Internet Content Regulation: Is a Global Community Standard a Fallacy or the Only Way Out?

One of the major factors that render it difficult to regulate content on the Internet is its borderless nature. The concept of 'contemporary community standards' was initially seen as unworkable in the Internet context. While the line of argument that if a publisher chooses to send its material into a particular community, it is the publisher's responsibility to abide by that community's standards was the accepted norm in the traditional forms of media, this was considered too harsh an approach to be applied for the Internet. There has been a shift in this rigid position over the years, which was reflected in the US Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU when the court held that reliance on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment. Protection of children is at the core of all arguments for regulating content, so there has been no dearth for analogies drawn to the considerable uniform standard already achieved in other areas such as child pornography. The article will examine the strength of different arguments in favour of establishing a global community standard for the Internet, and in particular will analyse this in the context of sovereignty of states, free expression rights, and the rights children already enjoy in the offline world but unfortunately not so much in the online world. It is argued that while a global standard is difficult to achieve, it is not impossible and there are factors that are worthy of consideration that should prompt us to look towards this direction.