Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore

[Seth Finkelstein]

	I've seen much CIPA discussion which assumes that it's only for kids.
The full text of the "Children's Internet Protection Act" can be found at
http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cipatext.htm  . It's worth reading.

	The name is Orwellian. It misleads people into thinking that
the law only concerns children (defined in the law to be "minors",
those less than 17 years old). In fact, that idea is quite false.
Every section of the law which has a requirement for "minors" is
followed by another requirement which is general or specifically
to adults.

	In particular, censorware is mandated to apply to adults in libraries:

     ``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this
     paragraph is a certification that the library--
     ``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the
     operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of
     its computers with Internet access that protects against access
     through such computers to visual depictions that are-

     ``(I) obscene; or
     ``(II) child pornography; and

     ``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection
     measure during any use of such computers.

	Now, a reader might object, there is nothing wrong with
banning such material. It's not protected by the First Amendment.
However, the key point to understand is that the law does not say the
banning *must* be restricted to that material. Rather, it very
specifically disclaims elsewhere that it does not prohibit the
blacklisting of "any content other than content covered by this title".

	The effect of this is to have government law behind
censorware-makers, giving wide range to private, unaccountable,
secret, blacklisting. Consider SmartFilter's category description:

http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?skey=86#ex

    Extreme/Obscence/Violence (ex)

    The extreme category includes URLs that may fall into other
    categories, but push the limits of acceptability. These URLs are
    typically extremely violent, gory, or horrific in nature and may be
    related to sex, bodily functions, obscenity, or perverse activities.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^

	By having a category they claim contains "obscenity", but also
has a vague, elastic definition ("push the limits of acceptability"),
they have free reign here. In my SmartFilter report "I've Got A Little List"
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/gotalist.php  I called this
"Mother rapers, father stabbers, littering, and creating a nuisance"

	Note also that obscenity must be determined by a court, and
varies from place to place (sometimes dramatically, from e.g.
San Fransciso to Memphis). It is difficult topic in law, and people
argue about it all the time. Turning over that judicial decision to
a private blacklister, who may then make it according to their own
agenda (or by a computer program), should offend every principle of
free speech and the First Amendment.

	But merely invoke the cry of "protect the children" (here,
quite literally), and immediately all of the above is swept away
in the reaction which flows from that rhetoric.

__
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at sethf.com  http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
EFF Pioneer: http://www.eff.org/awards/20010305_pioneer_press_release.html

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************