Stop the American firewall
Imagine if one day, you couldn't reach Israel Matzav because it was blocked in your country. Imagine further that it was blocked without yours truly even being told about it and given a chance to respond. Or imagine that all of blogspot was blocked the same way. Those are all possible results of bills working their way through the House and Senate right now (Hat Tip: Red Tulips). The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, the Directors Guild of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Screen Actors Guild. The bills aim not to censor political or religious speech as China does, but to protect American intellectual property. Alarm at the infringement of creative works through the Internet is justifiable. The solutions offered by the legislation, however, threaten to inflict collateral damage on democratic discourse and dissent both at home and around the world.It's been a long time since I agreed with the Left on something (the writer, Rebecca MacKinnon, is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation). It just happened. Write to your Senators and Representative. Don't censor the internet.
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
The House bill would also emulate China’s system of corporate “self-discipline,” making companies liable for users’ actions. The burden would be on the Web site operator to prove that the site was not being used for copyright infringement. The effect on user-generated sites like YouTube would be chilling.
YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have played an important role in political movements from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park. At present, social networking services are protected by a “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content as soon as rights-holders point it out to them. The House bill would destroy that immunity, putting the onus on YouTube to vet videos in advance or risk legal action. It would put Twitter in a similar position to that of its Chinese cousin, Weibo, which reportedly employs around 1,000 people to monitor and censor user content and keep the company in good standing with authorities.
Labels: censorship, internet regulation
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:19 PM
3 Comments:
When I found out about the bill, I felt physically sick. I already wrote to my Congressman and Senator. I just hope this does not pass. The end result could be catastrophic in terms of its negative effect on the internet freedom I take for granted.
You may recall that AP at one point was hassling bloggers who used ANY of their content, despite the bloggers' reasonable claims that what they were doing was covered by Fair Use.
This is enormously dangerous to free speech and must not be allowed to pass. Of course, it's probably unconstitutional.
Well, if you bloggers get your press pass (or even if you don't) I guess we'll have to find a Satellite Free America way of getting onto sites that our dictator (hmmm. who is that? Soros?) doesn't want us to have access to.
Post a Comment
<< Home