Jump to content

Internet censorship in the United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→State laws: add info on Missouri law
m →References: add note about use of licensed material from ONI
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 125: Line 125:


A January 4, 2007 [[restraining order]] issued by U.S. District Court Judge [[Jack B. Weinstein]] forbade a large number of activists in the [[psychiatric survivors movement]] from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that [[Eli Lilly and Company]] intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of [[Zyprexa]]. The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] appealed this as [[prior restraint]] on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.<ref>[http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/zyprexa/ Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation], Electronic Frontier Foundation</ref> It was later held that the judgment was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.<ref>[http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/02/13 "Eli Lilly Loses Effort to Censor Zyprexa Documents Off the Internet"], press release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 13 February 2007</ref>
A January 4, 2007 [[restraining order]] issued by U.S. District Court Judge [[Jack B. Weinstein]] forbade a large number of activists in the [[psychiatric survivors movement]] from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that [[Eli Lilly and Company]] intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of [[Zyprexa]]. The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] appealed this as [[prior restraint]] on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.<ref>[http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/zyprexa/ Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation], Electronic Frontier Foundation</ref> It was later held that the judgment was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.<ref>[http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/02/13 "Eli Lilly Loses Effort to Censor Zyprexa Documents Off the Internet"], press release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 13 February 2007</ref>

===Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) cell phone service suspension===
On July 3, 2011, two officers of the [[Bay Area Rapid Transit]] (BART) Police [[Bay Area Rapid Transit#2011 Charles Hill killing and aftermath|shot and killed Charles Hill]] at Civic Center Station in San Francisco.<ref>{{cite web|last=Upton |first=John |url=http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/bart-police-release-video-shooting/ |title=BART Police Release Video of Shooting - Pulse of the Bay |publisher=The Bay Citizen |date=July 25, 2011 |accessdate=August 21, 2011}}</ref> On August 12, 2011, BART shut down [[cell phone]] services, including mobile Internet access, for three hours in an effort to limit possible protests against the shooting<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391046,00.asp|title=To Prevent Protests, San Francisco Subway Turns Off Cell Signals, August&nbsp;13,&nbsp;2011|accessdate=August 18, 2011|work=PC Mag}}</ref><ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20091822-245/s.f-subway-muzzles-cell-service-during-protest/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 S.F. subway muzzles cell service during protest] cnet.com.</ref> and to keep communications away from protesters at the Civic Center station in San Francisco.<ref>[http://www.ktvu.com/news/28854510/detail.html Questions, Complaints Arise Over BART Cutting Cell Phone Service] KTVU.</ref> The shutdown caught the attention of international media, as well as drawing comparisons to the former Egyptian president [[Hosni Mubarak]] in several articles and comments.<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8305470 Leland Yee scolds BART over cell phone blackout] KGO-TV.</ref>

On August 29th a coalition of nine public interest groups lead by [[Public Knowledge]] filed an Emergency Petition asking the [[FCC]] to declare "that the actions taken by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) on August 11, 2011 violated the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, when it deliberately interfered with access to [[Mobile phone|Commercial Mobile Radio Service]]
(“CMRS”) by the public" and "that local law enforcement has no authority to suspend or deny CMRS, or to order CMRS providers to suspend or deny service, absent a properly obtained order from the Commission, a state commission of appropriate jurisdiction, or a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction".<ref>[http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Emergency%20Petition%20for%20Declaratory%20Ruling_0.pdf "In the Matter of the Petition of Public Knowledge et al. for Declaratory Ruling that Disconnection of Telecommunications Services Violates the Communications Act"], Harold Feld, Legal Director, and Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Dirctor, of Public Knowledge before the Federal Communications Commission, 29 August 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-26/phone-web-clampdowns-in-crises-are-intolerable-susan-crawford.html "Phone, Web Clampdowns in Crises Are Intolerable"], Susan Crawford, Bloomberg News, 25 September 2011</ref>


==References==
==References==
[[File:Cc.logo.circle.svg|18px]] ''This article incorporates [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ licensed material] from the [http://opennet.net/regional-overviews Regional Overviews] and other sections of the [[OpenNet Initiative]] web site.<ref>[[File:CC-BY-icon-80x15.png]] [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license], see the lower right corner of pages at the [http://opennet.net/ OpenNet Initiative web site]</ref>
{{reflist |2}}
{{reflist |2}}


Revision as of 18:51, 29 September 2011

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States.

