Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law?
from the chipping-away-at-the-first-amendment dept
Want to know when someone is preparing to take away your First Amendment rights? It's when they claim that they have a proposal that involves "balancing" those rights with other events (sent to us by Eric Goldman). In this case, the proposal comes from a professor from Brigham Young University, Cheryl B. Preston, who's proposing the idea for an Internet Community Ports Act (ICPA), which would create special "zones" online where it would be okay for "adult" material to reside, and other zones that would be kid friendly. Apparently, this is needed to:Find a reasonable balance among the values of the First Amendment, the appeal of an unfettered technological frontier, the right to be free of unwanted speech, and the right of parents to have the aid of the government in protecting children from age-inappropriate sexually explicit content online.We've seen similar proposals in the past that haven't gone very far. And, this proposal seems quite similar to that older proposal -- except presented by a law professor in a law review, rather than a local business man. Like that last proposal, this one focuses on having all adult content be accessed over a specific port. As we noted when that earlier proposal came out, the problem isn't with the idea of a "red light" district, but with determining what is and is not considered reasonable or "harmful." Given how badly many online filtering services "over filter" content, this could be a real problem.
Yet Preston brushes this very big issue aside:
Much of the debate about regulating pornography has stymied on the esoteric impossibility of drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable content. However, "definitions" is a diversionary argument. Not only do we know it when we see it, we now have codified the scope of it and relied for federal court purposes on the ready identification of it by a range of observers.Not quite. While it is, perhaps, possible to have courts judge these things for professional publications, when you're talking about a communications medium where everyone is a publisher and decisions need to be made in real time, that "definition" problem is very, very real. Much of the rest of the argument in favor of this law, again, seems to miss out on this important factor, acting as if the rules that have been set up for traditional publishing systems can equally be applied to real-time communications. That's simply not true.
But, of course, with the latest smack down against the COPA law, you can bet that politicians will eventually be looking for the next big "protect the children on the internet" law -- so don't be surprised if you see a version of this proposed law bubble up at some point.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adults only, internet, red light district, zoning
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Somehow this phrase makes my blood run cold. Especially if I substitute other words for "speech"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are laws pertaining to very many things that we do everyday and very few of us have to refer to a precise law before determining whether to proceed or not, so it doesn't seem a particularly apt objection.
I expect for those people/bloggers tempted to publish pornography but who are insufficiently familiar with laws there would be training courses becoming available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
of rights.
The right to be free of unwanted speech, hate crimes
and the thought police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just another
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just another
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This seems like yet another issue where the market could resolve the problem using technology rather than legistation. Maybe Company A pays professionals to maintain the white list of kid-friendly web sites. You don't like some of those sites? Then switch over to Company B who allows for a wiki-like maintenance of the white list.
The point is that there are several ways that parents could limit what their kids are viewing on the web without having to resort to putting undue limits on what adults can view. At most, the government should be involved in promoting these types of open filtering models. But there's no reason that they should enforce one filtering model over the other (or any at all).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ICPA
This lady needs to be slapped. And then some good hard sense talked into her. Our 1st amendment is not to be trampled on. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the right to be free of unwanted speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But if the publisher had to decide where to publish and tehy do a bad job they could then be held responsible for something in a way that might help persuade them not to do it again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's the Constitution People!
Of course it could be in the penumbras, formed by emanations of the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The problem
I guess that would make a vast amount of wealth for some people, but a more efficient solution would be to make the people who want the objectionalble content pay to get it; I'm sure that would mean less of the nations wealth is wasted on filtering, although less wealth accumulated for the filterers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh yea, it's there too. Her plan will work really well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think one of the reasons we are in trouble as a society is because nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof. That's why people always want to "pass a law" that deals with their favorite cause horrible.
If you don't want your children to be exposed to this stuff, then take some damned responsibility to ensure that the inter-tubes that reach your children are the ones you approve.
This one smacks of the caretaker/nanny society that has always been at the fringes in America.
No way. No how. No Preston.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem
you shouldn't have to pay for anything you already can receive free of charge. But if you want a specialized service (whether it is a super-kid friendly version of the internet or an all porn all the time service) then feel free to pay more for it, but don't force it down everyone else's throat.
If you want to pay to have your internet censored feel free, but don't try and make the censored version a law and don't try and make the rest of the populace pay for the uncensored version. The fact is that the majority of internet users like to see porn, there is no reason that they should have to pay to fulfill the desires of the minority, AKA the "It's for the Kids!" idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds a little like a government firewall to me
Kinda sounds like a "firewall" used by another well known country that recently hosted the Olympics to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem
At no point was it mentioned that users should have to pay to access this ".kid" area- while the content providers (ie, the websites themselves) would have to pay to get on the ".kid" domain (and, by the way, people already have to pay to buy domains), there was nothing mentioned to say otherwise. Assuming there was some certification process to make sure there was no objectional content on the site before it went onto this ".kid" section (which may or may not cost money to have done), then filters become trivial at this point- just block non-.kid sites.
