Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?
from the questions,-questions dept
On Thursday, President Obama gave a speech to the United Nations that (not surprisingly) covered a lot of ground. But the bit that caught my eye concerned his commitment to a free and open internet without censorship:We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security. We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.Sounds good.
Around the same time Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was giving a speech at Georgetown University where he talked about some very similar points:
Today, I am announcing the official launch of an additional Task Force project -- one focused on preserving the global, Free Flow of Information on the Internet.Later on in the speech, he again worries about governments censoring the internet:
It's likely that many of you saw a recent cover story in The Economist alluding to "the Web's new walls."
The theme of the article is that the openness of the Internet is in jeopardy.
As the Internet has grown, and as it's become more central to the lives of people and to economies, we are seeing an increasing number of government policies around the world that restrict the free flow of information on the Web.
Many of these policy efforts, in particular those centered on censorship, have deep human rights implications.
In recent years, however, we have seen a significant up-tick in threats to the free flow of information on the Internet.Again, all of this sounds good... but it makes me wonder how the administration feels about the new "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" from Senators Leahy and Hatch, which set up a system that avoids due process to censor websites in a clear attempt to "undermine fair competition and create market share for preferred businesses."
Censorship continues to be a significant problem in too many countries, and a range of new Internet-related regulations, or other actions by governments around the world, are springing up as speed bumps on the information superhighway.
At one level, we are dealing with questions that concern national sovereignty. We recognize that enhanced efforts to combat cyber-crimes and to protect a nation's national security needs are necessary.
But there seems to be the growing risk that idiosyncratic regulations are implemented not to protect a state's legitimate interests, but rather to undermine fair competition or create market share for preferred businesses.
Unfortunately, it seems likely that Obama and Locke are all for this kind of censorship. That's because the "preferred businesses" that are helped by the COICA are the ones who support Obama and Locke. After all, it was just a few weeks ago that Locke gave a speech where he completely sided with the entertainment industry on various copyright issues, highlighting bogus data and ignoring tons of evidence that contradicted the statements he was making.
Chances are we're going to see more hypocrisy in the government -- claiming to be against censorship designed to protect businesses in other countries, but all for it at home, when those businesses are the ones contributing campaign funds.
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: barack obama, censorship, coica, gary locke, orrin hatch, patrick leahy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Chances are we're going to see more hypocrisy in the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's as if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's as if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet the U.S. has no problems censoring broadcasting airwaves by giving only a select hand full of corporations control over our right to use broadcasting spectra however we feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Context much?
He's pretty clearly talking about other nations here, not the U.S. government. Other countries censor the internet, while the U.S. government is only protecting the children and musicians. There's a difference. Come on now, keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progressives want a World Govt - UN
Leveling of wealth; knock down the rich countries to raise the poor
Favor Socialist business models over Free enterprise models
Stifling competition (Free enterprise) in favor of Regulations
Remove Constitutional Checks and Balances and replace with Czars
Autonomies; The Fed, Regulation Czar, Health Care Czar, Consumer Protection Czar (bypass Congress and Constitution)
Proposed - Control the Internet with Censorship Czar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progressives want a World Govt - UN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
But that's not what's going on. Some big machine is helping jerks get rich by selling access to other people's hard work and the jerks don't pay the real workers anything. If ISOHunt, Pirate Bay or the USENET site du jour tried to copyright their bitstream-- a very ironic act-- they wouldn't even pass the Feist test for creative contribution to the world.
This kind of First Amendment argument hurts the cause because it lumps together the real people who are censored with a bunch of losers who are too cheap to share their cash with people who actually create content.
While you're on your censorship/First Amendment kick, why don't you check out this case from Baltimore where one of the people convicted of murder just helped hire the hitman. Sounds just like the torrent sites that always claim that they're not actually infringing, they're just pointing people to the infringement which is like totally okay, dude.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-co-murder-for-hire-closing-2010092 0,0,6586684.story
So go ahead. I dare you to say that the courts are censoring the hitman's tracker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
Yes, and when the VCR came out, it too, was decried as a pirate device.
Same with radio.
And television.
And the player piano.
And the mp3 device.
And you supported banning all of those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
It's a reach to link all this to a story about someone convicted of being an accessory before the fact to murder but he did it.
The thing about people who try so hard to be hip is that they usually aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
They're the ones offering money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
You were given examples of how this is censorship in a previous article, but chose to ignore them. Here are some more you propose to censor: Die Beauty; The Corporation; Self Helpless; pretty much everything on Vodo, including The Lionshare and Pioneer One.
By the way, what torrentfreak does (writing original articles), should definitely be covered by free speech rights. Your apparent suggestion that it shouldn't is shameful.
