4 ms·

Those are interesting precedents for the court to choose. Music and video download sites (and apps) that get blocked are presumably ones where the majority of

Those are interesting precedents for the court to choose. Music and video download sites (and apps) that get blocked are presumably ones where the majority of music and video downloaded are done so without the permission of the copyright holders. There is plenty of unlicensed music and video on YouTube, but it is a minority of the content available because of YouTube's filters, so the site is usually not blocked. In the other example, sanctioning a student for copyright infringement only affects the student that has been found guilty. I can't imagine a university disconnecting all students if just one student is found infringing copyright. So, while these precedents do show the technical and practical feasibility of the blocking, they are not examples of long standing practices where the not-protected speech of a minority is sufficient grounds for restricting the protected speech of a majority.

brudgers 8y ago
I can't imagine a university disconnecting all students if just one student is found infringing copyright. Napster.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  Yes, I mean I can't imagine a university disconnecting all students from all sites and services on the internet, just because one student is using Napster, for example. Blocking all students from using just Napster is much less controversial, given that a majority of files shared on Naptser were copyright infringing.
  - brudgers 8y ago
    I'm unclear on how the idea of blocking the all sites and services on the internet became part of this conversation.
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      The initial mention of "sanctioning students for copyright infringing downloads" suggested to me a policy of disallowing specific students from accessing the internet (using university equipment) if they have been caught using it to infringe copyright. This is similar to policies that some ISPs have announced or implemented: https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnect-over-a-dozen-pirates https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnec... Obviously disconnecting someone from the internet will partially prevent them from being able to exercise their First Amendment rights (not that ISP policies are necessarily covered by the First Amendment directly), but this is an example of a precedent where the person infringing copyright is having just their own rights or options limited. I'm contrasting this example with what is being proposed by the court, which is to restrict the First Amendment rights of all Yik-Yak users at the university (using university equipment), because of the actions of a minority of users.
      - brudgers 8y ago
        The court did not propose restricting anyone's First Amendment rights.
        dane-pgp 8y ago
        If the court has interpreted federal law as requiring a university to take an action which disproportionately restricts the protected speech of students, I think that there are First Amendment implications to such a ruling. That's just my non-expert opinion, but it seems that the Supreme Court took a similar view on proportionality in the case Packingham v. North Carolina. "Because the North Carolina law prohibited more speech than necessary to further the government’s significant interest, it violated the First Amendment." https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194
        brudgers 8y ago
        It did not require the university to do anything.

brudgers 8y ago

I can't imagine a university disconnecting all students if just one student is found infringing copyright. Napster.

dane-pgp 8y ago
Yes, I mean I can't imagine a university disconnecting all students from all sites and services on the internet, just because one student is using Napster, for example. Blocking all students from using just Napster is much less controversial, given that a majority of files shared on Naptser were copyright infringing.
- brudgers 8y ago
  I'm unclear on how the idea of blocking the all sites and services on the internet became part of this conversation.
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    The initial mention of "sanctioning students for copyright infringing downloads" suggested to me a policy of disallowing specific students from accessing the internet (using university equipment) if they have been caught using it to infringe copyright. This is similar to policies that some ISPs have announced or implemented: https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnect-over-a-dozen-pirates https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnec... Obviously disconnecting someone from the internet will partially prevent them from being able to exercise their First Amendment rights (not that ISP policies are necessarily covered by the First Amendment directly), but this is an example of a precedent where the person infringing copyright is having just their own rights or options limited. I'm contrasting this example with what is being proposed by the court, which is to restrict the First Amendment rights of all Yik-Yak users at the university (using university equipment), because of the actions of a minority of users.
    - brudgers 8y ago
      The court did not propose restricting anyone's First Amendment rights.
      - dane-pgp 8y ago
        If the court has interpreted federal law as requiring a university to take an action which disproportionately restricts the protected speech of students, I think that there are First Amendment implications to such a ruling. That's just my non-expert opinion, but it seems that the Supreme Court took a similar view on proportionality in the case Packingham v. North Carolina. "Because the North Carolina law prohibited more speech than necessary to further the government’s significant interest, it violated the First Amendment." https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194
        brudgers 8y ago
        It did not require the university to do anything.