Even ignoring the fact that you're target is based on this faulty assumption, it still doesn't hold ground. Filtering the 'bad' out of the internet takes time and money- leaving it unfiltered (as it is) is a fairly easy task, you just don't do anything. If people decide that separating out content should be done, then the burden should be on the people who want it, not those who don't. That's how the market works- if you want it bad enough you'll be willing to pay for it.
At the same time, this entire argument is pointless- if you're an adult, you can just not go to the sites with the objectionable content (its not hard to not click a link) and if you're a kid your parent's should be watching you. Just because you don't want to take responsibility for your kid, or are so offended by the idea that there might be something naughty on the internet you might see if you actually went looking for it, doesn't mean the rest of us should pay to babysit you and your family.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There *is* *no* *right* to be free from "unwanted" speech.
That's what people don't understand about this country. The founding principals have always been in order to remain Free, its better to take more bad things than good than lose that Freedom and try to have everything good.
The famous saying by one of our Founding Fathers goes: Better to have 9 Guilty men go free than have 1 Innocent man in Jail.
Remember that. As another said, those that would sacrifice Liberty for some temporary security, deserve neither.
In the case of free speech, better to hear a bunch of stupid crap you don't want to, than not be able to tell everyone else that what they are saying is wrong.
Christ. If only people would TEACH the Constitution in school rather than gloss over it. Then shit like this wouldn't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course, given the government's stance on spying and it's potential to abuse things, sadly it's something that's not a good idea, even though it seems it might be so... :)
But, really there's a better system - a rating system for web pages like Video Games and Movies use.
G, PG, PG-13, etc
Then software can restrict it based on content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It sounds like you're more concerned with preventing the publishing of material that you find offensive than finding a useful means of filtering that material. Who care who's "responsible" if you can filter out the content from you or your children? As I pointed out in my original comment, if you don't like the filters that one company uses, then "vote with your mouse" and use another service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or just proxy sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And your annoying, noisy neighbours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
G, PG, PG-13, etc
Then software can restrict it based on content.
You're joking, right? Your "better system" is to have some government agency rate each and every web site, blog, video, and comment on the web before it gets posted? A centralized rating system for the web is completely and utterly impractical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unwanted speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The problem
Again, the only practical solution as I see it is to let people decide for themselves what filter they want to use. Maybe the government can step in and promote a particular standard that different parties can use to filter content, but it would be up to the parents to decide which filter to use. If you want to use a filter that is maintained by the members of your local church, then so be it. If you want to pay a company to review and rate web sites, then so be it. If you want to create your own filter that you use and your neighbors use, then so be it.
The key of course would be to have some open standard that would be able to implement different filters based on our personal preference. Maybe there's a company out there that does this or maybe there's already some mechanism for this, but it should absolutely not be the government who controls the filter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The CP80 gang again
Mike wrote: "We've seen similar proposals in the past that haven't gone very far. And, this proposal seems quite similar to that older proposal -- except presented by a law professor in a law review, rather than a local business man."
Well, no. In fact, this isn't just similar, it's the same CP80 proposal yet again. Cheryl Preston is chair of CP80's Board of Advisors since 2005 - see her faculty profile and marvel just how obsessed she is with porn. And, just to remind everyone, the "local businessman" isn't just anyone - it's Ralph Yarro, still chairman of the notorious SCO Group.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Government involvement needed. It's completely on the web site operator to add it. Then software can be set up to 'refuse' unrated sites if so desired, and allow sites with ratings. Of course there might need to be some oversight, but it could be done through a non-profit (like email blacklists) and not through a Government agency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Someone should take her copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and smash it across her pointed head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The self imposed rating system won't work ether, anyways. Imagine if someone decided to give their site a "G" rating but still have full frontal nudity? Maybe someone has a nudists website. Not sexual in any way and, to them, would be family friendly.
The best way to do it would be to have a filtering software that makes the parents of the kid manually add the websites that are allowed to be viewed. No one wants that because it would involve working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ever heard of "proselytizing to a captive audience?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Apparently someone has never heard of nuisance law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Perhaps the same place as "the right to privacy."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As a lawyer, I am embarrassed that such a woman is teaching future lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's the Constitution People!
Of course it could be in the penumbras, formed by emanations of the Bill of Rights.
Actually, it would be in the emanations, formed by the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then, somebody would need to be responsible for double-checking each and every site on the internet on a regular basis, which would be a hugely expensive task. How would this be funded? If the answer is "taxes", it's a government agency. Any other answer would require charges that a majority of people would not want to pay. Spam is a totally different kettle of fish.
It would also be impossible to guarantee that the rating would be accurate. For example, let's say a user on your G-rated forum hotlinked an image that's been changed from a picture of a landscape to explicit gay porn. The rating has been violated severely, yet the forum has no responsibility for that occurrence and it may not be noticed until a shocked parent complains. In this case, the rating is utterly useless - even a centralised system the pre-vets every post (itself utterly impractical) would miss this kind of event.
