Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- First Amendment to the US Constitution
Although children can use the Internet to tap into the Library of Congress or download pictures from the surface of Mars, not all of the material on the Internet is appropriate for children. As a parent, you can guide and teach your child in a way that no one else can. You can make sure that your child's experience on the Internet is safe, educational and enjoyable. - President Bill Clinton (1997).
Since 1996, every Congressional session has passed at least one piece of legislation attempting to censor the Internet, almost always in the name of protecting the youth of America. The first such attempt came with Sen Exon's Communication's Decency Act (CDA), passed as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CDA constituted both the worst and the brightest moment in Internet legal history. It was the worst moment in that the legislation was so wrong headed, so ignorant of the technology it sought to regulate, and so unconstitutional that it was overturned by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. It also constituted a bright moment in legal history in that it cause the US legal system, at an early point of Internet development, to stop and reflect on the importance of the Internet for free speech in our society. The declaration that "the Internet is a never ending market place of ideas" set the tone of the policy debate to come for many years.
The CDA has been followed by a flurry of other mostly unsuccessful attempts: The Children's Online Protection Act, also known as the Son of the CDA, has suffered under the judgment of "unconstitutional" almost from the beginning. The Child Pornography Prevention Act, seeking to apply child porn laws to the digital age, hit a problem when there was no child involved and the content was not obscene. The Children's Internet Protection Act has faired better, conditioning the use of Erate by Schools and Libraries upon the use of filters.
In the mean time, the role of ISPs as Internet Police increased. And some stuff is so bad it has always been illegal.
New Global Internet Freedom Task Force Established Under Secretary Shiner (Feb. 14): "The U.S. Government and the State Department have been on the front of the battle to ensure global access to information through the internet." watch | listen
Remarks By MICHAEL K. POWELL Commissioner Federal Communications Commission Before the Media Institute Acceptance Speech for the Freedom of Speech Award Washington, D.C. October 20, 1999
Mar 28Sen. Health Comm Children and Families Subcommittee: Children Safety and the Internet
Chairman Kennard Announces Launch of "Parents, Kids, and Communications Page" on FCC Website in Remarks at the Annenberg Public Policy Center Conference on Internet and the Family in Washington, DC. [ Speech | News Release | Parents Information Page ] 5/4/99
47 U.S.C. § 223 Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications (Communications Act)
47 U.S.C. § 326 Censorship; Indecent Language
"Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication."
18 U.S.C. § 1460. Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property.
The Great Firewall of China - Internet Filtering and Free Expression: Will Doherty, Ben Edelman, Kimberley Heitman, Kijoong Kim and Arturo Quirantes CFP2003
Langdon v. Google, Inc (D Del Mar 7, 2007)(holding that Google did not violate the First Amendment - Is not a state actor - when it refused to carry ads in its ad network that Google found objectionable)
Murawski v. Pataki, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72749 (S.D.N.Y. September 26, 2007) (defendant Yahoo! is not a government actor and therefore could refuse to post the emails of plaintiff, a political candidate, to its message boards)
Papers
Penny Nance: Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut. (criticizing P2P networks) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection May 6, 2004 10:00 AM (note - in July 2005 Penny Nance was hired by the FCC to the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis)
FCC sends dirty joke to email list , CNET (May 1999) ("
In an ironic mishap, the Federal Communications Commission--which monitors the airwaves for what it considers obscene and indecent language--forwards a dirty joke to its external email list.
")
Ninth Circuit decision reversing for lack of jurisdiction Yahoo! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, No. 01-17424 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2004).
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 01-17424 Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 379 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2004) Order Taking Case En Banc: 399 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 10, 2005 Status: Argued and submitted March 24, 2005 Members of En Banc Court: Mary M. Schroeder, Warren J. Ferguson, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael D. Hawkins, A.W. Tashima, William A. Fletcher, Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Richard R. Clifton, Carlos T. Bea Subject Matter: Whether the federal district court has personal jurisdiction over defendants, French organizations in an action brought by Yahoo! seeking a declaratory judgment that orders issued by a French court were unenforceable. Whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction requires wrongful conduct by the defendant and whether the Supreme Court’s “express aiming” test may be met by a defendant’s intentional targeting of actions at plaintiff in the forum state.
Aug. 23, 2004 Ninth Circuit Decision reversing lower court
Nov. 7, 2001 NDCa Federal district court enjoins enforcement of French Court order
Dec. 21, 2000 Yahoo! files complaint in federal district court seeking to block enforcement of French order
Nov. 20, 2000 French Court affirms its order
May 22, 2000 French Court orders Yahoo! to remove nazi stuff from website
Apr. 10, 2000 LICRA filed complaint against Yahoo! in French court
Apr. 5, 2000 LICRA sent cease and desist letter to Yahoo!
