Advertisement

Critical Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 85–100 | Cite as

Emerging styles of social control on the internet: Justice denied

  • Chris Atchison
Essays

Abstract

The rapid growth of the Internet during the past 10 years has resulted in many disagreements over who should have the power to make and enforce the rules of on-line content and conduct and what form, such rules and enforcement should take— informal or formal. The extremes at which each of these potentially complementary systems of social control are currently practiced have contributed to an atmosphere of inconsistency, contradiction, uncertainty, and excessive discretion amongst state agencies, Internet service providers, system operators, and Internet users. If the Internet is to serve as a major communication, entertainment, and information medium in the 21st Century, a system is needed that integrates the strengths of both informal and formal systems of control while respecting the social, intellectual, and political freedom of the Internet community.

Keywords

Social Control Internet Service Provider Formal Level Informal Social Control Critical Criminology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abemathy, J. 1993. ‘Casting the Intermet: A New Tool for Electronic Newsgathering’,Columbia Journalism Review. 31 (January/February): 56Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, J. 1996. ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,’The Humanist. 56 (May/June): 18–19Google Scholar
  3. Batty, M. and B. Barr. 1994. ‘Exploring and Mapping Cyberspace,’Futures. 26 (7): 699–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, M. P. 1984. ‘Social Control From Below,’ Pp. 303–339 in Black, D. (ed.)Toward a General Theory of Social Control: Vol 1. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, M.P. 1984. ‘Social Control in Suburbia.’ Pp. 79–101 in Black, D (ed.)Toward a General Theory of Social Control Vol.2. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson, M. 1989. ‘The Influence of Class Position on the Formal and Informal Sanctioning of White-Collar Offenders,The Sociological Quarterly. 30 (3): 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, D. 1973. ‘The Mobilization of the Law,’The Journal of Legal Studies, (2): 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, D. 1984.Toward a General Theory of Social Control (Vol.1). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, D. 1984.Toward a General Theory of Social Control (Vol.2). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Carney, D. 1996. ‘House Panel Struggles to Apply Copyright Law to Cyberspace,’Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 54 (May): 1387–1389.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, S. 1989. ‘The Critical Discourse on “Social Control”: Notes on the Concepts as Hammer,’International Journal of the Sociology of Law. 17: 347–357Google Scholar
  12. Cable News Network. 1997a. ‘Janet Reno, Attorey General: OfThe United States, et Al. v. American Civil Liberties Union, Et Al.’ [http://cnn.com/US/9703/cda.scotus/transcript.html]. March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  13. Cable News Network 1997b. ‘What is the Communications Decency Act?’ [http://cnn.com/US/9703/cda.scotus/what.is.cda/]. March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  14. Cable News Network. 1997c. ‘Case History: From News Report to Law: The CDA's Route to the Supreme Court.’ [http://cnn.com/US/9703/cda.scotus/case.history/]. March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  15. Cable News Network. 1997d. ‘The Case For the Communications Decency Act.’ [http://cnn.com/US/9703/cda.scotus/for/index.html] March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  16. Cable News Network 1997e. ‘The Case Against the Communications Decency Act, Brave New Medium: Opponents Say CDA Infringes on Free Speech.’ [http://cnn.com/US/9703/cda.scotus/against.html]. March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  17. Cable News Network. 1996. ‘Supreme Court to Consider Internet Indeceny Law’ [http://www pointcast.com]. Web posted at 10⩺30 p.m. EST December 6, 1996Google Scholar
