Write a 5 page research paper on if the internet should be regulated.

I’m studying for my Communications class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?


Summer 2020 Research/Writing Assignment

Due: Written Portion

Recent events around the world have caused many, both in government and in the private sphere, to conclude that it is high time for the internet to be regulated.

Indeed, worldwide, all other forms of communication are, or have been regulated in some form or another, the exception being newspapers in the United States, on account of how our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Is it the Internet’s time to join this list?

The European Union is well under way to making this a fait accompli. Ditto for the Chinese and other countries where governments tightly control what their citizens may read. But so far, at least, not in the United States, although California, as of January, is the first American state to attempt to regulate the internet in some form when it’s recently enacted legislation in that regard became law.

Some would say that the Internet and the internet giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon, etc., cannot be regulated, sheltering them within the protection afforded by the First Amendment. Problem is, the First Amendment only protects “the press” from government regulation. Are the mega-corporations that rely on the internet for their existence “the press,” or are they something completely different? Or at least, different enough that their regulation would be constitutionally permissible (e.g., broadcasting, which has long been regulated)? For their part, the largest of the Internet companies have spent most of their existence claiming that they were not the press, ignoring the fact that most of their users, at least, treated them and what they found on them, as if they were.

Moreover, there is the problem of the sheer size and influence that some of the internet giants cast over our daily lives (and over the politicians to whose campaigns they regularly contribute). How many of you are on, or get your news mainly from Facebook? Or regularly use a browser other than Google? (Remember: The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment exists, in part, to insure “a clash of many voices” or “a marketplace of ideas.” Can you have a marketplace without having multiple choices from which to buy, or a clash of many voices without there being “many”?).

And if you do not believe that their sheer size alone is enough to justify regulation of the internet giants, at least not with the First Amendment as an impediment to doing so, how about regulation under our antitrust laws?

They’ve been used before to rein in the power of industrial behemoths whose size and influence failed to provide the consumer real market choice, or protection from their predatory practices. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s attack on John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company more than a hundred years ago, to the breakup of the so-called Hollywood “studio system” in the mid-20th Century, to the forced, albeit short term, dismantling of AT&T at the end of the last century, previous governments have not been bashful about stepping in to force giant corporations to disgorge some of their assets to enhance marketplace competition. Even NBC, once upon a time, was forced by the federal government to part with one of its two owned radio networks because the feds claimed that allowing continued ownership of both was anticompetitive and bad for the public. Why not use these laws—the Sherman Act and/or the Clayton Act, among others—to reduce the power of the internet giants? Or simply, use existing criminal laws to punish the titans who led these enterprises on past criminal adventures, and/or even violations of our civil laws, such as for the numerous invasions of privacy and breaches of contract they have been responsible for? (Can you imagine, for instance, Mark Zuckerberg in a black and white striped jail house uniform? Might even be an improvement over his regularly worn tatty T-shirts, right?)

In no more than five nor less than four pages (exclusive of footnotes and bibliography, both of which are required) agree or disagree with the idea of regulating the internet, and/or the entities that operate on it. In doing so, you must deal with the applicable law, including the Constitution, or, if you wish to propose new law(s) to deal with the issue, you must explain how your proposals would not run afoul of existing legal precedents.


Answering this question is not essay as it seems. It will require you to research or burn your brain power, write your findings down, edit, proofread severally, and submit unsure of the grade you will get. Essay96.com assignment writers are offering to take care of that. Order your assignment now, relax, submit, and enjoy excellent grades. We guarantee you 100% original answers, timely delivery, and some free products.



Posted in Uncategorized