{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03279938977879481, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007627765064836003, 'mean_word_length': 5.368932038834951, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Global First Amendment?

The Internet once held the promise of a utopian marketplace of ideas. It existed without borders and offered information to all who had a computer and a connection. Lawmakers from around the world, including some from the United States, feared this ultimate freedom and worried about the laws within their boundaries.1 Meanwhile, technology companies disregarded territorial laws and fiercely maintained their autonomy, employing two principal arguments. First, these companies argued they had no physical way to monitor the monster of the Internet.2 Second, technology companies argued that the Internet should be autonomous and international free speech rights should protect their actions regardless of their ability to physically control their reach.3 Today, most of the largest U.S. technology companies have succumbed to following not only U.S. law, but also the laws of nations around the world.4 With innovations in technology, regulating the previously unregulated Internet has become possible.5 In hopes of spreading American-style democracy and free speech around the globe, the United States wants to stop domestic technology companies from yielding to ‘‘totalitarian regimes’’ or ‘‘Internet-restricting’’ countries.6 In 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives (‘‘House’’)