The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today. The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text. Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly. Marc Rotenberg EPIC. ---------- http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm The Online Cooperative Publishing Act (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship) Any law that seeks to regulate the Internet must first recognize the uniqueness of the medium. The Internet is not the print media or the broadcast industry. It is also not another form of phone conversation or a 900 number calling system. Instead, the Internet is the manifestation of humankind's quest for limitless two-way interaction with thought. The hyper-text layout allows us to change topics on a whim, travel to distance places, or gather world opinion on a subject in a matter of minutes. This distinctive nature of the Internet must be protected and even promoted by any legislation that claims to be fair to this medium. The interaction between the one receiving data and the one publishing it are where the core of the law should focus. Both sides have rights, the publisher has the First Amendment and the receiver has the right to be secure from harm in his home. Proper Internet law should encourage a cooperative transfer of ideas in the form of data. (It should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. ) Any law that attempts to give one side or the other is given an unreasonable burden in conducting the transfer of data is doomed to failure. The CDA was too burdensome on the publisher. Its goal was to stop the flow of data, rather than to regulate it for the benefit of all parties. On the other hand, without a proper law, parents can purchase and activate measures to protect their children from adult material and still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. This is because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's innocence. Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online Cooperative Publishing Act. It shall contain the following provisions: 1. The right to be able to identify the adult rating of online content before it enters one's home shall be established. This shall be a civil right giving the violated person or family the presumption in a suit against negligent publishers. 2. Negligent publishing of data shall be defined as placing adult oriented material on the Internet in such a way or in such a location that it prevents its rating from being known. 3. A rating shall be defined as a PICS compatible label that identifies degrees of adult content in a way that can be understood by computer filtering systems and is issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals using its system to mark their data. 4. A publisher is defined as anyone who places computer data where it can be accessed by the general public without the use of a credit card or other secure verified ID or password given out only to adults. Content that can be only be accessed by the use credit cards or other secure verified IDs is not subject to this law. 5. The code used to surround content published on the Internet shall be defined as packaging. All government identification requirements shall be limited to the code of the packaging. Nothing in this law shall be construed to require any altering or censorship of the content. 6. Three types of online publishing shall be defined: a) Publishers who accurately identify their data with a recognized labeling system. These publishers shall be considered to have satisfied the labeling requirement of the law. The right to publish shall be completely protected for those who accurately label their material. They shall be protected from all civil suits that argue negligent posting of data. Only grossly mislabeled material can be prosecuted. (Note: This is not a protection for obscene material. This law will offer no protection for obscene material.) b) Publishers who mislabel their data to the degree that it enables a minor using a label filtering system to gain access to harmful material. Data shall be considered to be mislabeled if it is posted in a newsgroup, directory or other joint area that has been labeled as free from material harmful to minors. Tampering with another's label shall be crime. These publishers may be criminally prosecuted for subverting a rating system to entice children to harmful material. The mislabeling must be to the extent that it is completely unreasonable to accept it as accurate. Only ratings that are too lenient can be prosecuted. Posting unlabeled adult material to an area that has declared itself safe for children or tampering with another's label shall be a severe criminal assault on the rights of the receiver. Sending unsolicited email to a minor that contains pornographic material or an invitation to a pornographic Web Site, shall be considered negligent enticement and may be criminally prosecuted. A bulk email service sending pornographic email must show that it took reasonable measures to insure that every recipient was an adult. (Example: The addresses used were from the membership list of Adult Check or other such adult verification services.) c) Publishers who do not label their data at all. Negligence in the absence of damages shall not be a criminal offense (but it may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data) unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. Then the publisher will be prosecuted for negligence. These publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently presented. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove the data actually produced harm to their child only that the material reasonably could be considered to have needed a label warning to protect children. 7. Internet Service Providers are considered publishers of only that material of which they directly control or gain revenue via a percentage of sales. Web Site designers may be held liable if they fail to attach ratings to Web sites, containing material harmful to minors, they design for a fee. They may, by written agreement, assign the task of rating to another legally responsible party. 8. Not every document is required to be labeled, only the default or index document of each directory. In the case of an entire web domain being of one rating, only its default top level document needs to be labeled with instructions to apply it to the entire site.
