session 6. cyber-regulation.

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organized in the following way:

We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticize the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than than a single page; key word mode) at the latest on Tuesday. I will forward this to the other team.

The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and counter arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party. We have already discussed some additional arguments during the final two sessions.
cyberlaw 1
cyberlaw 2
cyberlaw 3

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Good luck for the preparations !

session 6. cyber-regulation.

This session is going to diverge from the classic ex cathedra lecture and offer a platform for some debate. The core question that will be discussed is that of whether cyberspace should and can be regulated? Is cyberspace something profoundly different that does not allow conventional modes of state regulation, or is it just another medium where state sovereignty is asserted? Answers to these and more questions will be given during the interactive session, which is structured as a 'moot court' and invites verbal fight.

The interactive session will be organized in the following way:

We will have two parties arguing against each other.

Each group will have 15 minutes to present its arguments. Each group will then have 5 minutes to criticize the arguments of the other party. 5 subsequent minutes will be given for a rebuttal. You can decide among yourselves who will be the speaker(s) of the group. One idea will be that each person presents one or two arguments so that the burden is equally distributed.

In order to provide the opportunity for the other party to prepare its counter-arguments, it would be necessary that you send me a short list of your main points (no more than than a single page; key word mode) at the latest on Tuesday. I will forward this to the other team.

The persons not participating in the session will form a jury and will in the end of the debate judge who the 'winning' party is. I would intervene in matters of procedure and when necessary to spur the discussion.

As announced at the outset of the course, this participation will be assessed and constitutes 30% of your final grade. Criteria for the assessment will be the use and structure of the arguments, their relevance to the particular question asked and to the defending position. Reference to topics we already discussed or original ideas will be additionally rewarded.

Here is the initial package to prepare. It combines pro and counter arguments, which will also help you anticipate the argumentation of the opposing party. We have already discussed some additional arguments during the final two sessions.
cyberlaw 1
cyberlaw 2
cyberlaw 3

These materials are abridged versions of the articles. The full versions of David G. Post can be found here and some of those of Jack L. Goldsmith here (these are however by no means compulsory reading).

You may use some of the reasoning and examples given in chapters of Who Controls the Internet?, which formed part of your reading materials last week.

Good luck for the preparations !

session 10. regulation for cultural diversity? pros and cons.

The time for the second interactive session has come. We will discuss a topic that we already touched upon in all sorts of ways (in particular in session 9), namely: whether it is justified and in fact doable to regulate for the protection and promotion of cultural diversity? These questions are asked against the background of a globalised media landscape where we observe the emergence and use of multiple platforms and channels for expression and communication. Yet, it could be argued that many voices have been marginalised in this environment and local cultures, especially in developing countries, are increasingly lost or (mis)appropriated by powerful globally positioned media companies. On the other hand, one could argue that digital media could make the expression and distribution of such local voices possible and strengthen their cultural value and the identity of the communities and peoples creating them.
It is certain that the picture to be painted is complex and not one of black and white. This makes the discussion particularly interesting and leaves the outcome open. The winning party will be ultimately the one with better structured and presented arguments.

The rules of the game remain the same.
You have however the advantage that you already heard the presentations of your colleagues during the first interactive session, as well as my comments on them.

The reading materials are few. They encompass basically the texts from last session, especially the first one on the list.
Those texts may have a slight bias towards arguments against cultural diversity regulation. Nonetheless, the other party arguing for cultural diversity regulation can make a strong case too. The lack of flexibilities within the WTO regime and the total disregard of cultural concerns are certainly the starting point there. The proliferation of mainstream content and homogenisation of media outlets possibly another good point to make. Also, the text of the Convention itself and other short documents made available on the thematic page of UNESCO on culture can help you win the case.
Optional reading with some good data is a chapter from the recent UNESCO World Report on Cultural Diversity.

I wish both parties good luck for the preparations and look forward to an interesting discussion next week.

Here are the slides for session 10, only as an add-on to your excellent presentations.

session 10. regulation for cultural diversity? pros and cons.

The time for the second interactive session has come. We will discuss a topic that we already touched upon in all sorts of ways (in particular in session 8), namely: whether it is justified and in fact doable to regulate for the protection and promotion of cultural diversity? These questions are asked against the background of a globalised media landscape where we observe the emergence and use of multiple platforms and channels for expression and communication. Yet, it could be argued that many voices have been marginalised in this environment and local cultures, especially in developing countries, are increasingly lost or (mis)appropriated by powerful globally positioned media companies. On the other hand, one could argue that digital media could make the expression and distribution of such local voices possible and strengthen their cultural value and the identity of the communities and peoples creating them.
It is certain that the picture to be painted is complex and not one of black and white. This makes the discussion particularly interesting and leaves the outcome truly open. The winning party will be ultimately the one with better structured and presented arguments.

The rules of the game remain the same.
You have however the advantage that you already heard the presentations of your colleagues during the first interactive session and my comments on them.