Overview

The strong protections for freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship are rooted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. These protections extend to the Internet and as a result very little government mandated technical filtering occurs in the U.S. Nevertheless, the Internet in the United States is highly regulated, supported by a complex set of legally binding and privately mediated mechanisms.[1]

After a decade and half of ongoing contentious debate over content regulation, the country is still very far from reaching political consensus on the acceptable limits of free speech and the best means of protecting minors and policing illegal activity on the Internet. Gambling, cyber security, and dangers to children who frequent social networking sites—real and perceived—are important ongoing debates. Significant public resistance to proposed content restriction policies have prevented the more extreme measures used in some other countries from taking hold in the U.S.[1]

Public dialogue, legislative debate, and judicial review have produced filtering strategies in the United States that are different from those found in most of the rest of the world. Many government-mandated attempts to regulate content have been barred on First Amendment grounds, often after lengthy legal battles.[2] However, the government has been able to exert pressure indirectly where it cannot directly censor. With the exception of child pornography, content restrictions tend to rely more on the removal of content than blocking; most often these controls rely upon the involvement of private parties, backed by state encouragement or the threat of legal action.[3] In contrast to much of the rest world, where ISPs are subject to state mandates, most content regulation in the United States occurs at the private or voluntary level.[1]

The first wave of regulatory actions in the 1990s in the United States came about in response to the profusion of sexually explicit material on the Internet within easy reach of minors. Since that time, several legislative attempts at creating a mandatory system of content controls in the United States have failed to produce a comprehensive solution for those pushing for tighter controls. At the same time, the legislative attempts to control the distribution of socially objectionable material on the Internet in the United States have given rise to a robust system that limits liability over content for Internet intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) and content hosting companies.[1]

Proponents of protecting intellectual property online in the United States have been much more successful, producing a system to remove infringing materials that many feel errs on the side of inhibiting legally protected speech.[1][4]

National security concerns have spurred efforts to expand surveillance of digital communications and fueled proposals for making Internet communication more traceable.[1]

Federal laws

With a few exceptions, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bar federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet. The primary exception has to do with obscenity, including child pornography, which enjoys no First Amendment protection.[5]

Communications Decency Act (CDA)

In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.[6] In 1997, in the case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court found the anti-indecency provisions of the Act unconstitutional.[7] Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that "the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech".[8]

Section 230[9] is a separate portion of the CDA that remains in effect. Section 230 says that operators of Internet services are not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services and also protects ISPs from liability for good faith voluntary actions taken to restrict access to certain offensive materials[10] or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

Child Online Protection Act (COPA)

In 1998, the United States enacted the Child Online Protection Act[11] (COPA) to restrict access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law was found to be unconstitutional because it would hinder protected speech among adults. It never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.[12][13][14]

Signed into law in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201) criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms[15] and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet.[16] The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is included as Title II of the DMCA[17] and limits the liability of the on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.[18]

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) went into effect on 21 April 2000.[19] It applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age and details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.[20] While children under 13 can legally give out personal information with their parents' permission, many websites disallow underage children from using their services altogether due to the amount of paperwork involved.

Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

On December 21, 2000 the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)[21] (CIPA) was signed into law.

CIPA requires K-12 schools and libraries receiving federal Universal Service Fund (E-rate) discounts or LSTA grants for Internet access or internal connections to:[22]

  • adopt and implement an Internet safety policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) measures restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them;
  • install internet filters or blocking software that prevents access to pictures that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors);
  • to allow the filtering or blocking to be disabled upon the request of an adult; and
  • adopt and enforce a policy to monitor the online activities of minors.

CIPA does not:[22]

  • require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults; or
  • affect E-rate funding for schools and libraries receiving discounts for telecommunications services, such as telephone service, but not for Internet access or internal connections.

Trading with the Enemy Act

In March 2008, the New York Times reported that a blacklist published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency established under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1917 and other federal legislation, included a number of websites, so that U.S. companies are prohibited from doing business with those websites and must freeze their assets. The blacklist has the effect that domain name registrars based in the U.S. must block those websites. According to the New York Times, eNom, a private domain name registrar and Web hosting company operating in the U.S., disables domain names which appear on the blacklist.[23] It describes eNom’s disabling of a European travel agent’s Web sites advertising travel to Cuba, which appeared on the list[24] published by OFAC. According to the report, the U.S. government claimed that eNom was "legally required" to block the websites under U.S. law, even though the websites were not hosted in the U.S., were not targeted at U.S. persons and were legal under foreign law.

