Our country was founded by people who believed in freedom.  Those ideas have been passed down through our constitution unto modern day society.  However, a new question of freedom has appeared in our culture asking us whether or not the internet should be free.  Regulation of the internet can prevent basic human rights, create bias towards those that are controlling it, and overall it can oppress the people of the United States and people all over the world.

To begin with, the United states was founded on the first amendment giving us freedom of speech.  The internet started as a free common space that brings together anyone with an internet connection.  However, if the government begins to restrict what people can put on the internet it begins to infringe on our right to free speech.  When it comes to the internet, the laws should be no different than they are for newspapers or magazines. When writing for a newspaper you have the right to speak what is on your mind no matter what that might be and the same should go for the internet.  Also, the free nature of the internet up until now has paved the way for brilliant minds to build extremely profitable companies.  Take Netflix for example, a website that allows you to watch as many television shows and movies as your heart desires for $8 dollars a month.  This website is entirely legitimate as they receive permission from the production companies for all of their material in order to place their works on their website.  Yet as a proposition by the FCC, companies such as Netflix would have to “unfairly pay more for access points” (McDowell).  Basically they want companies to pay more money so that their websites are more restricted and in turn can provide better service.  The main idea of this doesn’t appear to make sense though because all that a law such as this would do is make more money for the FCC while the service providers miss out.  The reason that internet providers would not get paid is because the idea of net neutrality keeps “Internet Service Providers, such as phone and cable companies, from blocking or degrading websites” (McDowell).  Therefore, if companies pay more money they would be past service providers in an area that prevents the so called slowing that service providers cause. However there has never been such a problem as stated in the Washington Post, “If consumers were being harmed by ISPs, ample antitrust, competition and consumer protection laws already exist to fix the problem” (McDowell).  

Internet regulation history goes as far back as the 1960’s. This period of time in internet history is known as the “open internet.” Back then the internet was fairly ignored because of the fact that the status and future of the internet was very uncertain.  As stated by John Palfrey, “up until the late 1990’s, most states tended either to ignore online activities or to regulate them very lightly.”  This first phase of internet regulation ended around the year 2000.  The second phase of internet regulation according to Mr. Palfrey lasted from the year 2000 until 2005.  This phase of internet regulation gave way to the idea of adding much more regulation, or as Palfrey refers to it, “Access Denied.”  According to him, “The thinking was that certain acts of speech and organizing online needed to be regulated like any other.” More of these regulations occurred in places outside of the United States.  Many countries felt that they should keep people from seeing certain information and implemented filters to block people’s access.  The third phase of Palfrey’s internet regulation history lasted from 2005 until 2010 and is described by him as “Access Controlled.”  In this phase there were still many strict regulations throughout the world.  According to Palfrey, “These methods of regulation, working in combination, are highly effective, both as a means of law enforcement and through a chilling effect on online speech.” This is where the free speech argument comes in to play.  If people are too afraid to speak their minds on the open world of the internet then it is time to decide if their right to free speech is being taken away, one of the most basic human rights. The last stage in Palfrey’s 4 stages is “Access Contested” lasting from 2010 until present day.  This period marks the point when people began to push back against internet regulation.  At this point people decided that it was time to contest the idea of a restricted internet (Palfrey).

One of the main arguments for regulation of the internet is for the protection of the users.  Groups such as the FCC use the idea of protection as the main point for their push towards regulation.  However, eventually their laws end up restricting the user too much.  Regulations against things such as the dark web, an underground source of websites usually used for illegal activity, is one thing but to regulate the clear net is absolutely absurd. In a court case that ended in 2015 the FCC was allowed to implement the strongest regulations possible.  The courts ruled that high speed internet was a luxury and that broadband internet was open to regulation. “High speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled in a sweeping decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users” (Kang).  However, what websites people use should be up to the users.  They should not be told what sites they can use and what sites they cannot.  If the government is worried about the access that children have online, then they should refer to the laws already in place for media sources such as television.  That sort of regulation should be controlled by the parents.  

Regulation would be much more understandable if computer and phone companies came out with a software program where the parents could block certain websites from their children.  But to restrict the public form information on the internet goes against the very beliefs of the founders of our country.  Those sorts of regulations also go against the freedom of information act. Just because the information is online and not in print does not mean that citizens are not entitled to it.  Of course information such as classified government information and medical records would still be off limits but the general public has no access to that information anyway.  Some of the information that I have come across in my research has stated that if the internet were completely open then providers would have the ability to create a more harmful business platform.  Yet, in all the time the internet has been in existence there are no such cases or proof that that would happen. Even still, there are strong pushes from government agencies to enforce stronger regulations.  “President Obama’s call this week to regulate the Internet as a public utility is like pushing to replace the engine of a car that runs perfectly well” (Mandel). The idea of internet regulation would be much more tolerable if there were actual threats towards those who use it.  However there have been no such threats in its history.  To decide to regulate the internet now makes no sense because there has never been a problem. “Title II could turn out to be a tremendous drag politically for the Democratic party as well. Putting the government in charge of Internet service will just make the Democrats the scapegoat when anything goes wrong” (Mandel).