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today.
The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text.
Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly.
Marc Rotenberg EPIC.
The current us-private sector may well suck up to the White House control freaks, refusing to index pages that don't contain RSACi advirsories. If this is the case then I assume that new browsers and index engines will pop up that refuse to do these things. Any law that forces people to self-censor or that forces them to truthfully self-censor is tantamount to forcing people to not lie. If this isn't an abridgement of the 9th or 10th amendment, I don't know what is. Unless you are paying for the material or you sign a contract with the index engine stipulating that falsifying the information is breach of contract (and they pay you for the priveledge to index your site) I don't see how this could be enforceable. The very value of the indexing engines is that they pick up huge amount of information. They couldn't afford to pay everyone for their site listing. What would happen if you rated your site honestly and then made a change where you said the S-word and forgot to re-rate it? Are they going to prosecute for that? Talk about a change control nightmare! This is a ridiculous bunch of crap. If MS and Netscape and the rest of these guys buy off on it, its time for programmers and cypherpunks to start programming again. Jim Burnes
Declan McCullagh writes:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
That should be Making the Net Safe for SafeSurf. The proposal is a classic example of "if you can't beat 'em in the marketplace, beat 'em in the legislature". It would require a rating system while locking out new competition from the net censorshipratings field. SafeSurf operates a ratings system. Can you say "conflict of interest"? Note provision 3, which stipuates that a rating must be "issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals usin its system to mark their data." That'd kind of make it hard to start a competing ratings system, wouldn't it?
Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today.
The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text.
Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly.
Just like the lumber barons who destroyed vast forests for their own profit, too many modern business people are willing to sell out our freedoms in return for profit for themselves. -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com Security and cryptography applications consulting. PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
Eric Murray wrote:
Declan McCullagh writes:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
That should be Making the Net Safe for SafeSurf.
The proposal is a classic example of "if you can't beat 'em in the marketplace, beat 'em in the legislature". It would require a rating system while locking out new competition from the net censorshipratings field. SafeSurf operates a ratings system. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Note provision 3, which stipuates that a rating must be "issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals usin its system to mark their data."
That'd kind of make it hard to start a competing ratings system, wouldn't it?
It like some unions I know. You can't work unless you belong to the union, but you can't join the union unless you are working. -Doug
Now I'm clearly not a 'merkin and have little knowlig of how your system works but I would have thourt creating a sepreate marking sceam for 'news sites' and makeing it illegal to misslable would be creating a licenced press and therefore unconstutional. You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And The Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
Now I'm clearly not a 'merkin and have little knowlig of how your system works but I would have thourt creating a sepreate marking sceam for 'news sites' and makeing it illegal to misslable would be creating a licenced press and therefore unconstutional.
Well, in theory, requiring a licenced press would violate the 1st Amendment. Requiring any kind of rateing on a web page would seem to be the same as requiring a newspaper to rate itself to protect someone from reading a story that would be offensive to her/him. I don't beleave the newspaper industry would stand by and let that happen to them.
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And The Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett Hehe. Who ever said people were smart?
-Doug
----------
http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm
The Online Cooperative Publishing Act (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship) snip> (It should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. )
Can someone explain to me the necessariness of the assumed inconsistency here? Or better yet, can SafeSurf explain it? MacN
well, the "presumption" has a somewhat stalinist aroma to it, but as for the rest of this laughable proposal, I can't count a mind boggling number of constitutional problems. But I think we've had this talk before, on another list.:) MacN On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today.
The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text.
Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly.
Marc Rotenberg EPIC.
----------
http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm
The Online Cooperative Publishing Act (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship)
Any law that seeks to regulate the Internet must first recognize the uniqueness of the medium. The Internet is not the print media or the broadcast industry. It is also not another form of phone conversation or a 900 number calling system. Instead, the Internet is the manifestation of humankind's quest for limitless two-way interaction with thought. The hyper-text layout allows us to change topics on a whim, travel to distance places, or gather world opinion on a subject in a matter of minutes.
