| panix on Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:26:44 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Global Internet Liberty Campaign |
Global Internet Liberty Campaign Member Statement
Submitted to the Internet Content Summit
Munich, Germany
September 9-11, 1999
Summary
The creation of an international rating and filtering system for
Internet content has been proposed as an alternative to national
legislation regulating online speech. Contrary to their
original intent, such systems may actually facilitate
governmental restrictions on Internet expression. Additionally,
rating and filtering schemes may prevent individuals from
discussing controversial or unpopular topics, impose burdensome
compliance costs on speakers, distort the fundamental cultural
diversity of the Internet, enable invisible "upstream"
filtering, and eventually create a homogenized Internet
dominated by large commercial interests. In order to avoid the
undesirable effects of legal and technical solutions that seek
to block the free flow of information, alternative educational
approaches should be emphasized as less restrictive means of
ensuring beneficial uses of the Internet.
* * *
A number of serious concerns have been raised since rating and
filtering systems were first proposed as voluntary alternatives
to government regulation of Internet content. The international
human rights and free expression communities have taken the lead
in fostering more deliberate consideration of so-called
"self-regulatory" approaches to Internet content control.
Members of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign have monitored
the development of filtering proposals around the world and have
previously issued two statements on the issue -- "Impact of
Self-Regulation and Filtering on Human Rights to Freedom of
Expression" in March 1998 and a "Submission to the World Wide
Web Consortium on PICSRules" in December 1997. These joint
statements reflect the international scope of concern over the
potential impact that "voluntary" proposals to control on-line
content could have on the right to freedom of opinion and
expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The undersigned organizations now reiterate
those concerns on the occasion of the Internet Content Summit.
Originally promoted as technological alternatives that would
prevent the enactment of national laws regulating Internet
speech, filtering and rating systems have been shown to pose
their own significant threats to free expression. When closely
scrutinized, these systems should be viewed more realistically
as fundamental architectural changes that may, in fact,
facilitate the suppression of speech far more effectively than
national laws alone ever could.
First, the existence of a standardized rating system for
Internet content -- with the accompanying technical changes to
facilitate blocking -- would allow governments to mandate the
use of such a regime. By requiring compliance with an existing
ratings system, a state could avoid the burdensome task of
creating a new content classification system while defending the
ratings protocol as voluntarily created and approved by private
industry.
This concern is not hypothetical. Australia has already enacted
legislation which mandates blocking of Internet content based on
existing national film and video classification guidelines. The
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill places
sweeping restrictions on adults providing or gaining access to
material deemed unsuitable for minors as determined by
Australian film and video classification standards. The
Australian experience shows that even developed democracies can
engage in Internet censorship, given the necessary technical
tools. An international content ratings system would be such a
tool, creating a ratings regime and blocking mechanisms which
states could impose on their citizens.
Australia is not alone in its support of mandatory Internet
content ratings systems. The United States government, in its
unsuccessful defense of the Communications Decency Act, argued
that the use of an Internet "tagging" scheme would serve as a
defense to liability under the Act. The scenario advanced by
the U.S. government would have required online speakers to "tag"
material as "indecent" in a manner that would facilitate
blocking of such content. That argument failed in the face of
evidence that Web browsers were not yet configured to recognize
and block material bearing such "tags." If the sort of
"voluntary" rating systems being advocated today had been widely
used in 1996, the government's argument may have prevailed.
In sum, the establishment and widespread acceptance of an
international rating and blocking system could promote a new
model of speech suppression, shifting the focus of governmental
censorship initiatives from direct prohibition of speech to
mandating the use of existing ratings and blocking technologies.
Second, the imposition of civil or criminal penalties for
"mis-rating" Internet content is likely to follow any widespread
deployment of a rating and blocking regime. A state-imposed
penalty system that effectively deters misrepresentations would
likely be proposed to facilitate effective "self-regulation."
Proposed legislation creating criminal and civil liability for
mis-rating Internet content has already been discussed in the
United States.
In addition to their potential to actually encourage government
regulation, rating and filtering systems possess other
undesirable characteristics. Such systems are likely to:
* prevent individuals from using the Internet to exchange
information on topics that may be controversial or unpopular;
* impose burdensome compliance costs on non-commercial or
relatively small commercial speakers;
* distort the fundamental cultural diversity of the Internet by
forcing Internet speech to be labeled or rated according to a
single classification system;
* enable invisible "upstream" filtering by Internet Service
Providers or other entities; and
* eventually create a homogenized Internet dominated by large
commercial speakers.
In light of the many potential negative effects of rating and
filtering systems, the movement toward their development and
acceptance must be slowed. If free speech principles are to be
preserved on the Internet, thoughtful consideration of these
initiatives and their potential dangers is clearly warranted.
Although generally well-intentioned, proposals for
"self-regulation" of Internet content carry with them a
substantial risk of damaging the online medium in unintended
ways.
The rejection of rating and filtering systems would not leave
the online community without alternatives to state regulation.
In fact, alternative solutions exist that would likely be more
effective than the legal and technical approaches that have
created a binary view of the issue of children's access to
Internet content. Approaches that emphasize education and
parental supervision should receive far more attention than they
have to date, as they alone possess the potential to effectively
direct young people toward beneficial and appropriate uses of
the Internet. Ultimately, the issue is one of values, which can
only be addressed properly within a particular family or
cultural environment. Neither punitive laws nor blocking
technologies can ensure that a child will only access online
content deemed appropriate by that child's family or community.
While the Internet is a global medium, questions concerning its
appropriate use can only be addressed at the most local level.
For these reasons, we urge a re-orientation of the ongoing
debate over Internet content. We submit that a false dichotomy
has been created, one that poses state regulation or industry
"self-regulation" as the only available options. We urge a more
open-minded debate that seriously explores the potential of
educational approaches that are likely to be more effective and
less destructive of free expression.
This submission is made by the following organizations:
ALCEI - Associazione per la Libert� nella
Comunicazione Elettronica Interattiva
http://www.alcei.it
American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
http://www.cjfe.org
Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
http://www.cyber-rights.org
Electronic Frontiers Australia
http://www.efa.org.au
Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org
Electronic Privacy Information Center
http://www.epic.org
F�rderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft (FITUG)
http://www.fitug.de
Fronteras Electronicas Espan~a (FrEE)
http:/www.arnal.es/free
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org
Index on Censorship
http://www.indexoncensorship.org
Internet Freedom
http://www.netfreedom.org
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org
Imaginons un R�seau Internet Solidaire (IRIS)
http://www.iris.sgdg.org
Liberty (National Council for Civil Liberties)
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
NetAction
http://www.netaction.org
Privacy International
http://www.privacyinternational.org
quintessenz
http://www.quintessenz.at
xs4all
http://www.xs4all.nl
=========================================================================
.......................................................................
David L. Sobel, General Counsel * +1 202 544 9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * [email protected]
Washington, DC 20003 USA * http://www.epic.org
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]