The Laws of Cyberspace: What Colleges Need to Know
网络世界的法律：高校须知
Continued incidents of misu of the Internet on college campus suggest that we need to reexamine our existing approaches to the problem. For the most part, colleges and the universities (much like legislators) have addresd misu of the Internet as though it were an entirely new issue. In reality, however, it is simply a new form of an old problem: how to handle abus of free speech and similar types of misconduct.悬疑小说排行榜前十名
大学校园里滥用互联网的现象层出不穷，这暗示我们必须重新审视一下现行的解决滥用网络问题的方法。大多数情况下，学院和大学（还有立法者）把滥用网络作为一个新问题来讨论。其实这只是换汤不换药的事：如何处理言论自由权的滥用和类似的不当行为。
Hardly anyone us computers to compute anymore. Instead, we u them to communicate. Every day on our campus, students and faculty and staff members u our computer systems and networks to disminate far more texts and images than the New Yo
rk Times, far more than NPR, and far more video than NBC. They are nding far more electronic mail than paper mail and engaging in far more electronic discussions than telephone calls. And their electronic messages have a far wider audience than any of the more traditional forms of communications. In effect, people on our campus are acting as international publishers and broadcasters.
如今，几乎没有人用计算机来计算，取而代之的是，我们用它来沟通交流。每天在校园里，学生、教师、员工都在使用电脑和网络。他们传播的文字和图片信息远远多于纽约时报，分享的视频多于幽默的笑话NPR（美国国家公共电台）、NPC（美国全国广播公司），发送的电子邮件多于纸质的信，参与的网上交流也多于电话联系。他们传播的网络讯息比任何一种传统的沟通方式更受欢迎。事实上，身处校园的我们正扮演着国际出版商和广播人员的角色。
If computer urs are engaged in the same kinds of communications as the traditional media are, it should come as no surpri that they also face the same long-standing legal issues and have the same well-ttled legal responsibilities and liabilities in connection wi
电视剧爱情片
th tho communications that traditional media or broadcasters. At best, only a handful of them are aware of the liable, copyright, obscenity, and other laws applicable to their activities on the Internet – let alone the finer points of the “actual malice” doctrine, the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on the four factors to be considered in analyzing a claim of “fair u,” or the scope of “local community standards” in the various jurisdictions through which their racier communications mat pass. They also know virtually, nothing about the potential legal conquences of violating the applicable laws.
如果计算机用户之间采用与传统媒体同一的通信交流，那么他们必然也需与传统传媒一样，面对长期存在的法律问题，承担与通信技术相关的法律责任和义务。然而，他们中很少有人意识到，他们自己就是信息的发布者和传播者。而这些人中，最多也只有一小部分人知道诽谤罪，版权，淫秽信息以及其他网络行为准据法，更不用说了解像“56式半自动步枪实际恶意”条例这样的细节，上议院对用来分析“公平使用”权的四个标准的最新声明，或者是他们之间较为特殊的交流方式符合司法权所采取的“当地的标准怎么设置主页”。更甚一步，他们对违背准据法后带来的潜在法律后果一无所知。
Instead, to the extent that they consider legal issues at all, computer urs typically view them through the lens of Internet folklore, which mistakenly conceives of cyberspace as a parate, law-free jurisdiction in which what is permissible is defined solely by the limits of urs’ technical capabilities. Unfortunately, that view recently has been reinforced by the widespread misconception that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Communications Decency Act outlawed all regulation on the Net.曼佗罗
相反，取而代之地是，他们根本没有考虑法律问题。计算机使用者透过网络民俗学的视角，错误地把网络世界看作是独立的，不受法律支配的管辖领域，在这里，只要计算机能力容许，就可以为所欲为。更为糟糕的是，美国联邦（州）最高法院最近取消了《网络通讯管制法案》，宣告该法案所有关于网络的管制均不合法，该误解的流传更是证实了这一看法。
In fact, while that decision was indeed momentous, all that it really held was that government regulation of the Internet must be consistent with First Amendment principles, and that the C.D.A. was not, becau it restricted far more speech than was n
ecessary or appropriate to deal with the problem of minors’ access to “indecency.” The Supreme Court did not hold that the Internet could not be regulated at all—indeed, it expressly recognized that a more “narrowly tailored” certainly did not relea computer urs from their responsibilities and liabilities under existing, generally applicable laws, such as tho governing libel, copyright, and obscenity.
事实上，虽然这一决定确实重大，然而其中的真正含义是：政府对网络的管理必须与第一修正案中的条例相一致。因为传播净化法案过度限制言论自由，不恰当处理未成年人网络使用不端正行为，所以不符合第一修正案。最高法院并不认为网络是无法管理的。相反，它明确指出，解决这一问题更彻底的方法应当合乎宪法。除此之外，最高法院当然不赞成在现有的广泛适用的法律下，计算机用户不必承担责任和义务诸如限制诽谤，保护版权以及禁止淫秽传播。
The result of the misconceptions has been that our computer urs increasingly, if unknowingly, are engaging in communications that are libelous or obscene, that infringe copyrighted works, and that violate other laws. And becau tho communications flow t
hrough and reside in our computer systems, colleges and universities are being asked and expected to do something about them.
这些误解导致越来越多的计算机用户在不知情的情况下，沉溺于网络通讯里。而这其中，往往充斥着诽谤和淫秽，文字侵权和违法行为。因为这些通讯信息流经并侵入我们的电脑系统，所以人们要求、期望高校能采取措施应对。
送礼送什么合适
Most commonly, our respon to such expectations has been to adopt new, computer-specific codes of conduct, often expresd in long lists of “thou shalt not.” Such codes, however, can do more harm than good: They usually duplicate or conflict with—and therefore sometimes cau confusion about—other applicable laws and institutional policies. Moreover, they can encourage computer urs to ek out and exploit the inevitable loopholes; they may infringe upon academic freedom by chilling legitimate expression; and, most important, they can actually increa institutions’ liabilities for our urs’ communications, becau they rai expectations about both our ability and our duty to police the communications.
