Internet censorship in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. Personal Internet access in the US is not subject to technical censorship but can be penalized by law for violating the rights of others. Programs such as content-control software are sometimes used within institutions such as businesses, libraries, schools, and government offices.[1] Though most online expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, laws such as those concerning libel, intellectual property, and pornography still determine how and if certain content can be published online.
Contents |
[edit] Legal issues
The Supreme Court is under almost constant fire from congress about censoring pornography on the internet, particularly with child pornography. Child pornography is one of today’s biggest concerns involving the internet. Many of the current laws in place are very broad when dealing with child pornography on the internet and this problem of broadness leads to a lot of space for others to argue against it. Many of whom worry over the fact that these laws will censor fictional works such as Lolita and group them in with the actual illegal acts of child pornography. “ In 2002, for example, the court rejected a 1996 law against “virtual” child porn because Congress so loosely defined the materials that the court found the prohibition might have covered depictions of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet”(Biskupic, 08a) It is because of these broad definitions that government bans are so hard to enforce or even create. Also if the bans try to broaden their definitions they risk making legal acts using misunderstood names get many people in trouble, like family sending pictures of their children doing harmless activities but the subject name of these pictures or e-mail give the misunderstanding of indecency. Many of the court cases involving people using "indecent" means through the internet often use these loop-holes of the broad definitions to make their case in court and often be able to reduce or drop their case. Many courts see these problems and are trying to get a firm definition of what is illegal and what is not so they can put a stop to these crimes.
[edit] By government
Internet content that violates U.S. law and is physically hosted in the United States may be removed through legal processes. For example, pirated films available on a website hosted in California could be targeted by the U.S. legal system. Similar content hosted in China could not.
Such content removals are routine and are usually not broadly labeled as government "censorship". However, controversial cases have occurred that some argue cross the line into censorship.
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.[2] This elicited accusations of censorship and resulted in the the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepping up to defend Wikileaks. After a later hearing, the injunction was lifted.[3]
[edit] By institutions
Institutions that provide Internet access for their members will sometimes censor this access in an attempt to ensure it is used only for the purposes of the institution. This includes censoring entertainment content in business and educational settings and censoring high-bandwidth services in settings where bandwidth is at a premium. Institutions may also block outside e-mail services. This is a precaution usually instigated out of concerns for network security.
[edit] Schools
Schools that accept funds from the E-rate program of LSTA grants for Internet connections are required by CIPA to have an “Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place” [4]
As internet in public schools becomes more popular, there is an ever increasing concern from parents as to what their children may be viewing. Many public schools have censorship programs built into their systems, but like most web blocking programs, they can't catch everything. Many schools default to using Internet filters to meet these requirements. However, the federal government leaves the local authorities to define what information needs to be censored, not each pupil’s guardian. This arrangement has led many to question the censorship of Internet sites in the school system. At the same time these censoring programs can also block out a lot of useful information and limit students on what their research can get them. Some parents are also against many of the measures schools go to because they feel their children are being limited and their rights reduced. Some of the fears associated with Internet censorship in the school include: a predominant ideology, a specific view held by the filter manufacturer being imposed on the students, over blocking of useful information, under blocking of harmful information.
[edit] By content providers
[edit] Telecommunications companies
Recent actions by several well known Internet providers has raised suspicion about how much power over the Internet they should be allowed to have.
Stephen H. Wildstrom, the author of the article “Get Your Hands Off The Web”[5], begins by retracting a statement he made in earlier article regarding government regulation of the Internet. He previously stated that the government should completely keep their hands off the web. Wildstrom now believes that the government must get involved to stop big telecommunications companies from abusing their ability to control what their customers can and can’t access through their services.
Verizon Communications recently attempted blocked an organization known as Naral Pro-Choice America ([1]) 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. A public outcry prevented this block from following through.
This author goes on to cite other questionable acts by Verizon, as well as AT&T. According to Wildstrom, these companies have expressed interest in aligning themselves with Hollywood and other entertainment media. This could lead to service wide attempts to prevent software piracy. Wildstrom believes that it’s very difficult to spot actual piracy taking place, and that a program set to prevent this would be prone to mistakes.
“…the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies” (Wildstrom, “Get Your Hands Off The Web”).
Others would say that in this growing age of the internet when one can get onto the internet even on their phones, companies need to take further actions to prevent lawsuits or endangering the people who use these products.
[edit] By corporations abroad
Several US corporations including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and MySpace practice greater levels of self-censorship in some international versions of their online services. This is most notably the case in these corporations' dealings in China.
- See also: Censorship by Google, Yahoo!, Work in China, Criticism of Microsoft, Censorship in mainland China, and MySpace, MySpace China
[edit] Censorship by Internet search engines
Some Internet search engines have begun to automatically censor information deemed sexually explicit. The issue is that the censorship is by default and users may not realize the results are censored.
Google filters pictures with the “Google’s Safe Search” http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/customize.html#safe . This product is designed to filter out content that is sexually explicit. (See also Censorship by Google)
Yahoo uses “SafeSearch Filter” to filter out adult content as well.
Other search engines that use filters:
- Altavista.com-automatic;
- Ask.com-user must initiate;
- Live.com (Formerly MSN)-automatic;
- Exalead.com-automatic;
- Excite-user must initiate;
- Dogpile.com-automatic;
- HotBot.com-automatic;
- Info.com-user must initiate
(Data compiled October 22, 2007)
[edit] Social involvement
Some individuals and groups have taken it upon themselves to help keep the media censored to protect their families and values. The Parents Television Council (PTS) and Morality in Media are two such groups. In dealing with the Internet, these groups scout websites that anyone can visit and send complaints to the FCC letting them know to deal with said site but with the Internet such a vast gathering of information it is hard to catch a lot of these “indecent sites”.
[edit] References
- ^ Restricted Access to Internet Entertainment Sites Across DoD Networks. usfk.mil (2007-05-11).
- ^ Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks | Electronic Frontier Foundation
- ^ Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved on 2008-03-10.
- ^ Children's Internet Protection Act
- ^ Get Your Hands Off the Web
[edit] External links
Campaigns against
