[LINK] The US version of content filtering

Jan Whitaker jwhit at janwhitaker.com
Mon Dec 15 11:47:10 AEDT 2008


At least it's just one provider:


Free broadband plan stirs debate on filtering

http://news.theage.com.au/technology/free-broadband-plan-stirs-debate-on-filtering-20081215-6ygw.html 

December 15, 2008 - 8:23AM

M2Z Networks' proposal to build a free wireless 
broadband network is not the only controversial 
part of its business plan. Just as contentious is 
its intention to filter the content delivered 
over that network to block any material deemed inappropriate for children.

Free-speech advocates on the left and right have 
expressed alarm at M2Z's plans to build a 
family-friendly network that would weed out 
objectionable sites by blocking particular Internet domain names.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin 
Martin took up that idea in his proposal to 
auction off a chunk of spectrum that would be 
used in part to deliver a basic broadband service 
over the nation's airwaves. It would ultimately 
be up to the FCC to decide exactly how any 
filtering mandate would work, including whether 
the filters would be located on the network or on user devices.

M2Z co-founder John Muleta says any company that 
offers a free broadband service that is available 
to everyone must figure out how to protect 
children from illegal and unlawful material _ 
much as television networks must do with over-the-air TV broadcasts.

Yet this component of M2Z's plan has stirred a 
long-running debate about who should determine 
what constitutes "appropriate" content and about 
how effective content filters truly are. Critics 
say filters often make mistakes and block 
legitimate sites, including resources about health and sexual education.

John Morris, general counsel for the Center for 
Democracy & Technology, believes Martin's 
content-filtering rule would be unconstitutional 
because it would violate the First Amendment 
rights of people whose Web sites are blocked, and 
because parents already have access to a range of 
online tools to control what their children see on the Internet.

Indeed, the latter argument was one point cited 
by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil 
Liberties Union, a landmark 1997 ruling that 
struck down a federal law regulating explicit material on the Internet.

To address these concerns, Martin's spectrum 
proposal would require the winning bidder to 
allow adults to opt out of content filtering.

But this raises a different problem, according to 
Berin Szoka, a fellow at the Progress & Freedom 
Foundation. That's because one benefit of a 
broadband service open to all is that it offers 
the potential for anonymity. The only way to 
allow adults to opt out of content filtering, 
however, would be to have users authenticate 
themselves, Szoka said. And that, he said, would sacrifice anonymity.

© 2008 
<http://news.theage.com.au/action/displayCopyrightNotice?sourceOrganisation=AP%20Digital>AP 
DIGITAL



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
personal: http://www.janwhitaker.com/personal/
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/

Our truest response to the irrationality of the 
world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

Writing Lesson #54:
Learn to love revision. Think of it as polishing 
the silver for guests. - JW, May, 2007
_ __________________ _


-- 

Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1848 - Release Date: 14/12/2008 12:28 PM






More information about the Link mailing list