Cyber Law
Students will gain a broad knowledge of constitutional, civil, criminal, and related legal considerations that arise in the context of work or citizenship in an increasingly cyber/digital world. Whether the student seeks a career in the public or private sector, the student will gain insight into both the limits and authorities on government or private sector activities, from the creation and protection of intellectual property, to the investigation of unlawful cyber activities, to the considerations of cyber operations in an increasingly dangerous world. This broadened awareness will help students successfully navigate and strengthen personal and professional choices as they move ahead.
Course Work:
Discussion Board Question:
- Identify something you found intriguing/surprising/thought-provoking from one of the above-referenced sources we looked at (and identify the source in your post), and explain why you found it so; and
- Explain whether you think hate speech should be permissible/protected or whether Americans would be better off it could and were banned/prohibited. Support your position.
My Response:
While reading the article about the Dixie Chicks I found it shocking how the whole country turned on them after one comment. I understand they had their rights and were able to say those things, but for almost every person, corporation, band, etc. to turn on them was a little silly to me. I also understand that some people have their own opinions and feelings about things, and businesses have to keep their names above other corporations by making sure the American people are always in their favor. However, it got to the point where almost all businesses in the United States including bars, concerts, and retail stores either got forced to stop playing their music or just stopped in general playing their music because of the boycott and didn’t want to get dragged into the band’s mess. For example, in the Dixie Chicks article, there was this statement, “Even radio DJs and programmers who sympathized with the Dixie Chicks were forced to stop playing them.” To me that is understandable from a business aspect but as a human being, you shouldn’t do that just because of someone’s comments. To summarize, there are comments that people say that affect others in different ways we may never understand, and everyone has the right to stop playing, listening, or watching whatever the other side did that affected them. However, for this situation, I believe everyone went a little overboard with it.
I believe hate speech should be protected. The reasoning for that is everyone has their own opinions and thoughts and it should be up to us if we want to say what’s on our mind or not. It brings in the topic of responsibility and respect, because if we say something hurtful to another group then we as humans and citizens are not being respectful to them or responsible about the consequences that could occur after it’s said. By leaving it protected it teaches us responsibility and allows us to learn respect by keeping our thoughts to ourselves if it could hurt others. Also, if you were to ban it then it would be almost impossible to stop someone from saying hate speech because unless there are witnesses or it’s recorded then it’s just one person’s word against another. This topic is very debatable and could go on for ages. However, I believe we should keep it as it is where it’s protected and continue to allow our civilization to evolve and grow together as one, because as Albert Einstein said: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” And I believe our society will continue to thrive as one and go against the people who say hurtful comments to one another.
Discussion Board Question:
Do you agree with the use of a government-coordinated intrusion-prevention system like EINSTEIN across all non-government networks in the U.S?
My Response:
No, I do not agree with Goldsmith’s essay. When he compares going through screening procedures at airports, games, and courthouses to needing the same ideology for online scanning, I think that is a stretch and is unwanted by most people in America and goes against our private rights. When we access the Internet and go onto our private networks we should not be monitored by the Government. I directly goes against our 4 Amendment. I see where he is coming from though, with the amount of crimes and attacks that occur online compared to in person now is significantly different. However, that still does not give the Government the right to spy on our private networks and what we are accessing and sending on the Internet. Now, I do believe we can reach an agreement in this position. If you create this monitoring device it should be only for registered pedophiles and other criminals to monitor what they are doing online. However, when it comes to the citizens with no high degree crime behind their back, they have our right to legally interact with websites or others online.