Jump to content

Internet censorship in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.207.54.164 (talk) at 08:11, 4 May 2011 (→‎Overview). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Most online expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but laws concerning libel, intellectual property, and child pornography still determine if certain content can be legally published online. Internet access by individuals in the U.S. is not subject to technical censorship, but can be penalized by law for violating the rights of others. Content-control software is sometimes used by businesses, libraries, schools, and government agencies to limit access to specific types of content.[1]

Overview

The most commonly ignored, unrealized, and underestimated phenomena in America directly correlates with the media, and its biases. It's hardcore bias is due to the medias submission to government oversight; moreover, restriction on multimedia suffocates the public's conception of the global world, which leads to false decisions and ideas concerning both domestic and international decisions/relations. The misleading media in the United States can be compared to all the broadcasts, in most countries around the globe. There are many questions that have no answers. The situation that made me add this comment to this website occurred when I was trying to write about the characteristics of Hamas; commonly referred to as a terrorist group. I already knew there were many positive ideals that members of Hamas had that correlate to most religions, most interestingly Christianity. The problem that I faced while searching through Google, and other search primers, was that I could barely find more than one or two positives associated with Hamas. I am no supporter of the group, but there are a lot of individuals that do, so I find it difficult to believe that no accredited articles exist that cover all aspects(including positive and negative ideals) of Hamas. Hopefully someone can help me out. Either way, every argument has two sides and both sides are valid in their own ways. 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.[2]

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.[2]

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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[2]

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.[2]

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.[2][5]

National security concerns have spurred efforts to expand surveillance of digital communications and fueled proposals for making Internet communication more traceable.[2]

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.[6]

Communications Decency Act (CDA)

In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act, which attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.[7] In 1997, in the case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court found the anti-indecency provisions of the Act unconstitutional.[8] Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that "the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech".[9]

Section 230[10] 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[11] or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

Child Online Protection Act

In 1998, the United States enacted the Child Online Protection Act[12] (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.[13][14][15]

Signed into law in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201) criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms[16] and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet.[17] The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is included as Title II of the DMCA[18] and limits the liability of the on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.[19]

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act went into effect on 21 April 2000.[20] 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.[21] 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 21 December 2000 the Children's Internet Protection Act[22] (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:[23]

  • 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:[23]

  • 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.

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.[24] Two similar bills were introduced in 2007, but neither because law.[25][26]

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.[27]

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.[28]

A new bill, the Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2011, is under consideration by the U.S. Congress in 2011.[29] 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.[30]

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.[30]

The U.S. Justice Department would maintain two publicly available lists of domain names.[30] 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:[31]

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:[31] 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:[31] Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.

Censorship by institutions

Institutions, both public and private, that provide Internet access for their employees, customers, students, or members will sometimes limit this access in an attempt to ensure it is used only for the purposes of the institution. This can include limiting access to entertainment content in business and educational settings and limiting high-bandwidth services in settings where bandwidth is at a premium. Some institutions also block outside e-mail services as a precaution, usually initiated out of concerns for local network security or concerns that e-mail might be used intentionally or unintentionally to allow trade secrets or other confidential information to escape.

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".[23]

Many K-12 school districts in the United States use Internet filters to block material deemed inappropriate for the school setting.[32][33] 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.[34] 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.[35]

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".[23]

Some libraries may also block access to certain web pages, including pornography, advertising, chat, gaming, social networking, and online forum sites,[36] but there is a long and important tradition among librarians against censorship[37] and the use of filtering and blocking software in libraries remains very controversial.[38]

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.[39] 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.[1] The US military's filtering policy is laid out in a report to Congress entitled "Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet".[40]

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.[41]

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.[42][43] This action was intended to reduce the exposure of personnel to classified information released by Wikileaks and published by those news organizations.

On 1 December 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.[44] In a statement Lieberman said:[45]

[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".[46]

Individual websites

Some websites that allow user-contributed content may 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.[47][48] 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

Block against Cuban websites

In March 2008, the New York Times reported that eNom, a private domain name registrar and Web hosting company operating in the U.S., disables domain names which appear on a U.S. Treasury Department blacklist.[49] It describes eNom’s disabling of a European travel agent’s Web sites advertising travel to Cuba, which appeared on a U.S. Treasury Department list[50] published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The article’s sources use words varying from “scandal” to “legally required” to describe “how Web sites owned by a British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected by U.S. law”, especially when the operation is as “mysterious” as that of the OFAC list.