This distinctive nature of the Internet must be protected and even promoted by any legislation that claims to be fair to this medium. The interaction between the one receiving data and the one publishing it are where the core of the law should focus. Both sides have rights, the publisher has the First Amendment and the receiver has the right to be secure from harm in his home. Proper Internet law should encourage a cooperative transfer of ideas in the form of data. (It should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. )
Any law that attempts to give one side or the other is given an unreasonable burden in conducting the transfer of data is doomed to failure. The CDA was too burdensome on the publisher. Its goal was to stop the flow of data, rather than to regulate it for the benefit of all parties.
On the other hand, without a proper law, parents can purchase and activate measures to protect their children from adult material and still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. This is because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's innocence.
Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content.
With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online Cooperative Publishing Act.
It shall contain the following provisions:
1. The right to be able to identify the adult rating of online content before it enters one's home shall be established. This shall be a civil right giving the violated person or family the presumption in a suit against negligent publishers.
2. Negligent publishing of data shall be defined as placing adult oriented material on the Internet in such a way or in such a location that it prevents its rating from being known.
3. A rating shall be defined as a PICS compatible label that identifies degrees of adult content in a way that can be understood by computer filtering systems and is issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals using its system to mark their data.
4. A publisher is defined as anyone who places computer data where it can be accessed by the general public without the use of a credit card or other secure verified ID or password given out only to adults. Content that can be only be accessed by the use credit cards or other secure verified IDs is not subject to this law.
5. The code used to surround content published on the Internet shall be defined as packaging. All government identification requirements shall be limited to the code of the packaging. Nothing in this law shall be construed to require any altering or censorship of the content.
6. Three types of online publishing shall be defined:
a) Publishers who accurately identify their data with a recognized labeling system.
These publishers shall be considered to have satisfied the labeling requirement of the law. The right to publish shall be completely protected for those who accurately label their material. They shall be protected from all civil suits that argue negligent posting of data. Only grossly mislabeled material can be prosecuted. (Note: This is not a protection for obscene material. This law will offer no protection for obscene material.)
b) Publishers who mislabel their data to the degree that it enables a minor using a label filtering system to gain access to harmful material.
Data shall be considered to be mislabeled if it is posted in a newsgroup, directory or other joint area that has been labeled as free from material harmful to minors. Tampering with another's label shall be crime.
These publishers may be criminally prosecuted for subverting a rating system to entice children to harmful material. The mislabeling must be to the extent that it is completely unreasonable to accept it as accurate. Only ratings that are too lenient can be prosecuted.
Posting unlabeled adult material to an area that has declared itself safe for children or tampering with another's label shall be a severe criminal assault on the rights of the receiver.
Sending unsolicited email to a minor that contains pornographic material or an invitation to a pornographic Web Site, shall be considered negligent enticement and may be criminally prosecuted. A bulk email service sending pornographic email must show that it took reasonable measures to insure that every recipient was an adult. (Example: The addresses used were from the membership list of Adult Check or other such adult verification services.)
c) Publishers who do not label their data at all.
Negligence in the absence of damages shall not be a criminal offense (but it may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data) unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. Then the publisher will be prosecuted for negligence.
These publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently presented. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove the data actually produced harm to their child only that the material reasonably could be considered to have needed a label warning to protect children.
7. Internet Service Providers are considered publishers of only that material of which they directly control or gain revenue via a percentage of sales. Web Site designers may be held liable if they fail to attach ratings to Web sites, containing material harmful to minors, they design for a fee. They may, by written agreement, assign the task of rating to another legally responsible party.
8. Not every document is required to be labeled, only the default or index document of each directory. In the case of an entire web domain being of one rating, only its default top level document needs to be labeled with instructions to apply it to the entire site.
participants (6)
-
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} -
Declan McCullagh -
Doug Peterson -
Eric Murray -
Jim Burnes -
Mac Norton