IP: ACLU Wary of White House Goals on "Voluntary" Internet

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

ACLU Wary of White House Goals on "Voluntary" Internet Censorship


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   Contact: Emily Whitfield
Wednesday, July 16, 1997                        (212) 549-2566


WASHINGTON -- After attending a White House summit on Internet censorship
today, the ACLU said that it was wary of schemes to implement a universal,
"voluntary" ratings system on the Internet.


        By seeking to coerce high-tech "self-regulation" from industry
groups, the White House is putting free speech at risk all over again, said
Donald
Haines, ACLU Legislative Counsel who attended the meeting.


        "Although President Clinton is to be commended for not seeking new
legislation, we're fearful that the Administration seems to be trying to
achieve through technology what it could not achieve through the Courts,"
Haines said, adding that the ACLU is eager to work with the Administration=
 to
protect free speech.


        The ACLU was invited to the summit late yesterday, in a last-minute
reversal from the White House, which had initially excluded the ACLU and
other free speech groups from the meeting.


        According to Haines, the gathering today came after a smaller group
of 40 or so industry representatives and certain parents groups met
privately with
President Clinton and Vice President Gore earlier in the morning.


        "The pre-meeting resulted in pre-determined conclusions being
presented to those who were invited to participate," Haines said.
"Unfortunately, the ACLU
and others who attended in a spirit of cooperation and with the hopes of
making contributions were largely relegated to the role of spectator."


        At the larger meeting, President Clinton announced that Internet giant
Netscape plans to join Microsoft and other major industry players in
embedding a ratings software code in its World Wide Web browser.  The code,
known as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) could then be used
with a "V-chip"-type ratings software program to screen out sites.


        In order for the scheme to work, website operators and individual
speakers
must "voluntarily" label their web sites and speech, or risk being screened
out altogether as an "unrated" site.
=0C
        The ACLU cautioned industry groups not to rush towards a universal
rating
system based on individual self-labeling, and urged support for a=
 third-party
filtering system that would allow diverse groups such as the PTA, the
Christian Coalition and the Southern Baptists to create their own filtering
schemes for parents to choose from.


        "In moving away from supporting third-party filtering systems, the
government is once again heading down the wrong road," Haines said.  "Rather
than empowering parents, a universal rating system  will in effect restrict
the choices that parents can make."


        The "voluntary" nature of the rating initiatives is, in fact,
little more
than government- coerced censorship, he added, and the PICS program, once in
place, could help enable the government to compel the use of such ratings, a
move the ACLU would vigorously oppose.


        Today's meeting follows a landmark Supreme Court decision late last
month
striking down censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act as
unconstitutional.  The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the CDA on behalf of
 20 organizations and individuals, the day after President Clinton signed=
 the
law.


        Writing for the nearly unanimous majority in Reno v. ACLU, Justice
John Paul
Stevens likened an online user to a "town crier" or a "pamphleteer," and
concluded that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a
democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of
censorship."


        "Imagine being forced to wear a sandwich board that says =EBviolent
and sexual
content' if you want to stand on the street and hand out a pamphlet on
domestic abuse," said the ACLU's Don Haines.  "This kind of content-based
self-labeling is exactly what the Supreme Court opposed in its recent
decision striking down censorship provisions of the Communications Decency
Act."


        "If the First Amendment is good enough for the United States
Supreme Court,
it ought to be good enough for the Internet industry," Haines added.


         -endit-