[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? -- ACLU on labeling (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? -- ACLU on labeling
----
http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html
Cyber-Liberties
Fahrenheit 451.2:
Is Cyberspace Burning?
How Rating and Blocking Proposals
May Torch Free Speech on the Internet
Executive Summary
Introduction
Is Cyberspace Burning?
Free Speech Online: A Victory Under Siege
Rethinking the Rush to Rate
Recommendations and Principles
Six Reasons Why Self-Rating Schemes Are Wrong
Is Third-Party Rating the Answer?
The Problems With User-Based Blocking Software in the Home
Why Blocking Software Should Not Be Used by Public Libraries
Conclusion
Appendix: Internet Ratings Systems How Do They Work?
______________________________________________________________
Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?
How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the
Internet
Executive Summary
In the landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court overturned the
Communications Decency Act, declaring that the Internet deserves
the same high level of free speech protection afforded to books and
other printed matter.
But today, all that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the
bright flames of censorship then in the dense smoke of the many
ratings and blocking schemes promoted by some of the very people
who fought for freedom.
The ACLU and others in the cyber-liberties community were genuinely
alarmed by the tenor of a recent White House summit meeting on
Internet censorship at which industry leaders pledged to create a
variety of schemes to regulate and block controversial online
speech.
But it was not any one proposal or announcement that caused our
alarm; rather, it was the failure to examine the longer-term
implications for the Internet of rating and blocking schemes.
The White House meeting was clearly the first step away from the
principle that protection of the electronic word is analogous to
protection of the printed word. Despite the Supreme Court's strong
rejection of a broadcast analogy for the Internet, government and
industry leaders alike are now inching toward the dangerous and
incorrect position that the Internet is like television, and should
be rated and censored accordingly.
Is Cyberspace burning? Not yet, perhaps. But where there's smoke,
there's fire.
[...]
Conclusion
The ACLU has always favored providing Internet users, especially
parents, with more information. We welcomed, for example, the
American Library Association's announcement at the White House
summit of The Librarian's Guide to Cyberspace for Parents and Kids,
a "comprehensive brochure and Web site combining Internet
terminology, safety tips, site selection advice and more than 50 of
the most educational and entertaining sites available for children
on the Internet."
In Reno v. ACLU, we noted that Federal and state governments are
already vigorously enforcing existing obscenity, child pornography,
and child solicitation laws on the Internet. In addition, Internet
users must affirmatively seek out speech on the Internet; no one is
caught by surprise.
In fact, many speakers on the Net provide preliminary information
about the nature of their speech. The ACLU's site on America
Online, for example, has a message on its home page announcing that
the site is a "free speech zone." Many sites offering commercial
transactions on the Net contain warnings concerning the security of
Net information. Sites containing sexually explicit material often
begin with a statement describing the adult nature of the material.
Chat rooms and newsgroups have names that describe the subject
being discussed. Even individual e-mail messages contain a subject
line.
The preliminary information available on the Internet has several
important components that distinguish it from all the ratings
systems discussed above: (1) it is created and provided by the
speaker; (2) it helps the user decide whether to read any further;
(3) speakers who choose not to provide such information are not
penalized; (4) it does not result in the automatic blocking of
speech by an entity other than the speaker or reader before the
speech has ever been viewed. Thus, the very nature of the Internet
reveals why more speech is always a better solution than censorship
for dealing with speech that someone may find objectionable.
It is not too late for the Internet community to slowly and
carefully examine these proposals and to reject those that will
transform the Internet from a true marketplace of ideas into just
another mainstream, lifeless medium with content no more exciting
or diverse than that of television.
Civil libertarians, human rights organizations, librarians and
Internet users, speakers and providers all joined together to
defeat the CDA. We achieved a stunning victory, establishing a
legal framework that affords the Internet the highest
constitutional protection. We put a quick end to a fire that was
all but visible and threatening. The fire next time may be more
difficult to detect and extinguish.
[...]
Credits
The principal authors of this white paper are Ann Beeson and Chris
Hansen of the ACLU Legal Department and ACLU Associate Director
Barry Steinhardt. Additional editorial contributions were provided
by Marjorie Heins of the Legal Department, and Emily Whitfield of
the Public Education Department. This report was prepared by the
ACLU Public Education Department: Loren Siegel, Director; Rozella
Floranz Kennedy, Editorial Manager; Ronald Cianfaglione, Designer.
Copyright 1997, The American Civil Liberties Union