IP: The Day the Sites Went Out in Georgia?

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:20:17 -0400
From: "David H. Rothman" <rothman () clark net>


Well, the Guv down in Georgia signed off today on the state legislature's
imbecility. HB1630, dubbed the Internet Police bill, is now law. Court case
ahead? Is this "the day the sites went out in Georgia"? The word from at
least one online lawyer is for Web sites down there to be damn
careful--don't link to other sites without permission. 


My own hunch as a civilian is that the Internet Police Bill will be like the
Decency Act. People will ignore it and test it, but like the Exonian
silliness, HB1630 is hardly the best way to promote technology. 


Tell your bosses to laugh next time a Georgia bureaucrat calls up and ask if
MegaComp would like to build a plant down there. Net.activists are skeptical
that the legislature will overturn HB1630. But, hey, if enough high-tech
companies, activists and online newspapers speak up, maybe the technophobes
down there will see their baby bite them.


For the grubby details and a link to the text of HB1630, see:


     http://www.gahouse.com/docs/whatsnew/parsons.htm


This is a page from the Conservative Policy Caucus, but that's
irrelevant--given this law's threat to the Web and freedom of speech. My own
politics happen to be progressive.


In case you're wondering about the origins of the Internet Police bill, it
was introduced by Don Parsons, a Net-stupid employee of BellSouth. According
to the Caucus: "During floor debate, Rep. Parsons could not explain the
concept of a link on a home page. It was clear to many that he had no idea
of what  the Internet was all about. Supposedly, his desire was to prevent
'misrepresentation' on the Internet. Parsons admitted that he had never been
on the Internet, except looking over a colleague's shoulder at  work." 


The Caucus quotes from HB1630: 


     "It shall be unlawful for any person...to
     transmit any data...if such data uses any individual name, trade name,
     registered trademark...which would imply that such person...has
     permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered
     trademark..."


Granted, some might say that you could assume implied consent if any
material is up on an open medium like the Web and you want to link to it
with appropriate identification by name. But the law is still a *big*
threat, given the new legal liabilities it creates for journalists,
activists and many others. See http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/telhome.html
for an example of intellectual property law as a bully's tool against the
First Amendment.


Consider, too, the accompanying ban on pseudonyms. One Georgian jokingly
emailed that he'd change his Net address to include his real name and snail
address.


If this were just a Georgia aberration, that would be one thing. But, again,
as stated in the my earlier post, there are reports that similar anti-Net
efforts are underway in California and elsewhere.


Oh, and, yes, the bill has made the Georgia press, at least some of whose
members are sensibly protesting.


Now--if only the national news media can wake up to the copyright zealotry
in D.C. The Internet Police law is just a preview of what's ahead if the
White Paper approach from the Clinton Administration wins out on the Hill
and in courts.


Meanwhile, thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for bringing
Georgia's imbecilities to people's attention. EFF tells me that the best
address to use to get the group's current newsletter--containing an article
on this--is
http://kragar.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/current.html.


David Rothman | http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/networld.html |
http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/telhome.html


Reproduction of the above encouraged online and in any other way - No
conditions!