文化透视英语教程4 unit7 The Laws of Cyberspace What Colleges Need to Know

The Laws of Cyberspace: What Colleges Need to Know
网络世界的法律：高校须知
Continued incidents of misuse of the Internet on college campuses suggest that we need to reexamine our existing approaches to the problem. For the most part, colleges and the universities (much like legislators) have addressed misuse 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 abuses of free speech and similar types of misconduct.
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 uses computers to compute anymore. Instead, we use them to communicate. Every day on our campuses, students and faculty and staff members use our computer systems and networks to disseminate far more texts and images than the New York Times, far more than NPR, and far more video than NBC. They are sending 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 campuses 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 users are engaged in the same kinds of communications as the traditional media are, it should come as no surprise that they also face the same long-standing legal issues and have the same well-settled legal responsibilities and liabilities in connection with those 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 use,‖ 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 consequences 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―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‖。

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 users typically view them through the lens of Internet folklore, which mistakenly conceives of cyberspace as a separate, law-free jurisdiction in which what is permissible is defined solely by the limits of users’ 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.
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, because it restricted far more speech than was necessary 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 release computer users from their responsibilities and liabilities under existing, generally applicable laws, such as those 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 these misconceptions has been that our computer users increasingly, if unknowingly, are engaging in communications that are libelous or obscene, that infringe copyrighted works, and that violate other laws. And because those communications flow through 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。

Most commonly, our response to such expectations has been to adopt new, computer-specific codes of conduct, often expressed 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 cause confusion about—other applicable laws and institutional policies. Moreover, they can encourage computer users to seek out and exploit the inevitable loopholes; they may infringe upon academic freedom by chilling legitimate expression; and, most important, they can actually increase institutions’
liabilities for our users’ communications, because they raise expectations about both our ability and our duty to police these communications.
最为常见的是，为了迎合社会寄予高校的期望，我们通常以一连串“禁令”的形式，来制定新的电脑使用规范。

然而，这些规范弊大于利。

他们常常照搬或抵触其他现有的法律和基本政策，以致我们有时会产生困惑。

另外，这些规范还会怂恿电脑用户利用一切机会钻法律空子。

它们还会通过屏蔽合法的表达，来限制学术自由。

最重要的是，由于这些规范提高了人们对我们管理这些通信能力和责任的期望，事实上这也就增加了高校对用户通信的管理职责。

Although the law is not completely settled, what is increasingly clear is that colleges and universities are not liable for an illegal communication solely because they own the system through which that communication flows. We will, of course, always be responsible for the communications of colleges and university employees on the Internet when they are acting within the scope of their employment. But with respect to the other, ―personal‖ communications on our system—including, in particular, most student communications—we are liable only when we know, or have good reason to know, of their illegal character but fail to stop them.
虽然这部法律还未成文，但人们越来越清楚一点：高校不该仅仅因为这些通讯信息，流经他们的系统就要承担非法通讯的责任。

毋庸置疑，我们对高校教职工于工作期间在网上的通讯交流，承担相应的责任，而我们系统上的私人通讯——其中，特别是大多数学生的通讯，我们只有在清楚或有正当理由追究学生的非法行为，却无法阻止的情况下，我们才需要对其负责。

Thus, for example, if a student posts a libelous message to our Usenet server and we never learn of it, the student alone will be liable if the message results in a lawsuit. But if we become aware of the existence of the libel on our system, by complaint or any other means, and do nothing about it, we will be liable, along with the student.
那么，我举个例子，如果一个学生贴了一张诽谤世界新闻组网络的帖子，但我们没有意识到它是具有诽谤性质的，那一旦这条帖子被诉讼，只有这个学生需要承担法律责任。

但是如果我们都意识到了这条帖子的诽谤性质，除了抱怨或其他一些牢骚，却对它无动于衷，那我们就和这个学生一样需要承担法律责任了。

The more that we specifically attempt to regulate the content of the personal communications on our system, the more likely it is that we will be expected to know what that content is, and the more likely it is that we will held liable for it when it is illegal, whether or not we actually know about the offense. In other words, if we act as if we were newspaper editors, imposing rigid, Internet – specific content guidelines or screening material before it is distributed publicly—or even if we just reserve the right to act in this way—we should not be surprised to find ourselves subjected to the same liabilities as newspaper are for their libelous or other illegal communications. If , however, we act more like a telephone company—that is, simply as the operator if a communications system, the content of which is determined by others—our liabilities for individuals’ personal communications should be reduced.
我们试图将个人言论具体规范到我们的体系中，越是这样做，我们就越有可能知道其
中的内容，也越有可能在其违法时承担责任，我们对这些内容违法知情与否不影响结果。

换言之，如果我们表现得像报纸编辑那样，在出版前强制规定严格的网络内容细则，或者屏蔽内容，甚至只要我们拥有这种权利，我们便不得不像报纸一样为他人的非法言论承担责任，这样了并不稀奇了。

但是，如果我们表现得更像电话公司——也就是，指作为一个交流系统的操作者，交流内容是由他人决定的——我们为他人交流承担的责任就减少了。

That is not to say that we should abandon all responsibility. We can and should continue to enforce existing, generally applicable laws and policies in the context of the Internet, just as we would in any context, when we learn that they have been violated. And, at least for now, the law also appears to require us to investigate in good faith whatever complaints about the legality of our computer users’ communications are brought to our attention and—if the complaints are justified—to remove those communications from our systems.
这不是说我们应该逃避所有的责任。