The reading materials are few. They encompass basically the texts given for session 8, especially the first one on the list.
Those texts may have a slight bias towards arguments against cultural diversity regulation. Nonetheless, the other party arguing for cultural diversity regulation can make a strong case too. The lack of flexibilities within the WTO regime and the total disregard of cultural concerns are certainly the starting point there. The proliferation of mainstream content and homogenisation of media outlets possibly another good point to make. Also, the text of the Convention itself and other short documents made available on the thematic page of UNESCO on cultural diversity can help you win the case.
Optional reading with some good data is a chapter from the recent UNESCO World Report on Cultural Diversity.

I wish both parties good luck for the preparations and look forward to an interesting discussion next week.

Many thanks for the excellent presentations. Here are the slides of the follow-up discussion.

session 10. regulation for cultural diversity? pros and cons

The time for the second interactive session has come. We will discuss a topic that we already touched upon in all sorts of ways (in particular in session 8), namely: whether it is justified and in fact doable to regulate for the protection and promotion of cultural diversity? These questions are asked against the background of a globalised media landscape where we observe the emergence and use of multiple platforms and channels for expression and communication. Yet, it could be argued that many voices have been marginalised in this environment and local cultures, especially in developing countries, are increasingly lost or (mis)appropriated by powerful globally positioned media companies. On the other hand, one could argue that digital media could make the expression and distribution of such local voices possible and strengthen their cultural value and the identity of the communities and peoples creating them.
It is certain that the picture to be painted is complex and not one of black and white. This makes the discussion particularly interesting and leaves the outcome truly open. The winning party will be ultimately the one with better structured and presented arguments.

The rules of the game remain the same (see here session 5).
You have however the advantage that you already heard the presentations of your colleagues during the first interactive session and my comments on them.

The reading materials are few. They encompass basically the texts given for session 8, especially the first one on the list.
Those texts may have a slight bias towards arguments against cultural diversity regulation. Nonetheless, the other party arguing for cultural diversity regulation can make a strong case too. The lack of flexibilities within the WTO regime and the total disregard of cultural concerns are certainly the starting point there. The proliferation of mainstream content and homogenisation of media outlets possibly another good point to make. Also, the text of the Convention itself and other short documents made available on the thematic page of UNESCO on cultural diversity can help you win the case.
Optional reading with some good data is a chapter from the recent UNESCO World Report on Cultural Diversity.

I wish both parties good luck for the preparations and look forward to an interesting discussion next week.

Here as a brief follow-up of the debates, which were excellent, are my slides for session 10.

follow-up. session 5

The interactive session was very interesting and dynamic thanks to the performance of both parties arguing pro and counter cyber-regulation. Congratulations on this and warm thanks.

In terms of improving the debate, I would recommend to concentrate on fewer arguments but then develop them more thoroughly. The use of examples is welcome and convinces the audience of the strength of your position. Do use however only one or two examples but be more precise and more detailed in their presentation. A simple enumeration of cases is not very helpful since these can often be interpreted in multiple (even conflicting) directions and can also be used as easy counter-arguments by the opposing party.
In terms of preparing for the oral exam, I would recommend looking not only at the descriptive dimension of the question of can cyberspace be regulated but also at the normative one - i.e. is it legitimate to regulate cyberspace? If yes, one should contemplate how this regulation should be designed and here it is important to consider the different levels of regulation (national, regional and international), as well as whether another modality of regulation would be more suitable. Under modality of regulation, I basically understand, as suggested by Lessig and as elaborated during the lecture, (i) law, (ii) social norms, (iii) markets and (iv) architecture. In cyberspace, the latter, i.e. code, could be said to often be displacing the law, which is a development that brings with it other and often problematic implications. Your argumentation for the exam does not need to be abstract however and you can readily apply your knowledge of ICANN, internet filtering and digital copyright.

Here are the slides of my brief wrap-up at the end of the session.

The last few slides present the Yahoo! case (La Ligue Contre le Racism et I’Antisémitisme v. Yahoo!, Inc., Superior Court of Paris, 22 May 2000), which is rather well-known and presents a situation where national jurisdiction (of France) has been 'extended' to a US based company because 'damage was suffered in France'.
While the judgment could not be ultimately enforced in the US, the Yahoo! case invites an intriguing discussion of cyberspace regulation. It is clear that people in different countries do not share the same perceptions of the world and how it should be organised. In this sense, with Yahoo!, we encounter the 'lowest common denominator' argument, i.e. if websites are subject to the laws of all jurisdictions from which they can be accessed, the legal norms of the most restrictive community will prevail.
On the other hand, if foreign courts cannot reach websites located in other jurisdictions, will the legal norms of the least restrictive community prevail? In the context of the Yahoo! case, if foreign courts cannot reach US-based entities, has the United States then imposed its relatively unrestrictive First Amendment on global Internet speech?