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