<nettime> Two press releases on filtering efforts by Bertelsmann Foundation

[Cyber.Rights[mailto:cyber-rights@cpsr.org]]

From: Geert Lovink <geert@xs4all.nl>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            CONTACT:
Thursday, September 9, 1999      Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Executive Director
1300 GMT                         Dori Kornfeld, EPIC Fellow
                                 (+1) 202-544-9240

    INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT WARNS THAT PROPOSED INTERNET
  RATING AND FILTERING SYSTEM COULD DAMAGE FREE EXPRESSION

MUNICH, GERMANY -- Internet policy and human rights groups from around the
world are warning that a proposed international rating system for the
Internet could jeopardize the free flow of information on the global
medium.  In a joint statement issued today at the Internet Content Summit
in Munich, Germany, 19 organizations from three continents expressed their
concerns that a "voluntary" rating system being considered at the
conference may actually facilitate governmental restrictions on Internet
expression.  The organizations are members of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign (GILC), an international coalition of organizations working to
protect and enhance online civil liberties and human rights.

The organizations, which include the leading advocates of Internet free
expression, question the suggestion that industry-promoted rating and
filtering systems will reduce the possibility of legal restrictions on
online content.  They say in the statement that, "these systems should be
viewed more realistically as fundamental architectural changes that may,
in fact, facilitate the suppression of speech far more effectively than
national laws alone ever could."

According to David Sobel, General Counsel of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC), one of the groups issuing the statement, "The
Internet community does not support the concept of rating online content.  
We all want to ensure that children can make appropriate use of the
Internet, but there has been too much emphasis on blocking information and
too little emphasis on teaching kids to use the medium responsibly."  
Sobel is attending the Munich summit meeting, along with representatives
of several other GILC member groups that endorsed the joint statement.

On the occasion of the Munich meeting, EPIC has released a new collection
of articles that examine the potential problems of Internet rating and
filtering systems.  Contributors include many of the organizations signing
today's joint statement. "Filters & Freedom: Free Speech Perspectives on
Internet Content Controls" warns that content filters could severely limit
free expression on the Internet.  Copies of the collection are being
distributed to all participants at the Internet Content Summit. Additional
information on the publication is available at the EPIC website:

     http://www.epic.org/filters&freedom/

The full text of the GILC member statement is attached below and is also
available at the GILC website:

     http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-munich.html



       Global Internet Liberty Campaign Member Statement
          Submitted to the Internet Content Summit
                       Munich, Germany
                    September 9-11, 1999


Summary

The creation of an international rating and filtering system for Internet
content has been proposed as an alternative to national legislation
regulating online speech.  Contrary to their original intent, such systems
may actually facilitate governmental restrictions on Internet expression.  
Additionally, rating and filtering schemes may prevent individuals from
discussing controversial or unpopular topics, impose burdensome compliance
costs on speakers, distort the fundamental cultural diversity of the
Internet, enable invisible "upstream" filtering, and eventually create a
homogenized Internet dominated by large commercial interests.  In order to
avoid the undesirable effects of legal and technical solutions that seek
to block the free flow of information, alternative educational approaches
should be emphasized as less restrictive means of ensuring beneficial uses
of the Internet.

               * * *

A number of serious concerns have been raised since rating and filtering
systems were first proposed as voluntary alternatives to government
regulation of Internet content. The international human rights and free
expression communities have taken the lead in fostering more deliberate
consideration of so-called "self-regulatory" approaches to Internet
content control. Members of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign have
monitored the development of filtering proposals around the world and have
previously issued two statements on the issue -- "Impact of
Self-Regulation and Filtering on Human Rights to Freedom of Expression" in
March 1998 and a "Submission to the World Wide Web Consortium on
PICSRules" in December 1997.  These joint statements reflect the
international scope of concern over the potential impact that "voluntary"
proposals to control on-line content could have on the right to freedom of
opinion and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.  The undersigned organizations now reiterate
those concerns on the occasion of the Internet Content Summit.

Originally promoted as technological alternatives that would prevent the
enactment of national laws regulating Internet speech, filtering and
rating systems have been shown to pose their own significant threats to
free expression.  When closely scrutinized, these systems should be viewed
more realistically as fundamental architectural changes that may, in fact,
facilitate the suppression of speech far more effectively than national
laws alone ever could.

First, the existence of a standardized rating system for Internet content
-- with the accompanying technical changes to facilitate blocking -- would
allow governments to mandate the use of such a regime.  By requiring
compliance with an existing ratings system, a state could avoid the
burdensome task of creating a new content classification system while
defending the ratings protocol as voluntarily created and approved by
private industry.

