The real basis for First Amendment values isn’t the false premise that information and ideas have no real impact but the belief that information and ideas are too important to entrust any government censor or overseer. If we keep that in mind, and only if we keep that in mind, we will be able to see through the argument that, in the Information Age, free speech is a luxury we can no longer afford. That argument becomes especially tempting in the context of cyberspace, where sequences of zeroes and ones may become virtual life-forms … Speech is protected, but deliberately and fatally yelling ‘Boo!’ at a cardiac patient may still be prosecuted as murder … The lesson, in short, is that constitutional principles are subtle enough to bend to such concerns; they needn’t be broken or tossed out.
Predictor: Tribe, Laurence H.
Prediction, in context:The 1997 book “Computers, Ethics, and Society,” edited by M. David Ermann, Mary B. Williams and Michele S. Shauf, carries a reprint of the Sept./Oct. 1991 The Humanist magazine article “The Constitution in Cyberspace” by Laurence H. Tribe. Tribe, a Constitutional scholar, suggests a Constitutional amendment that would clarify the relationship between new technologies and fundamental constitutional protections. He writes: ”The real basis for First Amendment values isn’t the false premise that information and ideas have no real impact but the belief that information and ideas are too important to entrust any government censor or overseer. If we keep that in mind, and only if we keep that in mind, we will be able to see through the argument that, in the Information Age, free speech is a luxury we can no longer afford. That argument becomes especially tempting in the context of cyberspace, where sequences of zeroes and ones may become virtual life-forms. Computer ‘viruses’ roam the information nets, attaching themselves to various programs and screwing up computer facilities. Creation of a computer virus involves writing a program; the program then replicates itself and mutates. The electronic code involved is very much like DNA. If information content is ‘speech,’ and if the First Amendment is to apply in cyberspace, then must not these viruses be ‘speech’ – and must not their writing and dissemination be constitutionally protected? To avoid that nightmarish outcome, must we say that the First Amendment is inapplicable to cyberspace? The answer is no. Speech is protected, but deliberately and fatally yelling ‘Boo!’ at a cardiac patient may still be prosecuted as murder … The lesson, in short, is that constitutional principles are subtle enough to bend to such concerns; they needn’t be broken or tossed out.”
Date of prediction: January 1, 1991
Topic of prediction: Controversial Issues
Subtopic: Censorship/Free Speech
Name of publication: Computers, Ethics, and Society (book)
Title, headline, chapter name: The Constitution in Cyberspace
Quote Type: Direct quote
Page number or URL of document at time of study:
Pages 214, 215
This data was logged into the Elon/Pew Predictions Database by: Guarino, Jennifer Anne