Government Limitations on Regulation

A policy on Government Regulation cannot be made without very careful consideration of government limitations. Government is limited in all aspects of governing, but it becomes particularly controversial and difficult with the question of limitation over the Internet. There is a very fine line between what is allowed in terms of government regulation of the Internet, and the limitations that governments face.

Peng Hwa Ang cohesively summarizes that users of the Internet are not fans of regulation, but gives a  list of reasons why governments are worried about the growing power of the Internet.

The European Union paper on "Illegal and harmful content on the Internet" probably best sums up the fears of governments about the Internet:

• national security (instructions on bomb-making, illegal drug production, terrorist activities);
• protection of minors (abusive forms of marketing, violence, pornography);
• protection of human dignity (incitement to racial hatred or racial discrimination);
• economic security (fraud, instructions on pirating credit cards);
• information security (malicious hacking);
• protection of privacy (unauthorized communication of personal data, electronic harassment);
• protection of reputation (libel, unlawful comparative advertising);intellectual property (unauthorized distron of copyrighted works, software or music) 

 

 There are indeed regulations in place in the US and other countries, mostly because of the concerns listed above. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is in charge of this regulation of the Internet, but the FCC faces many limitations. One of the most obvious forms of limitations comes from the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows for the freedom of speech, and this hinders the government from taking full control of regulations of the Internet. This freedom of speech clause seems to be very simple, but it is not. An article from Pareto Logic (sited earlier in this post), suggests another prudent point about the First Amendment and net neutrality.

"A major issue facing the Internet is net neutrality. Sometimes referred to as the "First Amendment of the Amendment," it is the principle that access to Internet content is not stopped, slowed down, or sped up based on content, source or destination". 

There are questions of whether the government is over stepping its boundaries on a daily basis, and Internet regulation is included in these questions. Many people would argue that the FCC is attempting to take away an essential right and the Internet would not exist if they had their way. Governments are in place to protect citizens from potential threats and harm, but they need to keep a healthy balance with their presence.

 

Another major limitation that somewhat prohibits full government regulation of the Internet, is the fact that the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon. I discussed this briefly in the blog post, "Government Regulation: Good or Bad". Everyone around the world uses the Internet for a variety of reasons and it becomes hard for, say the US, to implement laws that prohibit users from using the Internet to do business, or have communications with another country. An example of this is identity theft, or credit card theft. Many governments would approve a regulation that would decrease the amount of theft on the Internet, but it cannot be done because that would take away the right to willfully purchase items over the Internet from other countries. Each country is trying to protect their citizens from malware and what they deem 'inappropriate content', and this is a process that will continue as long as the Internet is present.

 

It is starting to become more and more evident that the question of Government Regulation does not, and will never have a clear cut answer. The topic of regulation always coincides with government limitations; and we have only just grazed the surface of this issue.