This concern is not hypothetical. Australia has already enacted
legislation which mandates blocking of Internet content based on existing
national film and video classification guidelines. The Broadcasting
Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill places sweeping restrictions on
adults providing or gaining access to material deemed unsuitable for
minors as determined by Australian film and video classification
standards. The Australian experience shows that even developed democracies
can engage in Internet censorship, given the necessary technical tools.  
An international content ratings system would be such a tool, creating a
ratings regime and blocking mechanisms which states could impose on their
citizens.

Australia is not alone in its support of mandatory Internet content
ratings systems.  The United States government, in its unsuccessful
defense of the Communications Decency Act, argued that the use of an
Internet "tagging" scheme would serve as a defense to liability under the
Act.  The scenario advanced by the U.S. government would have required
online speakers to "tag" material as "indecent" in a manner that would
facilitate blocking of such content.  That argument failed in the face of
evidence that Web browsers were not yet configured to recognize and block
material bearing such "tags."  If the sort of "voluntary" rating systems
being advocated today had been widely used in 1996, the government's
argument may have prevailed.

In sum, the establishment and widespread acceptance of an international
rating and blocking system could promote a new model of speech
suppression, shifting the focus of governmental censorship initiatives
from direct prohibition of speech to mandating the use of existing ratings
and blocking technologies.

Second, the imposition of civil or criminal penalties for "mis-rating"
Internet content is likely to follow any widespread deployment of a rating
and blocking regime.  A state-imposed penalty system that effectively
deters misrepresentations would likely be proposed to facilitate effective
"self-regulation." Proposed legislation creating criminal and civil
liability for mis-rating Internet content has already been discussed in
the United States.

In addition to their potential to actually encourage government
regulation, rating and filtering systems possess other undesirable
characteristics.  Such systems are likely to:

* prevent individuals from using the Internet to exchange information on
topics that may be controversial or unpopular;

* impose burdensome compliance costs on non-commercial or relatively small
commercial speakers;

* distort the fundamental cultural diversity of the Internet by forcing
Internet speech to be labeled or rated according to a single
classification system;

* enable invisible "upstream" filtering by Internet Service Providers or
other entities; and

* eventually create a homogenized Internet dominated by large commercial
speakers.

In light of the many potential negative effects of rating and filtering
systems, the movement toward their development and acceptance must be
slowed. If free speech principles are to be preserved on the Internet,
thoughtful consideration of these initiatives and their potential dangers
is clearly warranted. Although generally well-intentioned, proposals for
"self-regulation" of Internet content carry with them a substantial risk
of damaging the online medium in unintended ways.

The rejection of rating and filtering systems would not leave the online
community without alternatives to state regulation. In fact, alternative
solutions exist that would likely be more effective than the legal and
technical approaches that have created a binary view of the issue of
children's access to Internet content.  Approaches that emphasize
education and parental supervision should receive far more attention than
they have to date, as they alone possess the potential to effectively
direct young people toward beneficial and appropriate uses of the
Internet.  Ultimately, the issue is one of values, which can only be
addressed properly within a particular family or cultural environment.  
Neither punitive laws nor blocking technologies can ensure that a child
will only access online content deemed appropriate by that child's family
or community. While the Internet is a global medium, questions concerning
its appropriate use can only be addressed at the most local level.

For these reasons, we urge a re-orientation of the ongoing debate over
Internet content.  We submit that a false dichotomy has been created, one
that poses state regulation or industry "self-regulation" as the only
available options.  We urge a more open-minded debate that seriously
explores the potential of educational approaches that are likely to be
more effective and less destructive of free expression.


This submission is made by the following organizations:

ALCEI - Associazione per la Liberta nella Comunicazione Elettronica
Interattiva http://www.alcei.it

American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression http://www.cjfe.org

Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) http://www.cyber-rights.org

Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au

Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org

Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org

Foerderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft (FITUG)
http://www.fitug.de

Fronteras Electronicas Espana (FrEE) http:/www.arnal.es/free

Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org

Index on Censorship http://www.indexoncensorship.org

Internet Freedom http://www.netfreedom.org

Internet Society http://www.isoc.org

Imaginons un Reseau Internet Solidaire (IRIS) http://www.iris.sgdg.org

Liberty (National Council for Civil Liberties)
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

NetAction http://www.netaction.org

Privacy International http://www.privacyinternational.org

quintessenz http://www.quintessenz.at

xs4all http://www.xs4all.nl

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@

MEDIA RELEASE-IMMEDIATE 9 September 1999

MUNICH SUMMIT - "BEGINS THE WAR AGAINST FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET"

Internet Freedom unreservedly condemns attempts by the Internet industry,
policy makers and law enforcement agencies to enforce industry regulation
of the Internet, calling it a "short cut to censorship".

