House Committee Approves Global Online Freedom Act

from the will-it-do-anything? dept

Thu, Mar 29th 2012 7:37pm — Mike Masnick

An updated version of a bill that's been floating around for a few years -- the Global Online Freedom Act -- has passed out of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, and some people think that it might actually get somewhere (I'm still a bit skeptical). The point of the bill is to try to stop US companies from supplying tools of online censorship and oppression to repressive regimes. The version that passed out of committee took out some controversial earlier provisions that had potential criminal penalties for those who failed to report information to the Justice Department. It also included some new safe harbors for companies that join the Global Network Initiative. GNI -- set up, in part, by Techdirt book club participant Rebecca MacKinnon -- is an attempt to get companies and organizations to work together on a set of rules and principles to protect free expression around the globe.

While it is a bit disappointing that companies might need a law to avoid providing tools to censor free speech in these regimes, I am still amazed that US politicians can push for bills that seek to increase free speech abroad, while at the same time considering bills that would limit free speech at home. Either way, this bill is still a long way from actually becoming a law (there isn't even a Senate version yet). However, given the very reasonable interest in free speech issues around here, and the fact that the bill has received little coverage, I figured some more folks would be interested to know about it. CDT has raised some concerns about how you determine just what is "censorship" technology, as that's often in the eye of the beholder, but it appears that the backers of the bill actually are responsive on this issue and want to hear from the tech community.

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: censorship, congress, free speech, global online freedom act

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:04pm

Internet freedom is so overrated.

I mean, people should be expelled from the internet for linking to sites! /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:15pm

*Offer void to anyone who disrespects copyright, questions the government, complains about the economy, or is offensive to anybody in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:31pm
  
  Re:
  People who are not offensive offend me.
  
  (well, there goes that bill)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:31pm

A fundamental underpinning of the speech and press provisions of the First Amendment is to preserve what might otherwise be called "political speech" from abridgement by the federal government (and more recently state governments when the 14th Amendment was interpreted to reach certain state actions).

Hence, it is not at all surprising that the encouragement of political speech outside the US is a policy pursuit, as has been repeatedly noted by, for example, the Department of State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:59pm

"The point of the bill is to try to stop US companies from supplying tools of online censorship and oppression to repressive regimes"

Does that include the US government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 9:55pm

Looks like we're outsourcing freedom too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 10:55pm

Is there an exception for American companies who provide censorship tools to other American companies or American governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2012 @ 12:23am
  
  Re:
  Of course there would be! America is the land of the free-to-censor!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2012 @ 1:01am

they want to hear from the tech community until something is raised that they dont like!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2012 @ 2:30am

I am still amazed that US politicians can push for bills that seek to increase free speech abroad, while at the same time considering bills that would limit free speech at home.

This is what happens when you don't understand the difference between free speech and freeloading. You make stupid statements like this. Being stopped from streaming Avatar viewed a bit differently than calling for free and open elections. The former is more important to Techdirtbag Nation, the latter more important for those living under oppression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 3:07am
  
  Re:
  Aww you tried... here is your ribbon.
  No one is stopping Avatar from being streamed.
  
  They are however seizing the belongings of people they disagree with at the border looking for information to help in court cases. They do this using tools meant to stop terrorists, not citizens with dissenting viewpoints.
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/11143218297/court-suggests-politically-motiva ted-border-searches-may-be-unconstitutional.shtml
  
  We have "Free Speech" zones, so no politician has to hear the people who were dumb enough to elect them complain.
  We have them trying to pass laws restricting our ability to communicate without them listening in.
  Hell they tried to pass a law to make it illegal for me to call you a fuckwit.
  
  If your going to shill here, try harder.
  Fuckwit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chelleliberty (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 4:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    "... You know? See � You gotta use psychology. You gotta be a bit of a psychologist up here and know how to appeal to a person."
    
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin#The_Little_David_Years_.281971.E2.80.931977.2 9_.281999.29
    
    Oh, and N.B. strong language, NSFW, all those types of Carlin things... :D ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 30 Mar 2012 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  "you don't understand the difference between free speech and freeloading"
  
  Apparently this is a trait shared amongst many in governments and corporations, but is most easily recognized in shillmaniacs. It is easy to understand the motivations of the first two, however, it is difficult to comprehend brainwashed rambling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2012 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  "...the latter more important for those living under oppression."
  
  Like Americans?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2012 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  I believe what you are trying to say, converted to legal lingo, is that political speech has always enjoyed a higher status under US law than commercial speech because it was the former that was the motivation behind the speech and press provisions of the First Amendment.
  
  Those who conflate the two by treating them as full equivalents misunderstand their respective status under the First Amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Being stopped from streaming Avatar viewed a bit differently than calling for free and open elections.
  
  Again, it just needs to be pointed out that when those of us against copyright abuse talk about impinging free speech, we're not talking about being able to download avatar. We're talking about the impingement on all legal free speech, including political speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
charliebrown (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 5:16am

Rediculus Internet Acronyms Abound (RIAA)
Global
On
Line
Freedom
Act

or the GOLF Act

Tiger Woods should like that =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 6:09pm
  
  Re: Rediculus Internet Acronyms Abound (RIAA)
  Or GOLFA, in spanish, roughly translates to SLUT.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 30 Mar 2012 @ 6:41am

Frankly, this bill is laughable. A tool is a tool. Isn't that the repeated mantra about file lockers, torrent sites, etc, around here? I happen to agree with that mantra, but the cognitive dissonance at Techdirt has been on full display lately. Tools for censorship should not be illegal. It's software. That's it. And other nations have the sovereign right to run their countries how they see fit, whether we like it or not. Criminalizing the creation or sale of software by private companies, while the government continues to fund brutal rebellions, prop up oppressive dictators, start unneeded wars, carry out civilian assassinations without due process, spy on Americans with or without a warrant, take down sites with no recourse, imprison Americans with no due process, and generally expand oppression and regulation at every possible turn is the height of hypocrisy. Just another disgusting example of our government saying, "What's okay for us is illegal for you."

And some people still believe we live in a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Mar 2012 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Tools for censorship should not be illegal. It's software. That's it.
  
  I agree 100%, on a number of levels, from a basic rights level all the way up to a technical one (many tools with noncontroversial uses can also be used for censorship).
  
  However, I also think it's right & proper to shame and shun those who specifically develop and/or market software for the purpose of enabling censorship.
  
  This is an instance where social "law" (mores) should be in full force, not governmental law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mleiser (profile), 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:27am

who decides?
Lets says this is the perfect bill? WE all agree with its merits and definitions of what the technology is... Who then decides what constitutes a repressive regime? Is it anyone that opposes Israeli domestic and foreign policy? Russia? Saudi? Or for once that we take authority from the UN? Or is it just going to be a quid prop quo thing again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2012 @ 12:27pm

so you like this, its ok to force your twisted views on everyone, but the other way around, you scream censorship???

pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]