Proposed federal legislation that has not become law

Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA)

The Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 was introduced, but did not become law.[25] Two similar bills were introduced in 2007, but neither became law.[26][27]

The proposed legislation would have required schools, some businesses, and libraries to block minors access to social networking websites. The bill was controversial because, according to its critics, it would limit access to a wide range of websites, including many with harmless and educational material.

Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced in 2010, but did not become law.[28]

The proposed Act caused controversy for what critics perceived as its authorization for the U.S. President to apply a full block of the Internet in the U.S.[29]

A new bill, the Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2011, is under consideration by the U.S. Congress in 2011.[30] The new bill addresses many of the same issues as, but takes quite a different approach from, the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was introduced in September 2010, but did not become law.[31]

The proposed Act would have allowed the U.S. Attorney General to bring an in rem action against an infringing domain name in United States District Court, and seek an order requesting injunctive relief. If granted, such an order would compel the registrar of the domain name in question to suspend operation of, and may lock, the domain name.[31]

The U.S. Justice Department would maintain two publicly available lists of domain names.[31] The first list would contain domain names against which the Attorney General has obtained injunctions. The second list would contain domains alleged by the Justice Department to be infringing, but against which no action had been taken. Any service provider who willingly took steps to block access to sites on this second list would immune from prosecution under the bill.

State laws

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in January 2011:[32]

Twenty-five states have Internet filtering laws that apply to publicly funded schools or libraries. The majority of these states simply require school boards or public libraries to adopt Internet use policies to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or harmful materials. However, some states also require publicly funded institutions to install filtering software on library terminals or school computers.

States that require Internet filtering in schools and/or libraries to protect minors include:[32] Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.

States that require Internet service providers to make a product or service available to subscribers to control use of the Internet include:[32] Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.

In July 2011 Missouri lawmakers passed the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act which included a provision that barred K-12 teachers from using websites that allow "exclusive access" in communications with current students or former students who are 18 or younger, such as occurs with private messages on sites such as Facebook.[33] A circuit court order issued before the law went into effect blocked the provision because "the breadth of the prohibition is staggering" and the law "would have a chilling effect" on free-speech rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.[34] In September the legislature replaced the controversial provision with a requirement that local school districts develop their own policies on the use of electronic communication between employees and students.[35][36]

Censorship by institutions

Institutions that provide Internet access will sometimes limit this access in an attempt to ensure it is used only for the purposes of the institution.

Schools

K-12 schools that accept funds from the federal E-rate program or LSTA grants for Internet access or internal connections are required by CIPA to have an "Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place".[22]

Many K-12 school districts in the United States use Internet filters to block material deemed inappropriate for the school setting.[37][38] The federal government leaves decisions about what to filter or block to local authorities. However, many question this approach, feeling that such decisions should be made by a student's parents or guardian. Some of the fears associated with Internet filtering in schools include: the risk of supporting a predominant ideology, that views held by filter manufacturers are being imposed on students, over blocking of useful information, and under blocking of harmful information.[39] A 2003 study "found that blocking software overblocked state-mandated curriculum topics extensively–for every web page correctly blocked as advertised, one or more was blocked incorrectly.[40]

Libraries

Libraries that accept funds from the federal E-rate program or LSTA grants for Internet access and internal connections are, like schools, required by CIPA to have an "Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place".[22]

Some libraries may also block access to certain web pages, including pornography, New York Times, advertising, chat, gaming, social networking, and online forum sites,[41] but there is a long and important tradition among librarians against censorship[42] and the use of filtering and blocking software in libraries remains very controversial.[43]

Telecommunications companies

In 2007, Verizon attempted to block the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America from using their text messaging services to speak to their supporters. Verizon claims it was in order to enforce a policy that doesn’t allow their customers to use their service to communicate “controversial” or “unsavory” messages.[44] Comcast, AT&T and many other ISP's have also been accused of regulating internet traffic and bandwidth.

Military

The Department of Defense prohibits its personnel from accessing certain IP addresses.[45] The US military's filtering policy is laid out in a report to Congress entitled "Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet".[46]

Wikileaks

In February 2008, the Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit prompted the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent injunction against the website Wikileaks' domain name registrar. The result was that Wikileaks could not be accessed through its web address. This elicited accusations of censorship and resulted in the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepping up to defend Wikileaks. After a later hearing, the injunction was lifted.[47]

In December 2010, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Library of Congress, the U.S. Air Force, and other government agencies began advising their personnel not to read classified documents available from WikiLeaks and some blocked access to WikiLeaks and other news organizations' websites.[48][49] This action was intended to reduce the exposure of personnel to classified information released by Wikileaks and published by those news organizations.

On December 1, 2010 Amazon.com cut off WikiLeaks 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security.[50] In a statement Lieberman said:[51]

[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.

Constitutional lawyers say that this is not a first amendment issue because Amazon, as a private company, is free to make its own decisions. Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed that this is not a violation of the first amendment, but said it was nevertheless disappointing. "This certainly implicates first amendment rights to the extent that web hosts may, based on direct or informal pressure, limit the materials the American public has a first amendment right to access".[52]

Individual websites

Some websites that allow user-contributed content practice self-censorship by adopting policies on how the web site may be used and by banning or requiring pre-approval of editorial contributions from users that do not follow the policies for the site.

By corporations abroad

Several U.S. corporations including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and MySpace practice greater levels of self-censorship in some international versions of their online services.[53][54] This is most notably the case in these corporations' dealings in China.

See also: Censorship by Google, Yahoo! in China, Criticism of Microsoft censorship in China, and MySpace in China

A January 4, 2007 restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.[55] It was later held that the judgment was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.[56]

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) cell phone service suspension

On July 3, 2011, two officers of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police shot and killed Charles Hill at Civic Center Station in San Francisco.[57] On August 12, 2011, BART shut down cell phone services, including mobile Internet access, for three hours in an effort to limit possible protests against the shooting[58][59] and to keep communications away from protesters at the Civic Center station in San Francisco.[60] The shutdown caught the attention of international media, as well as drawing comparisons to the former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in several articles and comments.[61]

On August 29th a coalition of nine public interest groups lead by Public Knowledge filed an Emergency Petition asking the FCC to declare "that the actions taken by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) on August 11, 2011 violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, when it deliberately interfered with access to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (“CMRS”) by the public" and "that local law enforcement has no authority to suspend or deny CMRS, or to order CMRS providers to suspend or deny service, absent a properly obtained order from the Commission, a state commission of appropriate jurisdiction, or a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction".[62][63]

References

This article incorporates licensed material from the Regional Overviews and other sections of the OpenNet Initiative web site.[64]

  1. ^ a b c d e f "ONI Regional Overview: North America", OpenNet Initiative, 30 March 2010
  2. ^ "Cybersieves", Derek E. Bambauer, Duke Law Journal, vol. 59 (2009)
  3. ^ "The Move to the Middle: The Enduring Threat of 'Harmful' Speech to the End-to-End Principle", John Palfrey, Jr. and Robert Rogoyski, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 21 (2006), pp.31–65
  4. ^ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 2010
  5. ^ "The Internet Censorship Controversy", Usman Qazi, Professionalism in Computing (Computer Science 3604), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, spring 1996
  6. ^ "Communications Decency Act of 1996", a United States federal law, Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 104–104 (text) (PDF), 110 Stat. 133-139, enacted February 8, 1996
  7. ^ "CDA", Center for Democracy and Technology
  8. ^ "No.96-511, JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.", 26 June 1997, Supreme Court Decision Index, Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition
  9. ^ § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I of the U.S. Code, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School
  10. ^ material that is considered "... to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", from § 230(c)(2)(A) "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material", Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I of the U.S. Code"
  11. ^ "47 U.S.C. 231". law.cornell.edu. Retrieved July 11, 2006.
  12. ^ "Judge Strikes '98 Law Aimed At Online Porn". Associated Press. Retrieved March 22, 2007.
  13. ^ Lamut, Anna (3 August 2008). "ACLU v. Mukasey; Third Circuit Holds Child Online Protection Act Unconstitutional". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Retrieved 24 January 2009. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)
  14. ^ Nichols, Scott (22 January 2009). "COPA Child-Porn Law Killed". PC World. Retrieved 24 January 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. ^ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 2010
  16. ^ The Digital Mellennium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office Summary, December 1998
  17. ^ Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512
  18. ^ "DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation
  19. ^ "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998", a United States federal law, located at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 105–277 (text) (PDF), 112 Stat. 2581-728, enacted October 21, 1998)
  20. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule", U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 7 October 2008
  21. ^ "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)", 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)-254(h)(7)
  22. ^ a b c d "Children's Internet Protection Act", Consumer Publications, Federal Communications Commission, updated/reviewed 22 April 2011
  23. ^ Adam Liptak (4 March 2008). "A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears". The New York Times.
  24. ^ "Alphabetical Listing of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons". Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 25 February 2009.
  25. ^ H.R. 5319: Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, govtrack.us, 9 May 2006
  26. ^ H.R.1120: Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007, govtrack.us, 16 February 2007
  27. ^ S.1965: Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, govtrack.us, 2 August 2007
  28. ^ H.R.5548: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, govtrack.us, 16 June 2010
  29. ^ "Myth vs. Reality: The Facts About S. 3480, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010”, a fact sheet issued by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, and Susan M. Collins, Ranking Member, United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 23 June 2010, PDF, Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  30. ^ H.R.1136: Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2011, govtrack.us, 16 March 2011]
  31. ^ a b c "S.3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - 20 September 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  32. ^ a b c "Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking and Usage Policies in Schools and Libraries", National Conference of State Legislatures, 13 January 2011
  33. ^ Section 162.069 of SB 54, signed by the governor 14 July 2011, effective date 28 August 2011
  34. ^ "Order Entering Preliminary Injunction in Missouri State Teachers Association, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al.", Jon E. Beeterm, Circuit Judge, Case No.: 11AC-CC00553, Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, 26 August 2011
  35. ^ "Can Teachers and Their Students Be Banned from Becoming Facebook Friends?", Anita Ramasastry, Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, in Justia, 13 September 2011
  36. ^ "Mo. lawmakers vote to repeal teacher-Facebook law", David A. Lieb, Associated Press in Boston.com, 23 September 2011
  37. ^ "Internet filtering as a form of soft censorship ", Mitch Wagner, Computerworld Tool Talk blog, 19 March 2010
  38. ^ "How Internet censorship harms schools", Mitch Wagner, Computerworld Tool Talk blog, 26 March 2010
  39. ^ "Internet Censorship: Issues for Teacher-Librarians", Alvin Schrader, Teacher Librarian: The journal for school library professionals, May/June 1999
  40. ^ "Study Released on Internet Blocking in Schools", press release, Online Policy Group and Electronic Frontier Foundation, 23 June 2003
  41. ^ "Internet Use in Libraries", Fact Sheet Number 26, American Library Association, July 2010
  42. ^ "Library Bill of Rights", American Library Association Council, adopted 19 June 1993, as amended and last reaffirmed 23 January 1996
  43. ^ "Resolution on the Use of Filtering Software in Libraries", American Library Association, 2 July 1997
  44. ^ Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, Adam Liptak, New York Times, 27 September 2007
  45. ^ General B.B. Bell, Commander, UNC/CFC/USFK (18 May 2007). "Restricted Access to Internet Entertainment Sites Across DoD Networks". U.S. Army Korea.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  46. ^ "Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet", Report to Congress, September 2007
  47. ^ "Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
  48. ^ "U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks", David de Sola, CNN, 4 December 2010
  49. ^ "Air Force cutting off access to WikiLeaks news". CNN. 14 December 2010. Retrieved 14 December 2010.
  50. ^ "WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure", Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, 2 December 2010
  51. ^ "Amazon Severs Ties with Wikileaks", Joe Lieberman's U.S. Senate web site, 1 December 2010
  52. ^ "How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop WikiLeaks", Talking Points Memo, 1 December 2010
  53. ^ "Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere", Jillian C. York, Robert Faris, and Ron Deibert, OpenNet Initiative, 19 September 2010
  54. ^ "Geolocation filtering", OpenNet Initiative Bulletin 007, 27 October 2004
  55. ^ Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  56. ^ "Eli Lilly Loses Effort to Censor Zyprexa Documents Off the Internet", press release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 13 February 2007
  57. ^ Upton, John (July 25, 2011). "BART Police Release Video of Shooting - Pulse of the Bay". The Bay Citizen. Retrieved August 21, 2011.
  58. ^ "To Prevent Protests, San Francisco Subway Turns Off Cell Signals, August 13, 2011". PC Mag. Retrieved August 18, 2011.
  59. ^ S.F. subway muzzles cell service during protest cnet.com.
  60. ^ Questions, Complaints Arise Over BART Cutting Cell Phone Service KTVU.
  61. ^ Leland Yee scolds BART over cell phone blackout KGO-TV.
  62. ^ "In the Matter of the Petition of Public Knowledge et al. for Declaratory Ruling that Disconnection of Telecommunications Services Violates the Communications Act", Harold Feld, Legal Director, and Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Dirctor, of Public Knowledge before the Federal Communications Commission, 29 August 2011
  63. ^ "Phone, Web Clampdowns in Crises Are Intolerable", Susan Crawford, Bloomberg News, 25 September 2011
  64. ^ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, see the lower right corner of pages at the OpenNet Initiative web site
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States&oldid=453091913"