From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:22:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Washington Post on dangers of self-censorship for the Net
Message-ID: <v03007804b08e94374f6b@[168.161.105.216]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



[The Washington Post has it right. This is what many civil libertarians
have been warning about for months: the industry and some advocacy groups
(who should know better -- http://www.netparents.org/summit_part.html) are
falling over themelves in a rush to label, sort, and filter. They hope to
stave off a CDA II. But their frantic scurrying is "voluntary" only in the
sense that "voluntary" is newspeak for the threat of government censorship.
--Declan]

*****************

The Washington Post
November 10, 1997
EDITORIAL; Pg. A20
'Self-Regulation' and the Net

   CLOSE WATCHERSs of the long-running TV ratings fight could read it as a
series of tussles over exactly how far the government can go in pushing the
proprietors of an expressive medium -- such as TV -- to curb that
expression through "voluntary" action. When do carrot-and-stick become just
stick? That story isn't over yet: Congress, though antsy, has so far
managed to stay on the safe side of the line that separates pressure from
outright censorship, and the different responses of different networks is
ironic proof that the policy isn't completely coercive. But those who want
to see yet more variations on the theme can watch the whole pattern play
out again in White House efforts to encourage self-regulation on the
Internet.

   The administration, after coming to grief over its dogged support for
the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, now takes the position
that it's up to software providers, parents and citizen groups to make the
Internet safe for children, though the government has a beefed-up role to
play in enforcing existing laws in cyberspace, for instance, those against
child pornography, stalking or harassment. As an accompaniment, though, it
is putting considerable public pressure on Internet players to develop a
system of ratings and "taggings" for sites that would allow parents to sort
Internet access by a few broadly agreed-upon categories.

   In a July announcement of steps taken by several large software
companies to include "family-friendly" sorting features in their browsers,
the president emphasized the importance of law enforcement and parental
involvement alike in making sure "we do not allow pornographers and
pedophiles to exploit a wonderful medium to abuse our children." The vice
president, praising the various filters on the market, called them "safety
belts for children traveling the Information Superhighway" -- though surely
he's the only person who still calls it that. Last week, though, Ira
Magaziner, the administration point-person on Net issues, took a different
tone in a speech to Internet advertisers. The "tremendous economic
benefits" of the Net won't work, he said, "if we don't get efficient
industry self-regulation on issues like privacy and content. . . . If you
fail, we will have to go the legislative route. That gets caught up in the
political process and will be less rational and efficient."

   Well, yes -- and also less legal. Don't get us wrong: Self-restraint, in
some of these cases, is a pretty good place for the providers of what's now
called "content" to end up. But the line between urging self-restraint and
threatening government censorship is a thin one. The White House, no less
than Congress, needs to watch its step.