IP: Filtering Legislation

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

>    ==============================================================
>    Volume 7.17                                 September 25, 2000
>    --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                             Published by the
>               Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
>                             Washington, D.C.
>
>              http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_7.17.html
>
> =======================================================================
> Table of Contents
> =======================================================================
>
> [1] EPIC and PI Release Third Annual Privacy and Human Rights Survey
> [2] It's Baaack ... Mandatory Filtering Returns to Congress
> [3] Banned Books Week Celebrates Freedom of Expression
> [4] Privacy Foundation Investigates :CueCat Scanning Device
> [5] Int'l Data Protection Conference Brings Together NGOs
> [6] Upcoming Forum Presents ICANN Candidates
> [7] EPIC Bookstore - Privacy & Human Rights 2000
> [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
>
> =======================================================================
> [2] It's Baaack ... Mandatory Filtering Returns to Congress
> =======================================================================
>
> In what is becoming a perennial end-of-session strategy, proponents
> of mandatory Internet filtering are again trying to push legislation
> through Congress.  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Ernest Istook
> (R-OK) have attached a federal filtering mandate to the appropriations
> bill for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS).
> The "Children's Internet Protection Act" would require all public
> schools and libraries that receive federal funding for Internet access
> to install Internet blocking software on their computer terminals.
>
> Proponents of controversial measures often attempt to attach them to
> major appropriations bills when it appears unlikely that the
> legislation would survive if considered independently.  Supporters of
> Internet censorship and filtering have often resorted to such tactics;
> the Child Online Protection Act (since ruled unconstitutional) was
> attached to an omnibus spending bill last fall, and there have been
> several unsuccessful attempts to enact filtering requirements in
> similar fashion.  With the election campaign now in full swing,
> members of Congress are likely to feel political pressure to support
> efforts to "protect" children, no matter how misguided or ineffective
> they might be.
>
> The McCain-Istook mandate would deny local schools and libraries the
> ability to establish Internet policies and practices that conform
> with the values and desires of their communities.  For instance, the
> citizens of Holland, Michigan rejected a mandatory library filtering
> initiative earlier this year (see EPIC Alert 7.04), despite a strong
> campaign financed by a national pro-filtering group.  That community
> decision, however, would be overturned by the "one-size-fits-all"
> filtering requirements now pending before Congress.  In an effort to
> preserve local choice, most of the major education and library
> organizations are opposed to the McCain-Istook amendment.
>
> More information on Internet filtering, including ways to weigh in
> on the pending legislative mandate, is available at the Internet Free
> Expression Alliance website:
>
>      http://www.ifea.net
>
>
> www.cybertelecom.org