Die Arbeit befasst sich mit der Inhaltskontrolle im Internet und vergleicht die Rechtslage in Deutschland mit der in den Vereinigten Staaten. Es geht dabei insbesondere um die Frage, welche Inhalte in beiden Ländern strafrechtlich sanktioniert sind und inwieweit die grenzüberschreitende Natur des Internets die Unterschiede beider Rechtsordnungen relativiert. Verfassungsrechtliche Unterschiede zwischen Deutschland und den USA werden in diesem Zusammenhang ebenfalls beleuchtet. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit untersucht Fragen des Domain Name Systems und seiner Kontrolle durch ICANN. Die Arbeit wurde im Rahmen eines gemeinsamen Seminars der University of Miami School of Law und der Juristenfakultät der Universität Leipzig erstellt und ist daher in englischer Sprache verfasst.
Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION
B. MAIN PART
I. Control of Contents published on the Internet
1. Control of Contents in the United States
a) Attempts to Regulate the Internet through Legislation
aa) The “Communications Decency Act (CDA)
bb) The “Child Online Protection Act” (COPA)
cc) Regulation through State Law
b) Other Attempts to Regulate Contents on the Internet
aa) The “CyberTipline”
bb) The “Innocent Images Task Force”
cc) Regulation by the Provider
c) Summary
2. Control of Contents in Germany
a) Legislation
aa) Constitutional Background – Art. 5 GG
bb) The “Teledienstegesetz” (TDG) and the “Mediendienstestaatsvertrag” (MDStV)
(1) Legal Dispute over Legislative Competence
(2) The TDG
(3) The MDStV
(4) Delimitation Problems
cc) Penal Provisions according to the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)
(1) Art. 130 StGB – Agitation of the People
(2) Art. 131 StGB – Glorification of Violence
(3) Art. 184 StGB – Dissemination of Pornographic Writings
(4) Other Penal Provisions according to the StGB
(5) Applicability of the German Penal Code
dd) The “Gesetz über die Verbreitung jugendgefährdender Schriften und Medieninhalte” (GjSM)
ee) The “Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag” (JMStV)
ff) The New Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG)
b) Other Attempts to Regulate Contents on the Internet
aa) Jugendschutz.net
bb) „Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Dienstanbieter e.V.“ (FSM)
c) Summary
3. Conclusion
II. Control and Administration of Domains
1. Technical Aspects of the Domain Name System
2. Administration of Domain Names
3. Legitimacy of ICANN
a) Frontiers of the Technical Mandate
b) The Carter Coal Doctrine
c) Possibilities to Regain the Power
d) The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
e) Point of View of the European Union
f) The 5th Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding
4. Conclusion
C. FINAL THOUGHTS
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the legal challenges posed by the decentralized nature of the Internet, specifically focusing on the divergent approaches to content regulation and domain administration taken by the United States and Germany. The primary objective is to evaluate how each nation addresses the conflict between protecting democratic values—such as free speech and the protection of minors—and the practical difficulties of regulating a global, borderless medium.
- Legal frameworks for Internet content regulation in the U.S. vs. Germany.
- Constitutional tensions regarding free speech and protection of minors.
- The role and legitimacy of ICANN in domain name administration.
- Technical versus policy-making mandates in Internet governance.
- The potential for international standards versus national-level enforcement.
Excerpt from the Book
The Communications Decency Act (CDA)
The first attempt of the American legislator to react to the new possible threat was the Communications Decency Act. In February of 1996 Congress approved the Act and it was signed by President Clinton on February eighth of 1996. Even before that date the Act had already been a controversial matter.
It was the aim of the Communications Decency Act to protect the youth from the bad influence of pornographic and other offensive information by creating rules over punishable contents on the Internet. It prohibited the use of an interactive computer service to knowingly transmit, send, or display any “indecent” or “obscene” material to minors. One of the essential ideas of the CDA was the responsibility of the Internet providers for the behavior of their customers. The provider was obliged to suppress any indecent, or patently offensive content scattered over his pages by his customers. In case of violation of this obligation, the provider could be punished according to the CDA. The punishment ranged from a fine up to 250.000 $ up to two years of imprisonment. However, the CDA also allowed providers to insulate themselves from liability and invoke affirmative defenses. Since the Act did not distinguish between mass communicative services and individual communication, these rules could have also been applied to private e–mails.
Summary of Chapters
A. INTRODUCTION: This chapter highlights the emergence of the Internet as a crucial global resource and the legal challenges it presents, introducing the comparative focus on U.S. and German legislative approaches.
B. MAIN PART: This section provides a detailed analysis of how Germany and the U.S. regulate Internet content through various laws, constitutional considerations, and self-regulatory mechanisms, and examines the structure and legitimacy of ICANN in managing domain names.
C. FINAL THOUGHTS: This chapter concludes that the Internet requires flexible, international solutions, emphasizing that excessive national governmental control may be counterproductive to the medium's growth and democratic potential.
Keywords
Internet Law, Content Regulation, Free Speech, Germany, United States, ICANN, Domain Name System, Constitutional Law, Child Protection, Cybercrime, Jurisprudence, Internet Governance, Multimedia Law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper primarily explores and compares the legal approaches of Germany and the United States regarding Internet content regulation and the administrative role of ICANN in managing the domain name system.
What are the primary themes discussed in the paper?
The central themes include the constitutional protection of free speech, the challenges of regulating illegal or harmful content, the technical governance of the Internet, and the jurisdictional limitations of national laws in a borderless digital environment.
What is the ultimate research objective?
The objective is to analyze how these two nations balance regulatory frameworks with individual freedoms and to determine whether current national approaches are effective in an increasingly globalized and decentralized digital landscape.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The study employs a comparative legal analysis, examining constitutional provisions, legislative acts (such as the CDA or the German StGB), and judicial decisions from both U.S. and German courts to evaluate regulatory effectiveness.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main part covers the legislative attempts to regulate online content (such as the CDA, COPA, and German tele-service laws), the role of criminal law, technical and organizational aspects of domain name administration, and the legitimacy of ICANN.
Which keywords characterize the paper?
Key terms include Internet Law, Content Regulation, Free Speech, ICANN, Domain Name System, Constitutional Law, Child Protection, and Internet Governance.
How does the author evaluate the legitimacy of ICANN?
The author scrutinizes ICANN’s mandate, suggesting that while it operates on a non-governmental international level, its reliance on contracts with the U.S. Department of Commerce raises legitimate questions about whether it exercises public power without sufficient constitutional accountability.
Why does the paper consider the German system more restrictive than the American one?
The paper argues that the German legal framework, influenced by the protection of minors and specific penal provisions, permits more state-led intervention and content regulation, whereas the U.S. legal system prioritizes broader interpretations of the First Amendment, limiting government intrusion.
- Quote paper
- Daniel Schnabl (Author), 2003, U.S. - European Disagreement over Control of the Internet: Private Control of International Resources, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/15871