  18. Cable News Network. 1996. ‘Judges Rule Against Internet Indecency Law: They Support Free Speech in Cyberspace’ [http://www pointcast.com]. Web posted at 2∶00 p.m. EST June 12, 1996Google Scholar
  19. Cable News Network. 1996. ‘What's Indecent on the Internet, and Who Should Decide? On-line Debate Rages As Lawsuit Goes to Court.’ [http://www.pointcast.com]. Web posted at, 1∶00 p.m. EST March 21, 1996Google Scholar
  20. Cable News Network Financial Network. ‘Judge Blocks CDA Enforcement Ruling Confuses Issue of “Indecent” Internet Content’. [http://www.pointcast.com]. Web posted at 3∶55 p.m. EST February 16, 1996Google Scholar
  21. Cable News Network Financial Network. 1996. ‘ACLU Sues to Block New Telecom Law.’ [http://www.pointcast.com]. Web posted at 2∶35 p.m. EST February 8, 1996Google Scholar
  22. Cable News Network. 1996. ‘Congress Passes Landmark Telecom Overhaul Bill: Provisions Include Restrictions on Intemet Smut.’ [http://www.pointcast.com]. Web posted at 9∶45 p.m. EST February 1, 1996Google Scholar
  23. Corrado, R. 1992. ‘Introduction,’ Pp. 1–21 in R. Corrado, N. Bala, R. Linden and M. Le Blanc (eds.)Juvenile Justice in Canada: A Theoretical and Analytical Assessment: Toronto: ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
  24. Craddock, A. 1997. ‘The Battle for Net Freedom Is Not Over.’ [http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/2649 html] Web posted at 5∶00 a.m. PST March 19, 1997Google Scholar
  25. Dancer. I. 1997. ‘#mIRC Customs: A Guide to IRC Netiquette.’ [http://mirc.stealth.net/mircrulz.htm] Web posted Thursday, August 29, 1997Google Scholar
  26. Danziger, J. 1985. ‘Social Science and the Social Impacts of Computer Technology,’Social Science Quarterly, 66 (March) 3–21Google Scholar
  27. Davis, L., D. Mcshane, and F. Williams, 1995. ‘Controlling Computer Access to Pornography: Special Conditions for Sex Offenders,’Federal Probation, 59 (2): 43–48Google Scholar
  28. Dority, B. 1996. ‘Ratings and the V-Chip,’The Humanist. 56 (May/June): 16–19Google Scholar
  29. Dutton, W. 1996. ‘Network Rules of Order: Regulating Speech in Public Electronic Fora,’Media, Culture, and Society, 18: 269–290Google Scholar
  30. Farrell, J. 1997. ‘High Court Gets Internet Indencency Case.’ [http://www.boston.com/globe/glohome.html]. March 20, 1997Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. 1980.Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. (Ed. and Trans.) C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  32. Foster, J. 1995. ‘Informal Social Control and Community Crime Prevention,’British Journal of Criminology. 35 (4) Autumn: 563–583Google Scholar
  33. Fraser, G. 1997. ‘Top U.S. court defends Internet freedom,’The Globe and Mail. Friday, June 27, page A1Google Scholar
  34. Frauenfelder, M. 1997, ‘S.P.(U.T.U.)M. Shames Spammer Into a Rage’. [http://www.wired.com/news/culture/story/2749.html]. Web posted at 5∶00 a.m. PST March 25, 1997Google Scholar
  35. Freedman, B. 1996. ‘The Law of Cyberspace,’The Computer Paper. 9 (8) August: 79Google Scholar
  36. Freiberg, A. 1987. ‘Reconceptualizing Sanctions,’Criminology. 25 (2): 223–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fuller, L.L. 1985. ‘The Morality of Law,’ Pp. PAGES in L. Lloyd and M. D. A. Freeman (eds.)Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence. (5th) London: Stevens and SonsGoogle Scholar
  38. Glasser, P 1995. ‘Lover, Sex, and Power on the Cyber Frontier,’The North American Review, (September/October): 44–49Google Scholar
  39. Geis, G. 1972. ‘Jeremy Bentham,’ Pp. 51–69 in H. Mannheim (ed.)Pioneers in Criminology. (2nd) New Jersey: Patterson SmithGoogle Scholar
  40. Gray, M. 1996. ‘Measuring the Growth of the Web: June 1993 to June 1995.’ [http://www netget.com/info/growth.html] June 1996Google Scholar
  41. Griffiths, J. 1984. ‘The Division of Labor in Social Control’ Pp. 37–67 in D. Black (ed.)Toward a General Theory of Social Control: Vol.1. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Harmon, A. 1997. ‘Internet Tests Boundaries of Decency- and Nations,’ [http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUISNESS/CDA/]. Wednesday, March, 19, 1997Google Scholar
