice such strict democratic rules as the US. It is more totalitarian government, i believe, than a democracy. Melanie is right in that this law would never pass in the US, but maybe it should? There will be hackers and other people trying to get around the laws, but if you post something, shouldnt you have the guts to stand behind it? If you dont, than should you be posting it?