Internet Law Paper

I often see how much my Internet, Entertainment and First Amendment Law classes are so very intertwined. In my Internet Law class I had to write a paper on any subject having to do with the Internet. I decided to revert a little back to my college sociology background and wrote about the correlation between the Internet and the Social Control Theory. I never really thought about the paper’s relation to Entertainment Law, but today in class I heard a few “buzz words” that made think about my paper instantly. We were talking about situations in regards to porn/strip clubs, etc., what compels us to do what we do, is going to the store for my porn the same as jumping on the computer for it, etc. - “Are our morals inverted or is it about what society tells us is acceptable and where everyone else thinks the line is crossed?” So I thought my paper from Internet Law could be an interesting supplement to our class discussion, here it is…

The Internet: The Ultimate Social Experiment

Being in law school, we analyze laws and discuss their effect on our lives. The internet IS mind-boggling to examine in the legal aspect. However, in my personal opinion, the internet is the ultimate social experiment; public vs. private morals. Either way you look at it, the internet truly is the limitless World Wide Web. So the question truly is, how far will we go when no one is looking?

As a sociology student in my pre-law school days, I have always been fascinated by society’s human interactions. Unfortunately, especially in this day-in-age, sociology has more and more to do with the study of criminology. There is a criminological theory called the “Social Control Theory”. This theory states that our norms and morals are bestowed upon us from society’s negative repercussions on what we consider bad or wrong behavior, and thusly we are punished for these actions. Basically, a moral compass is not innate in humans, we do as much as we are allowed to do before we are told we can’t anymore because society says it is wrong. Because this moral code is not internalized, when addressed with the internet, it brings to light the issue of the power of anonymity.

In order to apply the Social Control Theory four criteria must be present. Society itself has a somewhat monitored moral, social order – this obviously lacks when it comes to the internet. That is the whole point, you are not being watched, and you know this. Without the presence of this prevailing morality, the internet is an ethical free-for-all. The second element needed is for humans to be socialized into that prevailing moral order. We go into internet usage socialized to our “real” society, not socialized to the internet. The World Wide Web is an entirely different environment, we are not socialized to the “virtual” world it opens up to us. Thirdly, a delinquency from the socialized norm takes place when control over the behavior is lacking. We discussed this issue in depth in class, in order for an individual to believe rules apply to him or her they have to realize that an entity has some form of power over them. We do not commit crimes in society for fear of being punished. On the internet, this threat of punishment by law is still somewhat able to occur, but it is much less clear. Lastly, if adequately socialized to this larger social structure, humans feel bonded to it, thusly they are less likely to commit the wrongs because the socialization provides the necessary control.

The Social Control Theory truly is a basis for reasoning of why we act how we do with the internet. No one is watching, it is a somewhat uncontrolled environment, there is no “internet police”, there is no “man behind the curtain” controlling it all, therefore we have no one to answer to, so of course it is easier to commit wrong doing when there is no tangible entity telling you not to do so. As humans we feel loyalty to what we bond with; family, job, community. Naturally, in most situations an individual with certain sexual fetishes is going to conceal that to the utmost, except in the presence of individuals he or she trusts, for fear of being judged or caught by society. But this all changes when the World Wide Web allows the aggressor and the aggressee to remain unknown. Anonymity makes straying from social norms much easier. Being that the internet is basically completely anonymous (for the average user), it allows humans to detach themselves from the bond they have to society. Without that bond, we can act freely, we do not owe anyone anything, and we do not have to act in the ways we are told to. It is much easier to act in a deviant manner when you and your victim are faceless. Thus, if there are no “real” people to harm, then there is no “real” harm. There are many who agree with that statement. But if we accept that as true, there will be no control over the internet. Not because of jurisdictional issues, or technological advances, but because of what the internet was created to be; an alternate reality. Therefore it stands to reason that it is the “virtuality” of the internet that is its downfall, which of course, will not, and essentially cannot, change.

Our society looks to intellectuals and experts for a solution – people want control over this virtual world, but it might very well be impossible. Is it just the nature of the beast? Did we create an entity that has gotten so vast that we no longer have control over our creation? In my eyes, the internet is THE most powerful and ingenious invention of our time, but unfortunately, I also see it as the equivalent of the starting a new civilization. You have to start from scratch; new rules, new laws, new socialization. There are many arguments that the people committing these deviant behaviors on the internet are the same who are doing it in real life. That is a valid argument and I believe it to be partially true. However, even when dealing with “normal” people, when it comes to the internet there is still going to be variance from their typical behavior – not because they are suddenly turning “abnormal”, but just because they can. It is my opinion that you cannot be socialized to feel bonded to the virtual society that is the internet, at least not yet. Bottom line, you cannot give a human being the power to be invisible and then expect them to be on their best behavior – it didn’t work with Kevin Bacon in Hollow Man and sure isn’t going to work with John Doe. As humans it is inherent in us to push the envelope and the internet is the perfect tool to allow us to do so.