Another reason for the prevention of internet censorship is bias.  Political agendas play a large roll when it comes to passing laws and those agendas could get in the way of freedom.  In countries that already have internet regulations in place, such as North Korea they block any information that opposes their government leaving their people utterly in the dark as to what their government does. “Our travels have taken us to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other countries grappling with repression” (Schmidt) If our government had the power to block things on the internet they could block all sorts of political videos and articles that the public has a right to see.  “The internet can serve as a facilitator of the formation of online groups, which in turn will have an impact on democracy and governance” (Palfrey).  People could have their political opinions swayed without their knowledge that its happening.  Not only would regulations restrict politics but it would also restrict other important information as well. If there was information on the internet relating to matters that the government didn’t want people to know about they would have the ability to block that information without anyone knowing that it had happened.  

Continuing with the idea of oppression, the idea of having a non-free internet has the ability to pose as a threat.  If other countries or our country create laws restricting things from being put of the internet then if someone from another country put whatever was restricted up, they would be breaking the law in a country that they did not know about.  As Mrs. Keen stated in her article in the San Diego International Law Journal, “Although proposals in many democratic nations have been criticized and stagnated as a result of the stigma associated with censorship, it is apparent that new proposals will continue to surface through governments eager to curtail illegal activities otherwise capable of flourishing with impunity in the robust cyber realm.”  Now of course Renee Keen is pushing for democratic governments to sit together to work out a set of laws for the internet to prevent people from breaking laws in other countries (Keen). For example, “French citizens were able to access Nazi memorabilia on auction sites and information denying the Holocaust through the U.S. and French version of Yahoo!’s website even though French law prohibits this type of information” (White).  Though the publishing of information such as this is completely unethical and incorrect, people still have a right to free speech on the internet and without the slightest idea, whoever posted that information was breaking French laws.   However, if there were no regulations made then there would be no need for all of these discussions. 

The internet is like a large plot of land early in the morning after a snowstorm, it has yet to be explored fully and is largely untouched. “Given the intensity of the debates and the media attention they receive, it seems cyberlaw is not just the application of existing legal rules to cyberspace, but a new legal domain to be explored, analyzed and taught” (Mayer-Schönberger).  In order for there to be complete stability on the internet as a whole, there will have to be many more discussions about regulation.  The government cannot just slap together a bunch of laws from preexisting regulations and call it “net neutrality.” Of course there will always be people that will take advantage of new technology for illegal or immoral reasons. But the bulk of the population should not be punished ahead of time for something they will never do.  

The government already monitors much of the information on the internet already which is somewhat understandable but to then implement restrictions on top of that is ridiculous.  As stated before the only way for there to be working internet laws would be to have a world-wide meeting wherein elected officials decide on certain regulations to benefit the public.  However, due to political issues around the world that is never going to happen.  Countries such as China will continue to regulate their internet however they see fit. None of my research has supported the idea of regulation without first consulting the other powers throughout the world.  The internet is a worldwide source of information that has totally redefined the way that we teach, learn and act.  It has reconnected people who have not seen each other in decades and provided a source of brand new information and videos to people all over the world promoting a whole new form of research. 

On top of the reconnection of old friends and family and all sorts of information,  it has opened up a new world of entrepreneurship that allows for products to be sent all over the world without the need for worldwide franchises.  For those reasons it is odd to think that we could be throwing that all away in order to implement laws that will serve no purpose but to regulate the small percentage of people that would not use the internet for pure reasons.  However, one odd thing about the internet regulation debate is the fact that it is such a divided topic.  Historically republicans support small government and democrats are supportive of more freedom.  One would think that they would both be on the same side as democrats are openly protesting internet regulation.  Yet this issue is still a large debate topic.  Another thing that is interesting about this topic is the lack of media coverage.  There appears to be a lack of coverage on local and national news channels about internet regulation.  They cover the court cases where debates have gone back and forth between government agencies and internet providers, but not as much coverage exists form the perspective of the common citizen.  It would make more sense that the information flying around the world about internet regulation would be a much more published issue in order to acquire the opinions of the people who will be most affected by regulation.

In conclusion, there are many reasons that clearly support the idea that there should be a free internet.  From freedom of speech to freedom of information, a free internet is the best decision for our country and for the world.  The internet was created as a way to connect people.  Anyone with an internet connection could be connected with anyone else in the world.  According to internetstatstoday.com the earth population that uses the internet is expected to reach 75-85%.  To restrict the ability for information to spread all over the world to millions of people would be an absolute travesty. 