"But that's not what's going on. Some big machine is helping jerks get rich by selling access to other people's hard work and the jerks don't pay the real workers anything. If ISOHunt, Pirate Bay or the USENET site du jour tried to copyright their bitstream-- a very ironic act-- they wouldn't even pass the Feist test for creative contribution to the world. "
Selling? None of your examples sell access to anything. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the jerks getting rich by selling access to peoples hard work while pretending to work for them.
"This kind of First Amendment argument hurts the cause because it lumps together the real people who are censored with a bunch of losers who are too cheap to share their cash with people who actually create content. "
The cause is being harmed by people like you not willing to recognise that real people are censored when you deny First Amendment rights to 'a bunch of losers'.
"While you're on your censorship/First Amendment kick, why don't you check out this case from Baltimore where one of the people convicted of murder just helped hire the hitman. Sounds just like the torrent sites that always claim that they're not actually infringing, they're just pointing people to the infringement which is like totally okay, dude. "
I'm sorry, you're suggesting that copyright infringement is akin to murder? Further, you're suggesting that torrent sites are akin to the person hiring a hitman, rather than say, a legal service they happened to use to hire a hitman? Astounding.
"So go ahead. I dare you to say that the courts are censoring the hitman's tracker."
I'd rather say that you have very little regard for logic or reason if you are going to argue that a torrent site is analogous to someone hiring a hitman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
Now for bonus points please explain how this applies to CIVIL cases such as Copyright Infringement.......
Time's almost up, got an answer yet.... Yeah I didn't think so, but thanks for playing shill, see you tomorrow ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only censorship when they stop you from expressing yourself, not copying someone else's expression
You can't just go and cite a random murder story and say it backs up your argument. I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dedemocratisation of the internet
Here in Australia, the Labor party got back in as a minority government and now have to rely on the support of the Greens and a few Independents to pass legislation. The Greens have already categorically stated that they are against internet censorship, so even with the unknown factor of the Independents it looks set to fail. Still, they're pushing ahead with it - probably because opposition has been largely isolated to the tech community, the issue has been severely underreported in all mainstream media channels and backing down would provide the opposition party with political capital.
I hope our friends in the US have similar luck, I would hate to see these kind of restrictions become the norm - that would be a very worrying precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then The Corporate Oligarchy vetoed the bill
Therefore, if The Corporate Oligarchy wants to mess with censorship of stuff they don't like, expect them to force it to happen.
Remember representative government in the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Large companies give large "contributions" to both sides of an election, rendering the election's results meaningless, since whichever candidate is elected will take the same orders from the same lobbyists.
Therefore, laws do not reflect the will of the people, but the will of the wealthy. Rather than democracy, we have plutocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical of politics and why libertarianism is the only way to be free
I know that will make liberal heads explode but you will eventually understand it. Yes even you with bony protrusions for heads will understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote
As Obama says an open internet, his next line shows how civil liberties are being violated in the name of security
effectively monitor is not open
so he does agree with censorship in the right of civil society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censoring problems
Web site censoring is an important problem for computer users in my country. The censorers censor the sexual and political sites. They censor all types of proxy tools, proxy websites, all the anti-filtering software, virtual private networks and downloads and even censor-discussion sites as soon as they are released in internet. A dictatorship rules in my country. Sometimes users notice that they censor other ordinary sites which don�t have any outrageous materials.
for instance when users click on the links that they offer each other in Yahoo messenger, they immediately notice that they are censored in a manner that they can only see the text of the proffered link not the pictures. This is the most ruthless manner of controlling people by dictators who regard people as idiots who should be controlled by some dirty spiritualist.
I�d like to ask you a question as an internet expert. Considering the above facts, can you guide me how I can access at least the ordinary sites which I need to use in my course of study?
Thank you for your early reply
Sincerely yours
Mehrdad Shamsara
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pubblico
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internet
I will address this issue however ... In terms of 'always vote for smaller government' ... this is an massive fail; because the resulting power vacuum will be occupied by something much worse than than government: corporations. Who are under no obligation to maintain a safe or dignified society, obey the rule of law, act as accountable for their actions, or even have a human representative as an identity. They have no tradition, no values, no culture and no purpose other than to employ American citizens (which they increasingly fail to do). If you'd prefer Jason or Freddie Kruegger as an overlord, then by all means, make the government so small that it becomes nothing more than an empty shell, a dead, impotent subterfuge of what used to be 'America' ... government is not great either, but it has to be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George washington would be pissed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George washington would be pissed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
armando wants to keep seeing porno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]