Remember that the Internet is an international playground and while the U.S. Government may say "Rate your site or go to jail" or worse yet filter traffic that is not rated (blind censorship), the rest of the world may go on its merry way and not even flinch (crypto is a good example). Sounds like a state-run New York Times. The phrase "harmful to children" also means different things in different countries. Maybe the idea is that countries and/or sites that do not rate their content will be blocked from accessing U.S. sites (immigration law on the net). Other countries could do the same in retaliation. That would mean the loss of access to a lot of information for all sides. "Excuse me sir, I can't let your packet pass unless I've seen your Net passport and visa". And what happens to all those international sites hosted on U.S. territory? If they were to move out it would mean a loss of $$ for U.S. companies (again). Also, don't forget that state laws would impede interstate commerce (loss of revenue for the state). I see the word "boycott" in my future. Somebody please slap the person who said the Cold War was over. I'm glad that somebody has finally discovered time travel. Unforunately its in back in time not forward! Art Grapa agrapa@banamex.com ---------- From: Declan McCullagh To: ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA; cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: New York court hears challenge to state Date: Wednesday, April 09, 1997 7:33PM Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note De: Declan McCullagh Para: ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA cypherpunks@toad.com Asunto: New York court hears challenge to state Fecha: 1997-04-09 19:33 Prioridad: 3 Ident. del mensaje: 9E367DA622B0D011AF8D006097838CEB ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- -- ********** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:50:08 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: New York court hears challenge to state Net-censorship law Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu Reply-To: declan@well.com X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ************** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,811,00.html The Netly News Network April 8, 1997 The Bad Apple by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) To those of us who follow such events, it's a common enough scene: a squad of civil liberties attorneys troops into a federal courtroom to do righteous battle with an unconstitutional law. It happened this week in New York City, before a judge who finished hearing testimony yesterday in a case the ACLU brought against yet another state Net-censorship statute. The outcome in this lawsuit, however, will reverberate not just in the Empire State but also along the marble corridors of the U.S. Capitol. If the Supreme Court rules that the Communications Decency Act indeed violates the First Amendment, Congress hopes the New York case will guide it in revising the law so it passes constitutional muster. And given how the New York case is shaping up for the forces of unbridled free speech, that could be ugly. A group of 15 plaintiffs challenging the New York statute filed suit in January, arguing that that the law unconstitutionally stifles online speech and unduly interferes with interstate commerce on the Net. The measure, which took effect last November, amends the penal code by making it a crime to distribute online pictures or text "which is harmful to minors." Attorneys for the New York attorney general's office, who are defending the law, say that the "harmful to minors" legal standard isn't as heinous as the CDA's "indecency" ban -- it covers only sexually explicit pictures, not textual conversations. They also argue that filtering software could be used to help online purveyors of adult-only stuff comply with the state statute. Of course, as always, academics, librarians and artists point out that these attempts to limit online communications are overly broad and ill-defined. What I consider harmful to a kid might not be what you consider harmful, after all. Yesterday four witnesses testified for the plaintiffs, uniformly saying they felt threatened by the law. "I walk around with a healthy fear that every book in our collection would give someone the idea that we're giving harmful materials to minors," said Maurice Friedman, executive director of the Westchester Library System. Rudolf Kinsky, an artist from Poland, weighed in next: "I feel a chilling effect on my creativity. Someone could consider my art harmful to minors and could prosecute me. I came to this country [from Poland] looking for freedom of speech, not this." But yesterday's testimony seemed like the capper to an overwhelmingly poor showing the government made in its opening arguments last week. The government's case lasted a mere hour and was hardly persuasive. Among other gaffes, the state failed to slide a new legal standard -- "level of maturity" -- into the discussion; Judge Loretta Preska quickly rebuffed that attempt: "I don't read 'level of maturity' anywhere in the statute," she said, nettled. That wasn't the only time Preska pounced on the government. By the end of the three-day hearing, I was ready to bet good money on the ACLU winning yet another victory for the Net. But I have a confession to make. In January I claimed that "knocking down New York's law should be a virtual slam dunk," saying it suffers from all of the same problems as the CDA. But now, after reading a recent law review article by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, I'm not as sure. Volokh points out that the government could rely on the ready existence of ratings schemes, such as RSACi and PICS, which give publishers the ability to keep their material out of the hands of minors. He writes: "Under the existing doctrine, it would be constitutional to criminalize the display of any harmful-to-minors material which does not carry a correct rating." In other words, rate your web pages with RSACi or go to jail. (I can't see Microsoft, the Software Publishers Association and other RSACi boosters probably opposing this. I can smell another Microsoft world-domination plot brewing already...) Indeed, Volokh told me yesterday that he thinks the New York attorney general may have a workable case. "I think the state has a decent defense. They could say look, this rating imposes a burden but not a very high burden. It's like that imposed on a bookseller. All you're required to do is put on this label." Certainly, Net rating systems played a big part in the New York trial. Last Friday a government attorney asked: "In general, what would be more burdensome as a whole: requiring millions of web sites to rate their contents or just requiring a percentage of web sites that contain graphical objectionable material to rate their web sites?" What the government was trying to point out was that rating systems like RSACi -- that let you assign values to web pages based on nudity or violence -- are increasingly commonplace. If they're commonplace, then netizens may be able to comply with the New York law. And if netizens can comply with the law, then it may be constitutional. [...] "Harmful to minors is something people will talk about again and it's an option, but I don't want to say we'll be out there trumpeting it," says Connie Correll, spokeswoman for Rep. Rick White, a Republican congressman from Washington State -- whose district includes Microsoft. (Coincidence, or another Microsoft attempt at world domination? While you're pondering the question, keep in mind that White championed "harmful to minors" language in December 1995, but Congress rejected it in favor of the CDA's broader "indecency" ban.) Correll adds: "People are watching the New York case. I think it's going to be a real good indication." So do I. ### ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/