From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:42:47 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716144140.4823C-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970716212722.13610J-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



well, the "presumption" has a somewhat stalinist aroma
to it, but as for the rest of this laughable proposal, 
I can't count a mind boggling number of constitutional 
problems. But I think we've had this talk before, on
another list.:)
MacN
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500
> From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a proposal being presented
> at the White House today.
> 
> The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional
> provisions contained in such a brief text.
> 
> Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision
> been given up so quickly.
> 
> Marc Rotenberg
> EPIC.
> 
> ----------
> 
> http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm
> 
> The Online Cooperative Publishing Act
>                                      (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe
> Internet Without Censorship)
> 
> 
>        Any law that seeks to regulate the Internet must first recognize the
> uniqueness of the medium.  The Internet is not the print media or the
>        broadcast industry.  It is also not another form of phone
> conversation or a 900 number calling system.  Instead, the Internet is the
>        manifestation of humankind's quest for limitless two-way interaction
> with thought.  The hyper-text layout allows us to change topics on
>        a whim, travel to distance places, or gather world opinion on a
> subject in a matter of minutes. 
> 
>        This distinctive nature of the Internet must be protected and even
> promoted by any legislation that claims to be fair to this medium.  The
>        interaction between the one receiving data and the one publishing it
> are where the core of the law should focus.  Both sides have rights,
>        the publisher has the First Amendment and the receiver has the right
> to be secure from harm in his home.  Proper Internet law should
>        encourage a cooperative transfer of ideas in the form of data.  (It
> should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of
>        cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. )
> 
>        Any law that attempts to give one side or the other is given an
> unreasonable burden in conducting the transfer of data is doomed to
>        failure.  The CDA was too burdensome on the publisher.  Its goal was
> to stop the flow of data, rather than to regulate it for the benefit
>        of all parties. 
> 
>        On the other hand, without a proper law, parents can purchase and
> activate measures to protect their children from adult material and still
>        not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material.  This is
> because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that can
>        harm the child to enter the home.  Once this material is experienced
> by the child, its damage is done.  There is no "oops" factor, no way
>        to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's innocence. 
> 
>        Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought.  It may
> regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. 
> 
>        With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between
> the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online
>        Cooperative Publishing Act. 
> 
>        It shall contain the following provisions:
> 
>        1.      The right to be able to identify the adult rating of online
> content before it enters one's home shall be established.  This shall be a
>        civil right giving the violated person or family the presumption in
> a suit against negligent publishers.
> 
>        2.      Negligent publishing of data shall be defined as placing
> adult oriented material on the Internet in such a way or in such a location
>        that it prevents its rating from being known.
> 
>        3.      A rating shall be defined as a PICS compatible label that
> identifies degrees of adult content in a way that can be understood by
>        computer filtering systems and is issued by a ratings service that
> has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals using its system to
>        mark their data.
> 
>        4.      A publisher is defined as anyone who places computer data
> where it can be accessed by the general public without the use of a
>        credit card or other secure verified ID or password given out only
> to adults.  Content that can be only be accessed by the use credit cards
>        or other secure verified IDs is not subject to this law.
> 
>        5.      The code used to surround content published on the Internet
> shall be defined as packaging.  All government identification
>        requirements shall be limited to the code of the packaging.  Nothing
> in this law shall be construed to require any altering or censorship
>        of the content.
> 
>        6.      Three types of online publishing shall be defined:
> 
>              a) Publishers who accurately identify their data with a
> recognized labeling system. 
> 
>              These publishers shall be considered to have satisfied the
> labeling requirement of the law.  The right to publish shall be
>              completely protected for those who accurately label their
> material.  They shall be protected from all civil suits that argue
>              negligent posting of data.  Only grossly mislabeled material
> can be prosecuted.  (Note: This is not a protection for
>              obscene material.  This law will offer no protection for
> obscene material.)
> 
>              b) Publishers who mislabel their data to the degree that it
> enables a minor using a label filtering
>              system to gain access to harmful material.
> 
>              Data shall be considered to be mislabeled if it is posted in a
> newsgroup, directory or other joint area that has been labeled
>              as free from material harmful to minors.  Tampering with
> another's label shall be crime.
> 
>              These publishers may be criminally prosecuted for subverting a
> rating system to entice children to harmful material.  The
>              mislabeling must be to the extent that it is completely
> unreasonable to accept it as accurate.  Only ratings that are too
>              lenient can be prosecuted.
> 
>              Posting unlabeled adult material to an area that has declared
> itself safe for children or tampering with another's label shall
>              be a severe criminal assault on the rights of the receiver.
> 
>              Sending unsolicited email to a minor that contains
> pornographic material or an invitation to a pornographic Web Site, shall
>              be considered negligent enticement and may be criminally
> prosecuted.  A bulk email service sending pornographic email
>              must show that it took reasonable measures to insure that
> every recipient was an adult.  (Example: The addresses used
>              were from the membership list of Adult Check or other such
> adult verification services.)
> 
>              c) Publishers who do not label their data at all.
> 
>              Negligence in the absence of damages shall not be a criminal
> offense (but it may be a civil violation of the rights of the
>              receivers of that data) unless the data is deemed to be
> harmful to minors.  Then the publisher will be prosecuted for
>              negligence.
> 
>              These publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who
> feels their children were harmed by the data negligently
>              presented.  The parents shall be given presumption in all
> cases and do not have to prove the data actually produced harm
>              to their child only that the material reasonably could be
> considered to have needed a label warning to protect children.
> 
> 
> 
>          7.      Internet Service Providers are considered publishers of
> only that material of which they directly control or gain revenue via a
>          percentage of sales.  Web Site designers may be held liable if
> they fail to attach ratings to Web sites, containing material harmful to
>             minors, they design for a fee. They may, by written agreement,
> assign the task of rating to another legally responsible party.
> 
>        8.      Not every document is required to be labeled, only the
> default or index document of each directory.  In the case of an entire web
>           domain being of one rating, only its default top level document
> needs to be labeled with instructions to apply it to the entire site. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>