This Friday 10 September The Bertelsmann Foundation ,which is a member of
the pro-rating group Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA), will
present a "Memorandum on Self-Regulation" at the Internet Content Summit
in Munich, Germany. The memorandum outlines international proposals to
regulate content on the Net.

According to CNET News.com, who have obtained access to the memo, it
proposes that web sites develop codes of conduct, Internet Service
Providers remove illegal sites, governments and industry groups set up hot
lines for people to report questionable online content, an improved
'architecture' for the rating and filtering of Internet content, the
labelling of material by content providers, and the provision of filters
for Internet users.

A similar plan sponsored by the Internet Content Rating for Europe
(INCORE) is also likely to be proposed at the summit.

Contrary to its much-hyped packaging, so-called rating schemes do not
operate like film classification. Material is not merely labelled
according to some third-party judgement as to its content, but is
physically blocked to prevent access. Any adult can see an '18'
certificate film if the choose, but they will not be able to visit sites
blocked by their service providers, by libraries, by their employers or by
regulatory bodies. Experience in the UK has already shown the eagerness of
sections of the industry to block legal material deemed offensive to
adults. Moreover, the absence of accountability inherent in industry
regulation means that Internet users may not even know of the existence of
material that is screened out. In common with film classification, rating
will mean that a vast body of unrated material will be effectively
censored. Some of the leading search engines have already indicated that
they will cease to list unrated material.

Rating and filtering disempowers parents by taking the judgement of
material out of their hands and placing it firmly in the grip of service
providers, industry regulators and content providers. More importantly, it
will make children the focus of concern for all originators of content,
regardless of the intended audience, making the needs of children the
orientation of the entire Internet. This can only have devastating
consequences for freedom of expression.

The UK has been treated as a guinea pig for the war on free speech. For
more than three years the Internet Watch Foundation has operated a hotline
for reporting controversial material, ISPs have routinely removed
'potentially' illegal web sites, and the government has regularly
emphasised its commitment to filtering and rating. In 1996 Science and
Technology Minister Ian Taylor warned that in the absence of
self-regulation, the police would take action against service providers as
well as the originators of illegal material. The Internet industry may
have felt it had no choice, but self regulation has meant that UK Net
users are among the most heavily policed in the world.


Chris Ellison, chief spokesman for the Campaign, commented:

"For some years would-be censors have bemoaned the technical difficulty of
censoring Net material. The widespread adoption of content rating will for
the first time make censorship a technical possibility. The proposals will
empower no one but the industry bodies themselves. The Munich Summit marks
the beginning of an international war on free speech on the Net."

For further comment call Chris Ellison on 00 44 (0) 956 129 518

NOTES

1. Internet Freedom is one of the UK's leading cyber liberties campaigns.
Their web site is at http://www.netfreedom.org. They can be contacted on
00 44 (0) 171 681 1559 or emailed on campaign@netfreedom.org.

2. The Internet Content Summit will be held in Munich on September 9-11,
1999, where the Bertelsmann Foundation will present its "Memorandum on
Self-Regulation." Information about the summit can be found at
http://www.stiftung.bertelsmann.de/internetcontent/english/frameset.htm?cont
ent/ c1000.htm

3. The Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) was formed in April 1999
to develop, implement and manage an internationally acceptable voluntary
self-rating system. ICRA members include America Online Europe,
Bertelsmann Foundation, Microsoft, IBM, British Telecom, British Telecom,
Demon Internet (UK), EuroISPA, Internet Watch Foundation, Microsoft,
Software & Information Industry Association, and T-Online Germany. ICRA's
website is at http://www.icra.org/

4. Internet Content Rating for Europe (INCORE) was set up by a group of
European organisations with a common interest in industry self-regulation
and rating of Internet content. It is now focused on a project which aims
to create a generic rating and filtering system suitable for European
users. This is being funded by the European Commission in 1999. INCORE's
web site is at http://www.incore.org/

~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
   CPSR Cyber Rights -- http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
      To unsubscribe, e-mail: cyber-rights-unsubscribe@cpsr.org
       To reach moderator, e-mail: cyber-rights-owner@cpsr.org
     For additional commands, e-mail: cyber-rights-help@cpsr.org
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net