就像我们发现人们违反了其他方面的法律和政策一样，我们能够而且应该继续加强因特网现有可行的法律和政策。

而且，至少现在，法律似乎也要求我们诚心地调查任何引起我们注意的关于网络言论合法性的抱怨；如果这些抱怨是合理的就将这类言论从我们的系统中删除。

Such after – the – fact enforcement of general laws and policies does nit carry with in the legal risks associated with more active editorial control. But because it is impossible, as a practical matter, for us to keep track—let alone control the content—of all of the personal communications on our campuses systems, we should be careful not to make it appear that we are doing so by adopting content regulations specific to the Internet.
像这种一般的法律和政策，实施不基于事实的强行措施，不会使法律风险和更激进的社论控制联系起来。

作为一种实际情况，让我们与电脑系统里所有的通讯人都保持联络，那是不可能的，更不用说要控制内容交流。

我们应该小心，不至于使其显现我们正在采用这种特殊的网络法规。

A more productive approach to the problem of Internet misuse is one that, ironically, we often forget about: education. If, as our experience at the Ohio State University suggests, the primary problem is that our computer users do not understand their legal responsibilities online, rather than that they intend to act maliciously, surely the solution is to teach our users about the relevant legal issues.
然而，可笑的是，我们竟然忘了一个在解决网络误用问题上更行之有效的方法，那就是教育。

我们在俄亥俄州立大学的经验表明，网络误用的首要原因是网络用户不知道他们上网时要承担怎样的法律责任，而不是他们要恶意地去搞破坏。

因此，采用教育的方法可以让网络用户了解相关的法律问题，以避免产生更多的网络误用现象。

v
For the past years, we have been doing just that at Ohio State. Each quarter, we teach all entering freshmen the basic principles of the laws and university policies relevant to their Internet communications, including libel, copyright, and obscenity laws. These are the areas in which problems arise most frequently, and existing laws and policies already address them quite well. Our main message is : Communications that would be illegal or in violation of university policy when they occur ―off line‖ world are equally illegal or in violation of university policy when they occur online. We will soon be making our
educational materials available to the rest of our computer users as well.
在过去俄亥俄州的一年里，我们一直做的就只是这样。

新生刚入校，我们就会教他们有关网络的通讯法律和学校规章的基本原则，包括反对诽谤、保护著作权、反对淫秽的法律。

有些地区，这些问题经常会出现，现行的法律和政策已经很好地解决了这些问题。

我们主要说明的是：人们在―网下‖世界交流过程中出现违法或触犯学校规章的现象。

这些现象如果发生在网上，也同样违法或触犯大学规章。

我们很快会让其他的电脑用户也能享受到我们的教育材料。

Informal education efforts also can be extremely effective, particularly when dealing with specific complaints of misuse. Nothing drives home the point so well to those accused of misusing the Internet as a discussion of the concept of personal liability—for example, the prospect of as much as $100,000 in statutory damages for a single instance of copyright infringement, as well as a demonstration of how easy it is for a university administrator (or, say, the user’s parents and prospective employers) to find a potentially embarrassing communication by means of Web – based search engines such as Alta Vista or Deja News. It is only then that some students first understand the consequences of what they may have considered harmless fun.
即使是非正式的教育也可以非常有效，尤其是在处理滥用网络引起的特定控告时。

对那些被指控滥用网络的人来说，比起其他方法，商讨个人义务的概念最能增进他们对这个道理的认识。

例如，仅是侵犯版权构成法定损害罪就需要支付多达10万美元的赔偿金；而且，学校管理者（或用户的父母或其未来的老板）通过类似Alta Vista或Deja News的搜索引擎去找到一些潜在的触犯法律的言论，是多么容易啊。

只有到那时，学生才会初次意识到滥用网络的后果，之前他们还视它为无害的娱乐方式。

As part of the same effort, we are also revising our computer – use policy at Ohio State to make it more of an educational tool than a mere list of regulations. To the extent possible, the policy will simply incorporate—and remind our users of-—existing relevant laws, polices, and enforcement mechanisms, including our code of student conduct. The policy will include computer – specific rules only to the extent that computers pose unique issues not addressed by existing laws and policies—for example, the need to limit usage so as not to interfere with others\ use of the computer resources that are available.
作为这种尝试的一部分，我们在俄亥俄州立大学也在对网络使用规范进行一定的修改，使之成为一个更具有教育意义的工具而非一张只是列着条条框框的清单。

其中我们将尽可能地收录现行的法律、政策、执行方法以及学生行为准则，以此来提醒广大网络使用者。

这份规范还将包括一些针对网络使用中特有问题的具体规定，而这些规定恰恰是现行法律政策所没有的。

例如，限制网络使用权限，从而保证他人对可用资源的使用权不受侵害。

It is still too early to tell how effective our educational approach will be, but the results so far are promising. Our students have seemed eager to learn about ―Internet law‖ (if only because they want to know what they can get away with), and it appears that the number of serious complaints about Internet misuse on our campuses is dropping. If that reduction continues, not only should we see a corresponding reduction in potential legal claims against the university, but we will also be able to spend less time and effort on
complaints. It seems that with the Internet, as with most things, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
教育是否有效现在下结论还为时尚早，但目前所取得的成果却令人充满希望。

学生似乎非常热衷于学习―网络法‖（如果他们不是为了避开这些法律而学习的话），与此同时关于校园网络滥用的投诉案例也在减少。

如果下降势头继续，不但潜在的合法投诉会相应减少，在投诉上所花的时间和精力也会减少。

和大多数事物一样，网络也要遵循一分预防胜似十分治疗的原则。