Internet law and policy discussions worldwide are converging\u00a0on the idea that the private sector has a shared responsibility to\u00a0help safeguard free expression online. This article advances those\u00a0discussions and makes a significant contribution to the related\u00a0literature by synthesizing Internet governance concepts with those\u00a0of content management and with normative theories regarding the\u00a0social value of freedom of expression\u2014all to the end of better\u00a0understanding the implications of privately governing speech in a\u00a0networked society. First, this article examines the emergence of the\u00a0\u201cnetworked public sphere\u201d that has distributed the production of\u00a0expression and renegotiated power relationships among\u00a0individuals, state actors, and digital intermediaries. Second, to put\u00a0in concrete terms the idea that intermediaries are regularly\u00a0conducting \u201cprivate speech regulation,\u201d this article outlines the\u00a0chain of digital intermediaries that make up the Internet\u2019s basic\u00a0infrastructure, shedding new light on the chain by employing a\u00a0classification system developed originally to discuss different types\u00a0of intermediaries and how they facilitate speech. This article uses\u00a0the same classifications to discuss how the intermediaries can\u00a0constrain speech. It also places these discussions in the context of\u00a0affirmative First Amendment theory, which says the highest\u00a0purpose of freedom of expression is to maximize individual\u00a0participation in the public discourse. Finally, this article concludes\u00a0by commenting on the history of corporate power over the public\u00a0discourse and by calling on intermediaries to be transparent\u00a0regarding their content-governance practices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Internet law and policy discussions worldwide are converging\u00a0on the idea that the private sector has a shared responsibility to\u00a0help safeguard free expression online. This article advances those\u00a0discussions and makes a significant contribution to the related\u00a0literature by synthesizing Internet governance concepts with those\u00a0of content management and with normative theories regarding the\u00a0social value of freedom of expression\u2014all …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,74,75],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4723"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4723"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4723\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7156,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4723\/revisions\/7156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}