- Kim Harchuck

Polk County

THE FOLLOWING IS BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS AND INTERTWINED WITH POSSIBLE SPECULATION AS WELL AS FACT (I suppose it depends on if you’re a Tribe fan or not)

Alright, well it officially happened, I went to Polk County. No, no, it was not on an Obscenity Witch-Hunt Tour o’ Florida (I know that’s what you were thinking). My parents came down from Cleveland to enjoy some of the Florida sunshine for the weekend. My Dad, being the huge Cleveland Indians fan that he is, wanted to go see an Indians Spring Training game. So I got the directions off the internet and we were off to Winter Haven, Florida. Once we got through Walt’s end of Orlando, it lead to miles and miles of orange groves, which of course (as you know if you have ever been to the area) lead to the Holy Land.
So we’re driving in pretty much the middle of nowhere, suddenly I start noticing the fact that there was a church pretty much every 500 feet. It reminded me of the little Polk County situation that we discussed in class. So me, being the good daughter I am, told my parents of the trials and tribulations of the infamous Polk County and its Barney Fife-esque law enforcement – which by the way, they were appalled by the story (and trust me, my Dad is a good republican from Ohio). As I’m telling the story I start noticing more and even MORE churches, then the signs about being “saved” and advertising for churches. A few minutes later there it was, the delicate white and blue sign welcoming me to Polk County offering me wonderful and so I inferred, non-Gestapo-like visit. Though, I am thankful and happy to report I did not experience any “typical” Polk County-like actions, just going to the stadium and back, I did find some information that perpetuated the stereotype. It turns out that the Cleveland Indians are moving their Spring Training Facility from Winter Haven to some place in Arizona. My Dad, being the avid talk radio fan that he is, was able to give me the entire low down on situation. Apparently part of the reason they are leaving Winter Haven is due to the City’s lack of fulfilling their promises to the ball club. The city was supposed to commit to certain marketing conditions, stadium alterations, etc., etc. – apparently they have not performed any of these parts of the agreement. But Winter Haven has stated that they are receiving “pressure” from the County to allow the teams (the Detroit Tigers have their facility around there too) to leave if they wish, for concern of the kinds of people/undesirables the Spring Training games bring in to the area (which is ironic because the game I saw brought a majority of senior citizens from what I could see).
Since when is something as American as the game of baseball considered as an attraction of undesirables? Now, I don’t know how much of this is completely accurate (that’s my little disclaimer) and how much of it is just angry Cleveland Sports Fan Urban Legend, but it does seem coincidental. I also looked up the Polk County website and the Spring Training Facilities is advertised as an entire tourist attraction, so they have to understand the monetary benefits of it. It also occurred to me, that the decision (supposedly) coming from the county sounds more snobbish than fascist (unlike some of the other actions of Polk County). But hey, porn, the 1st Amendment, America’s favorite pastime; who knows, maybe the next time you drive through Polk County the Chili’s Restaurant on the main thoroughfare in Winter Haven might be banned for the phallic-symbol logo, after all, you don’t want to get to racy, it leads to dirty thoughts, the next thing you know you’re children are attending Saddam & Gomorrah Middle School. Good thing we have people like the officials of Polk County to help us realize what’s best for us all…

- Kim Harchuck

OK, It Doesn’t Have That Much To Do With Entertainment Law, Buuuut It Has To Do With The First Amendment Which Has To Do With Entertainment Law… :-D

So, I believe, like many people, that the First Amendment is a foundation of this country, it affects everything. Which leads me to another point, US. Ever since I got here all I’ve heard is how great and amazing the legal profession is; we are the seekers of justice, the enlightened ones defending rights at all costs. Yeah, um, ok. Again, not to harp on another class or anything, but I need as much material for this Blog thing as I can get. So I might as well get to it - I think burning the flag is sacred, sacred as in, one of the most sacred rights we have to free expression. If I want to burn the flag, then I should be able to burn the flag. To me, that is just one of the most symbolic and expressive things someone can do in regards to their opinion of this country.
In my First Amendment class we were discussing the Texas v. Johnson case. For those who don’t know, this is the case where the defendant (Johnson), burned a flag outside the Republican National Convention in Texas in 1984, and of course he was arrested. The Supreme Court decided that any laws prohibiting flag burning were unconstitutional pursuant to the First Amendment.
The class then turned to discussion about the act of flag burning. As stated previously, I believe that is one of the most powerful statements an individual can make. One of my fellow students made a good point, there is no stipulation of the flag’s importance, if anything, wanting to burn it just goes to show how important of a symbol it is for this country. Of course, there were a few who did not share in this mentality. It was stated that the flag was a sacred symbol, that people died for it, that burning the flag was a proverbial slap-in-the-face to those who have fought for it. I guess I can somewhat understand that mentality, after all, I’m sure that’s the same mentality my grandparents had and still obtain. But again, MY GRANDPARENTS. This is a different time! We’re supposed to be the lawyers in training, right, the ones who’s job it is to defend the constitutional rights of all. Yes, you can say that people have died for the flag. Personally, I believe those people have died for the right to HAVE that flag, the freedom to do whatever they want with that flag. No, I have never gone to war, so I cannot speak first hand, but that is what I always thought of when I heard the term, “dying/fighting for the flag”. And honestly, isn’t the First Amendment what makes our country different than most? So doesn’t it stand to reason that those who went to war died/fought for the First Amendment too? The way I see it (now to quote another class), if the First Amendment gives us the right to say “fuck”, then it should give us the right to say “fuck the government”… in any way, shape or form we choose to.