A 4 January 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.[51] It was later held that the judgment was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.[52]

References

  1. ^ a b 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)
  2. ^ a b c d e f "ONI Regional Overview: North America", OpenNet Initiative, 30 March 2010
  3. ^ "Cybersieves", Derek E. Bambauer, Duke Law Journal, vol. 59 (2009)
  4. ^ "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
  5. ^ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 2010
  6. ^ "The Internet Censorship Controversy", Usman Qazi, Professionalism in Computing (Computer Science 3604), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, spring 1996
  7. ^ "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
  8. ^ "CDA", Center for Democracy and Technology
  9. ^ "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
  10. ^ § 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
  11. ^ 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"
  12. ^ "47 U.S.C. 231". law.cornell.edu. Retrieved July 11, 2006.
  13. ^ "Judge Strikes '98 Law Aimed At Online Porn". Associated Press. Retrieved March 22, 2007.
  14. ^ 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)
  15. ^ 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)
  16. ^ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 2010
  17. ^ The Digital Mellennium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office Summary, December 1998
  18. ^ Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512
  19. ^ "DMCA", Electronic Frontier Foundation
  20. ^ "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)
  21. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule", U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 7 October 2008
  22. ^ "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)", 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)-254(h)(7)
  23. ^ a b c d "Children's Internet Protection Act", Consumer Publications, Federal Communications Commission, updated/reviewed 22 April 2011
  24. ^ H.R. 5319: Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, govtrack.us, 9 May 2006
  25. ^ H.R.1120: Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007, govtrack.us, 16 February 2007
  26. ^ S.1965: Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, govtrack.us, 2 August 2007
  27. ^ H.R.5548: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, govtrack.us, 16 June 2010
  28. ^ "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.
  29. ^ H.R.1136: Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2011, govtrack.us, 16 March 2011]
  30. ^ a b c "S.3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - 20 September 2010". GovTrack.us. September 20, 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
  31. ^ 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
  32. ^ "Internet filtering as a form of soft censorship ", Mitch Wagner, Computerworld Tool Talk blog, 19 March 2010
  33. ^ "How Internet censorship harms schools", Mitch Wagner, Computerworld Tool Talk blog, 26 March 2010
  34. ^ "Internet Censorship: Issues for Teacher-Librarians", Alvin Schrader, Teacher Librarian: The journal for school library professionals, May/June 1999
  35. ^ "Study Released on Internet Blocking in Schools", press release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 23 June 2003
  36. ^ "Internet Use in Libraries", Fact Sheet Number 26, American Library Association, July 2010
  37. ^ "Library Bill of Rights", American Library Association Council, adopted 19 June 1993, as amended and last reaffirmed 23 January 1996
  38. ^ "Resolution on the Use of Filtering Software in Libraries", American Library Association, 2 July 1997
  39. ^ Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, Adam Liptak, New York Times, 27 September 2007
  40. ^ "Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet", Report to Congress, September 2007
  41. ^ "Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
  42. ^ "U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks", David de Sola, CNN, 4 December 2010
  43. ^ "Air Force cutting off access to WikiLeaks news". CNN. 14 December 2010. Retrieved 14 December 2010.
  44. ^ "WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure", Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, 2 December 2010
  45. ^ "Amazon Severs Ties with Wikileaks", Joe Lieberman's U.S. Senate web site, 1 December 2010
  46. ^ "How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop WikiLeaks", Talking Points Memo, 1 December 2010
  47. ^ "Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere", Jillian C. York, Robert Faris, and Ron Deibert, OpenNet Initiative, 19 September 2010
  48. ^ "Geolocation filtering", OpenNet Initiative Bulletin 007, 27 October 2004
  49. ^ Adam Liptak (4 March 2008). "A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears". The New York Times.
  50. ^ "Alphabetical Listing of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons". Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 25 February 2009.
  51. ^ Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  52. ^ "Eli Lilly Loses Effort to Censor Zyprexa Documents Off the Internet", press release, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 13 February 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States&oldid=427372115"