---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:30:26 -0400 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: chris_barr@cnet.com Subject: EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community To Mr. Barr of CNET.COM and the Internet Community, On July 21 Christopher Barr, editor in chief of CNET, endorsed Internet rating schemes in a column titled "Rating Online Content Can Work". http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html In this column, Mr. Barr says A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, support the use of such software on principle, but they also point out that filtering software can be used to block any kind of content, not just sexually explicit material, and so it can end up restricting free speech. I want to be clear that EPIC, both a plaintiff and counsel in the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, does not support the use of blocking software in principle or practice. We do not support rating systems for the following reasons. First, we believe that the fundamental purpose of a rating system -- to allow one person to decide what information another person may receive -- is contrary to the character of the Internet and the principles of openness and individuality found in a free society. Unlike search engines that allow individuals to select information based on their preferences and desires, rating systems impose one person's or one organization's viewpoint on another. Such techniques could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers against employees as they could by parents against children, as was made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the topic. Second, we have already seen rating systems used to block access to information that could in no reasonable way be considered indecent. Rating systems have blocked access to political organizations, medical information, and unpopular viewpoints. In public libraries and public schools such techniques violate well established First Amendment freedoms. Such products should be roundly criticized by Internet publishers, not endorsed. Third, we believe that over time rating systes are likely to make it easier -- not more difficult -- for governments around the world to enforce content-based controls on Internet content. This process is already underway in many countries which are now considering PICS-based schemes to implement national content controls. Further, our reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno V. ACLU is that content based controls would be upheld in the US once rating systems and means for age verification and widely available. It was the nature of the Internet, and not the availability of rating systems, that produced the wonderful outcome in that case. But once voluntary standards are in place, statutory controls will surely follow. We recognize that the availability of material that some might consider offensive poses a difficult problem for on-line information providers. We further recognize that there is indeed some material on the Internet that is genuinely abhorrent. But we do not believe you can hide the world from your children. We should help our children to understand the world, and then help them make it better. Good parenting is not something found in a software filter; it takes time, effort, and interest. And it takes trust in young people to develop within themselves judgment and reason, and the ability to tell right from wrong. We also caution against any efforts to distinguish between bona fide news organizations and others. The framers of our First Amendment wisely drew no such distinction, and thus we have avoided the process of licensing and government approval that othe countries have pursued. News organizations that today seek to draw such a line may in the future find themselves placed on the wrong side. These are difficult issues. It is not easy today to criticize the ratings proposal which has recently received White House endorsement. This fact alone should give those who value free speech and who opposed the Communications Decency Act reason to think twice. It is also the reason that we applaud the American Library Association for its principled opposition to the use of software filters in libraries. We hope other organizations will join with EPIC, the ACLU, and the ALA and recognize that we all have a common interest in the protection of intellectual freedom and the openness of the Internet. We will continue to offer information about the PICS debate at our web site -- www.epic.org -- so that individuals and organizations that provide information online can make fully informed decisions about the desireability of rating systems. Finally, we hope CNET.COM will reconsider its position on the rating issue. In the end, it will be the decisions of individual Internet news organizations and other online publishers that will determine the openness and accessibility of the Internet for us all. We share a common interest in preserving the free flow of information across the Internet. Sincerely, Marc Rotenberg, director EPIC ================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg@epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================