Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory Neil Weinstock Netanelt TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...............................................................................................398 I. Liberal Democracy ............................................................................. 407 II. The Cyberian Claim of Liberal Perfection ......................................... 410 A. Cyberpopulism ............................................................................ 412 1. The Cyberpopulist Claim ...................................................... 412 2. Critique of the Cyberpopulist Claim .................................... 415 a. The Populist Mischaracterization ................................... 415 b. Popular Will ................................................................... 416 i. Plebiscites Inadequately Reflect Popular W ill .......................................................................... 417 ii. Representative Government May Better Reflect Popular Will ................................................ 419 c. Tyranny of the Majority ................................................ 421 i. Unanimous Consent ................................................ 422 ii. Ease of Exit .............................................................. 425 d. Summary (and Caveat) ................................................... 427 B. Cybersyndicalism ........................................................................ 427 1. The Cybersyndicalist Claim ................................................ 427 2. Critique of the Cybersyndicalist Claim ................................ 429 C. Cyberanarchism ........................................................................... 433 1. The Cyberanarchist Claim .................................................... 433 2. Critique of the Cyberanarchist Claim ................................... 435 Copyright © 2000 Neil Weinstock Netanel. t Arnold, White & Durkee Centennial Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law. Please send comments to: [email protected]. My thanks to the following persons, whose comments on earlier drafts of this Article and related subject matter greatly contributed to its development: Lynn Baker, Niva Elkin-Koren, Mark Lemley, Eben Moglen, David Post, Ran Saban, Eli Salzberger, Paul Schwartz, Steve Ratner, Charlie Silver, Eugene Volokh, and Jonathan Weinberg. My thanks also to Alisa Ullian for her research assistance, and to participants at the University of Haifa and Hebrew University law faculty colloquia and the Tel-Aviv University Faculty of Law Conference on Law, Technology, and Information, at which I presented parts of this Article. 396 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 88:395 a. Individual Autonomy (as Consumer Sovereignty) in Cyberspace ................................................................. 435 i. M eaningful Choice ................................................... 435 ii. M obility ................................................................... 439 b. Cyberanarchy Versus Liberal Democracy ...................... 443 i. Inconsistencies Between Markets and Liberal Dem ocracy ............................................................... 443 ii. Illiberal Externalities ................................................ 444 D . Sum m ary ..................................................................................... 446 III. The Cyberian Claim of Community Autonomy ................................ 446 IV . State Regulation ................................................................................. 452 A . Status Discrim ination .................................................................. 453 B. Content Discrim ination ............................................................... 460 1. The Promotion of Expressive Diversity ................................ 461 2. Filtering ................................................................................. 465 3. Self-Help Censorship ............................................................ 470 C. The Appropriation of Personal Information ................................ 473 D . Unequal Access ........................................................................... 480 V . W hy the State? .................................................. ................................. 483 VI. The Cyberians' International Claims ................................................. 489 A . Foreign Governm ent Interference ............................................... 489 B. International Organizations ......................................................... 496 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 497 20001 CYBERSPACE SELF-GOVERNANCE Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory Neil Weinstock Netanel The idea that cyberspace should be presumptively self-governing has resounded in thoughtful scholarshipand has coloredfederal rhetoric and policy regarding electronic commerce. In this Article, ProfessorNetanel critiques a central prong of the argument for cyberspace self- governance: The claim that a self-governing cyberspace, which its advo- cates see as a shining example of "bottom-up private ordering," would more fully realize liberal democratic ideals than does nation-state repre- sentative democracy. Although granting that this claim poses an intriguing challenge to traditional liberal democratic theory, Professor Netanel argues that it ultimately fails. He contends, indeed, that an untrammeled cyberspace would ultimately prove inimical to the ideals of liberal democ- racy. It would free majorities to trample upon minorities and serve as a breeding ground for invidious status discrimination, narrowcastingand mainstreaming content selection, systematic invasions of privacy, and gross inequalities in the distribution of basic requisitesfor citizenship in the information age. Accordingly, ProfessorNetanel concludes, selective government regulation of cyberspace is warranted to protect and promote liberal democratic ideals. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions. -John Perry Barlow, A Declarationof the Independence of Cyberspace' 1. John Perry Barlow, A Declarationof the Independence of Cyberspace (visited Dec. 25, 1999) <http://www.eff.orgt-barlow/Declaration-Final.html>. CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 88:395 INTRODUCTION John Perry Barlow's impassioned call for cyberspace independence cannot be dismissed as the mere theatrical whimsy of a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead. The idea that cyberspace should be presumptively self-governing has resounded in thoughtful scholarship.2 It has also colored federal policy regarding electronic commerce. A 1997 Presidential Directive, which heralded the dramatic withdrawal of the United States government from significant portions of Internet administration,3 instructs federal agencies to "recognize the unique qualities of the Internet, including its decentralized nature and its tradition of bottom-up govern- ance."4 2. See, e.g., David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STAN. L. REv. 1367, 1367 (1996) [hereinafter Johnson & Post, Law and Borders]; David G. Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, 1995 J. ONLINE L. art. 3 (visited Sept. 10, 1998) <http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/joI/post.html> [hereinafter Post, Anarchy]; David Post & David R. Johnson, The New 'Civic Virtue' of the Internet,in THE EMERGING INTERNET 23 (Institute for Information Studies 1998), available at (visited Sept. 28, 1998) <http://www.cli.org/paper4.htm> [hereinafter Post & Johnson, Civic Virtue]. Commentators who have made similar arguments include Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, No Regulation, Government Regulation, or Self-Regulation: Social Enforcement or Social Contracting for Governance in Cyberspace, 6 CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 475 (1997); I. Trotter Hardy, The ProperLegal Regime for "Cyberspace," 55 U. PITT. L. REv. 993 (1994) (contending that in the absence of some compelling social reason to the contrary, rules of conduct in cyberspace should be governed by self-help, custom, and contract of cyberspace participants); Henry H. Perritt, Jr., CyberspaceSelf-Government: Town Hall Democracy or Rediscovered Royalism?, 12 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 413, 419-20 (1997) (contending that as a general rule "self-governance is desirable for electronic communities"); Edward J. Valauskas, Lex Networkia: Understanding the Internet Community, FIRST MONDAY (Oct. 7, 1996) <http://www.firstmonday.dk/issuesrissue4/valauskas/index.html> (calling for formalization of Internet self-governance). 3. Since its inception, the Internet domain name system has been administered by the United States government through contract. In June 1998, the Clinton Administration announced that, as part of its overall policy of promoting Internet self-regulation, it would turn over responsibility for such administration to a new nonprofit corporation. See National Telecomms. and Info. Admin., U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Statement of Policy on Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741