Let's face it, there's already plenty of software available that does the job of content filtering. Censorship should not be forced onto the rest of us just because some people don't understand how to use their computers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe you should read the paper.
Zoning the Internet: A New Approach to Protecting Children Online, Cheryl B. Preston, Brigham Young University Law Review, pp. 1417-1467, 2007, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147163.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an intrusion on the 1st
I also know that a snowball has a better chance in hell than this type of segregation of the internet has of working. So effectively it doesn't do anything but waste tax payers money on futile laws.
As for the underlying problem of so much porn on the net, well I also admit that it si nearly out of hand too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
well, children need gurdians and supevision on net
as for the rest , we do not want our children spending time in strip bars, etc, so we have these places guarded against, what i think is that all pages that enable mature content to be flagged by owners (and they are surely not all) and, even for free content, an age verification (verisign or whatever digital signature provided) for access, process managed by an secure site, without no interference from site itself, and no recording of identity of user(for privacy of course).
but this is just a thought... applying this techniques and procedures might get off the problem a part of minors accessing mature content on web. the best way is, that those pages get a separate treatment from ISP's worldwide, marking the sites as mature content and requiring a password/session too access these sites, password given to owner of internet subscriber only on request together with a chip card o similar for more protection (considering an id card reader these days cost like 10 euro and is multifunctional...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I learned something today!
The practical problems with the proposed solution are numerous, onerous and already well-documented (both here and in the source materials).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: well, children need gurdians and supevision on net
1: who is going to pay for the age verification? it isn't free.
2: what about sites that offer mixed content? for example a huge forum where there are family friendly areas and then special areas for adult content? or there is a single image of a topless woman on an otherwise clean page. what about art that contains nudity? should site with the venus de milo be banned? how about a website with a couple tasteful topless pictures? who considers what is tasteful?
3: the entire internet doesn't reside in america, what are you going to do about the sites that reside outside of it? i'd love to see you force your views on the entire world. and no, blocking those sites with a second great firewall is not a good solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: well, children need gurdians and supevision on net
also we already determined that "Separate is not Equal"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I learned something today!
To continue this thread... that right doesn't support the proposed law IMO. You already have every right to control how much porn comes into your home, including none. Don't own a computer. Don't use the web. Use filtering software. Monitor your childrens' internet usage. There are any number of solutions that do not require laws that potentially (at best) infringe on Constitutional rights, and are probably (at best) completely unworkable technically.
If the problem is content that nobody asked for, eg click a fun looking email and it turns out to be porn, this law would not solve it anyway. Plenty of sites would be willing to put porn on a "safe" port. Plenty of porn is served up from overseas where they would be perfectly within their rights to totally ignore this US law. And should as a matter of principle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
two points, one I'm just reinforcing
2) I expect for those people/bloggers tempted to publish pornography but who are insufficiently familiar with laws there would be training courses becoming available.
Except for the fact that there would have to be a way to get the entire planet to chip in their two cents on what pornography is or is not. And you'd have to take the course every week given the number of number of cases in the U.S. alone that define what is or isn't patently offensive or considered adult. The 50 states within our union can't even come to a consensus on this--and you expect it to be as simply as taking a course? If only!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The cynic in me thinks that's intentional. After all, the government funds our school system...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You don't have to disagree with someone's values to think they're applying them poorly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh, right, that isn't what you mean. What you mean is when someone wants to see content that you don't want them to see -- like your son viewing porn -- it seems just fine to 'opt out' for them.
I'll agree that this makes some sense when you're talking about your own kid and what you want them exposed to as your raising them, but it changes things when your desire to supervise your child starts interfering with the way other people live their lives.
What Ms. Preston is asking for, and what your 'rating system' is asking for, is a way that parents can stop thinking about what their kids are doing and be sure that it's 'safe' without taking an active part themselves. Even if well-intentioned, that just feels really irresponsible to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"from a professor from Brigham Young University"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the right to be free of unwanted speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not an intrusion on the 1st
It's an intrusion because it once again attempts to define what is objectionable and what is not for the entire population using the mysterious "we know it when we see it" test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legal Issues
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Nuisance
Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about. Nuisance laws don't regulate content at all. They regulate noise loudness levels. It has nothing to do with speech. Your neighbor's barking dog or car alarm violates nuisance laws and neither one is speech. Likewise, as long as your neighbor is quiet about it (i.e., a written political sign in his front yard), nuisance law does not apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Proselytizing
Yeah. But according to 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, that doesn't give the government the right to regulate speech.
(And the word "proselytize" is really only applicable to religious speech.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There *IS* a clean internet already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do We Need An Internet Zoning Law?
Professor Cheryl B. Preston, take your commie censorship ideas and stuff 'em!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ignorance Abounds
[ link to this | view in thread ]