Bedrooms, Bar Rooms, and Boardrooms in Cyberspace

L. Jean Camp Donna Riley
lc2m@andrew.cmu.edu riley+@andrew.cmu.edu
Engineering & Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15224
(v)412-268-5605
(f)412-268-3757


Much of the debate about the Internet has focused on the classification
of various services into traditional media types. There has been
particular focus on Usenet, bulletin boards and the World Wide Web.
There is no consensus on the appropriate media classification because
none is possible. The technology of the Internet has confused legal
theorists into attempting to inappropriately apply those rules set for
machine-assisted communication despite the fact that the machine no
longer defines the characteristics of the communication.

In fact, the appropriate analog is not different mediums but rather
different spaces. We will illustrate this first by showing how Web and
Usenet services fit equally well, and equally badly, in each media type.
For illustrative purposes we select newsgroups and Web sites from
Carnegie Mellon University~s network services that fit each media type.

One reason denizens of the Internet call it cyberspace is that the
various attributes applicable to defining different physical spaces can
also be used to define different virtual spaces. Note that the
physical space of a speech has been a defining characteristic of its
acceptability; you can neither yell ~Fire!~ in a crowded theater nor
expound upon philosophies of racial superiority at work. Yet there are
places for both outrageous exclamations and offensive arguments in the
physical world. We argue that the same is true in the virtual world.
We propose a new theory for Internet content control which includes the
recognition that both free public debate and private spaces exist on the
Internet, using the same underlying network services. We offer a series
of metrics for employers and institutions to determine the appropriate
model for their electronic spaces.

Finally, using events at Carnegie Mellon University, we will show in
more detail how the attempts to fit media types to Internet services has
created incentives which neither create protected spaces nor encourage
open debate. We then use these cases at Carnegie Mellon to show how the
proposal to treat virtual spaces as their physical counterparts would
better serve the interests of the University.