  43. Healey, J. 1995. ‘Cashing Over Obscenity in Cyberspace,’Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. (July 8): 1995Google Scholar
  44. Harris, C. 1996.An Internet Education: A Guide to Doing Research on the Internet. New York: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  45. Hellwege, J. 1996. ‘Internet Regulation: Lawmakers Try to Tame Cyberspace,’Trial. 32 (January): 11–14Google Scholar
  46. Human Rights Watch. 1996. ‘Silencing the Net.’ [http://www..netfreedom org.au/anoid/stncite.htm]. May 1996Google Scholar
  47. Kerby, M. 1997 ‘Censoring the Internet,’CAUT Bulletin ACPPU. 9 (February): PAGESGoogle Scholar
  48. Kesterton, M. 1997. ‘Where The Nets Are.’ [http://www.globeandmail.con/docs/news/19970328/Social Studies/FASS28.html]. Friday, March 28, 1997Google Scholar
  49. Koch, K. 1984. ‘Liability and Social Structure,’ pp. 95–126 in Black, D. (ed.)Toward a General Theory of Social Control: Vol.1. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Mannheim, H. 1972.Pioneers in Criminology. (2nd) New Jersey: Patterson SmithGoogle Scholar
  51. Mannheim, H. 1972.Pioneers in Criminology. (2nd) New Jersey: Patterson SmithGoogle Scholar
  52. Matthews, R. 1988. ‘Replacing Informal Justice,’ Pp. 1–24 in R. Mathews (ed.),Informal Justice? London: SageGoogle Scholar
  53. Mendels, P. 1997. ‘To Stop Using “Planned Parenthood” U.S. Judge Orders Anti-Abortion Site.’ [http://www pointcast.com.] March 21, 1997Google Scholar
  54. MIT. 1998. [ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.announce.newusers] Post updated January 15, 1998Google Scholar
  55. Morrill, C. and C. McKee. 1993. ‘Institutional Isomorphism and Informal Social Control:Evidence From a Community Mediation Center,’Social Problems. 40 (4) November. 445–463Google Scholar
  56. Monachesi E. 1973. ‘Cesare Beccaria,’ Pp. 36–51 in H. Mannheim (ed.)Pioneers in Criminology. (2nd) New Jersey: Patterson SmithGoogle Scholar
  57. Nader, L. 1984. ‘From Disputing to Complaining,’ Pp. 71–91 in Black, D. (ed.)Toward a General Theory of Social Control: Vol.1. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  58. No Author. 1995a. ‘The Accidental Superhighway: A Survey of the Internet,’The Economist. 336 (July 1): survey 1-18Google Scholar
  59. No Author. 1995b. ‘Censorship in Cyberspace,’The Economist. 331 (April 8): 16–17Google Scholar
  60. OzEmail Ltd. 1997. ‘OzEmail Beginners Guide.’ [http://www.ozemail.com.au/ozemail/beginnersguide/netiquette/index.htm] Web posted January 10, 1997Google Scholar
  61. Rinaldi, A. 1996. ‘The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette.’ [http://www.fau.edu/rinaldi/net/web.html] Web Posted May 1, 1996Google Scholar
  62. Reuters Ltd. 1997. ‘Austria Goes Off-Line as Smut War Heats Up.’ [Http://wwwReuters.con.] Web posted at 10∶51 AM EST Tuesday March 25, 1997Google Scholar
  63. Rosenberg, R. 1993. ‘Free Speech, Pornography, Sexual Harassment, and Electronic Networks,’The Information Society. 9: 285–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shea, V. 1996.Netiquette. Bookport Online Edition. San Francisco: Albion Books [http://www.albion.com/IX0963702513.html]Google Scholar
  65. Tschabitscher, H. 1997. ‘Netiquette-Email.’ [http://email.miningo.com/library/weekly/aa051797.htm] Web posted on May 17, 1997Google Scholar
  66. TWIBP (This Week in Bible Prophecy). 1995. ‘Canada Seeks International Tready to Control Internet.’ [http://www.twibp.com/archives/13/1.html]. May, 1995Google Scholar
  67. Vesely, R. 1997. ‘Austrian ISPs Go Dark to Protest Cop Raid.’ [http://www.wired.com/newsi politics/story/2741.html]. Web posted at 2∶50 p.m. PST March 25, 1997Google Scholar
  68. Vesely, 1997. ‘Vietnam Net Crackdown Hint at Telecom Struggle.’ [http://www.wired.com/ news/politics/story/2716.html]. Web posted at 2∶53 p.m. PST at March 21, 1997Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, J., and G. Kelling. 1982. ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.’Atlantic Monthly. (March): 29–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Division on Critical Criminology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Atchison
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations