Internet censorship in the United States

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. Personal Internet access in the US is not subject to technical censorship but can be penalized by law for violating the rights of others. Programs such as content-control software are sometimes used within institutions such as businesses, libraries, schools, and government offices. Though most online expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, laws such as those concerning libel, intellectual property, and pornography still determine how and if certain content can be published online.

By government

Internet content that violates U.S. law and is physically hosted in the United States may be removed through legal processes. For example, pirated films available on a website hosted in California could be targeted by the U.S. legal system. Similar content hosted in another country could not.

Such content removals are routine and are usually not broadly labeled as government "censorship". However, controversial cases have occurred that some argue cross the line into censorship.

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 the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepping up to defend Wikileaks. After a later hearing, the injunction was lifted.

By institutions

Institutions that provide Internet access for their members will sometimes censor this access in an attempt to ensure it is used only for the purposes of the institution. This includes censoring entertainment content in business and educational settings and censoring high-bandwidth services in settings where bandwidth is at a premium. Institutions may also block outside e-mail services. This is a precaution usually instigated out of concerns for network security.

Schools

Schools that accept funds from the E-rate program of LSTA grants for Internet connections are required by CIPA to have an "Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place"

As the World Wide Web in public schools becomes more popular, there is an ever increasing concern from parents as to what their children may be viewing. Many public schools have censorship programs built into their systems, but like most web blocking programs, they can't catch everything. Many schools default to using Internet filters to meet these requirements. However, the federal government leaves the local authorities to define what information needs to be censored, not each pupil’s guardian. This arrangement has led many to question the censorship of Internet sites in the school system. At the same time these censoring programs can also block out a lot of useful information and limit students on what their research can get them. Some parents are also against many of the measures schools go to because they feel their children are being limited and their rights reduced. Some of the fears associated with Internet censorship in the school include: a predominant ideology, a specific view held by the filter manufacturer being imposed on the students, over blocking of useful information, under blocking of harmful information.

Libraries

Libraries also censor certain web pages, this may not be limited to pornography as it may extend to advertising sites, chat, social networking, and forums.

Individual websites

Some websites that allow user-contributed content practice censorship by banning users or pre-approving editorial contributions.

By content providers

Telecommunications companies

Recent actions by several well known Internet providers has raised suspicion about how much power over the Internet they should be allowed to have.

Stephen H. Wildstrom, the author of the article “Get Your Hands Off The Web”, begins by retracting a statement he made in an earlier article regarding government regulation of the Internet in which he asserted that government should completely keep its hands off the web. Wildstrom now believes that government must get involved to stop big telecommunications companies from abusing their ability to control what their customers can and can’t access through their services.

Verizon Communications recently attempted blocked an organization known as Naral Pro-Choice America ([1]) 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. A public outcry prevented this block from following through.

This author goes on to cite other questionable acts by Verizon, as well as AT&T. According to Wildstrom, these companies have expressed interest in aligning themselves with Hollywood and other entertainment media. This could lead to service wide attempts to prevent software piracy. Wildstrom believes that it’s very difficult to spot actual piracy taking place, and that a program set to prevent this would be prone to mistakes.

“…the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies” (Wildstrom, “Get Your Hands Off The Web”).

Others would say that in this growing age of the internet when one can get onto the internet even on their phones, companies need to take further actions to prevent lawsuits or endangering the people who use these products.

By corporations abroad

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

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

Censorship by Internet search engines

Some Internet search engines have begun to automatically censor information deemed sexually explicit. The issue is that the censorship is by default and users may not realize the results are censored.

Google filters pictures with the “Google’s Safe Search” http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/customize.html#safe . This product is designed to filter out content that is sexually explicit. (See also Censorship by Google)

As of April 2009, Google also censors the search results for the term "Norman Finkelstein", leaving out the previous top-rated result nonrmanfinkelstein.com entirely from all search results. Other search engines, such as Yahoo!, still give the search result. This is the first example of Google explicitly endorsing political censorship in the US (Google China has used similar policies for some time).

Yahoo uses “SafeSearch Filter” to filter out adult content as well.

Other search engines that use filters:

• Altavista.com-automatic;
• Ask.com-user must initiate;
• Live.com (Formerly MSN)-automatic;
• Exalead.com-automatic;
• Excite-user must initiate;
• Dogpile.com-automatic;
• HotBot.com-automatic;
• Info.com-user must initiate

(Data compiled October 22, 2007)

External links

• Global Integrity: Internet Censorship, A Comparative Study; puts US online censorship in cross-country context.

Campaigns against

• Electronic Frontier Foundation, US-based organization for the defense of online liberties
• [2] Main page of the Morality in Media group
• [3] Main site for the Parent Television Council
• Everyones Guide to Bypassing Internet[4]
• Psiphon Main Page[5]
• Tor Main Page[6]
• Psiphon User Guide[7]