Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Free speech protections allow little government-mandated Internet content restrictions. However, the Internet is highly regulated, supported by a complex set of legally binding and privately mediated mechanisms. [1] Gambling, cyber security, and the dangers to children who frequent social media are important ongoing debates. Significant public ...
A US court has rejected the Biden administration's bid to restore "net neutrality" rules, finding that the federal government does not have the authority to regulate internet providers like utilities.
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA was Congress's third attempt to regulate obscenity on the Internet, but the first two (the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998) were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional free speech restrictions, largely due to vagueness and overbreadth issues that ...
This article describes how the Internet was and is currently governed, some inherent controversies, and ongoing debates regarding how and why the Internet should or should not be governed in the future. [1] (Internet governance should not be confused with e-governance, which refers to governmental use of technology in its governing duties.)
Florida and Texas seek to regulate social media sites they say are biased against conservatives. Will the Supreme Court allow them?
The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. [1] Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers.
The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on state laws that could affect how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. The cases are among ...
That is, the freedom of speech includes editorial judgment. This is true whether the speaker is a lone individual or a large media company,” he said. "Second, the government is not permitted to regulate speakers simply to produce what the government thinks would be a better, or more diverse, marketplace of ideas.