Civil Censorship - A New Threat

What is Civil Censorship
Censorship (n) - the act of suppressing anything objectionable.
Civil Censorship (n) - The act of a private individual or organization suppressing anything objectionable.

Civil Censorship is one of the most dangerous new form of censorship, because there is no constitutional protection from it. The First Amendment of the Constitution states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The key there is Congress cannot do it ( and by extension of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, state and local governments). Nowhere does it say your employer, ISP, parents, etc, cannot regulate what you say or hear. So a Christian ISP could prohibit you from saying anything they disagree with, including such things as gay rights, or the theory of evolution. Not only that, but as an ISP, they could prevent you from accessing material they find objectionable (which would be most of the Internet).

There are three recent examples of this kind of censorship. They all use different tactics. The first tactic is to threaten to, or file a lawsuit claiming some kind of damage from the speech (usually in the Intellectual property realm). The second is to arbitrary remove or restrict access to information. This option is popular with makers of blocking software and some ISP's, (like AOL).

Some Recent examples:

SPA sues ISP's over Weblinks

In September of 1996, the SPA sent an email to the administrators of Intergate.net, a Marrettia based ISP. The letter stated that a user's webpage (The Strange World of Tapu) contained copyright infringing material, and to remove the site or face legal consequences. The catch was that the Tapu page only contained links to other sites, and it was those sites that contained the infringing material. Jeffrey McGough of Intergate removed the pages, because he had no resources to fight the SPA's well funded lawyers. 22 other ISPs received similar letters from the SPA. Some of those letters didn't bother to site specific examples, they just said:

We have received information that unauthorized copies of our members' software are being reproduced and distributed on your server(s) in violation of Federal copyright law.

Now if you are a large ISP with 200k users, how can you remove the site? Furthermore the letter "forced" you to sign on the the SPA's piracy policy, which among other things requires you to monitor the content of your site. This provision could very easily destroy the Common Carriage principle that protects ISP's from legal liability for criminal use of their service.

Prompted by the success with the first 23 smaller ISP's the SPA then filed suit on three ISPs, Geocities, Tripod and Community Connexion.

"The terms of the 'Code of Conduct' are completely unacceptable, It basically gives the SPA the right to go on an ongoing fishing expedition through our customer's files, and requires us to do the same as their agent on a regular basis. The Code would classify us as 'publishers', and we would become responsible for everything our customers do. We've built this business on a solid foundation of respect for our customer's privacy. Monitoring their activities without grounds for suspicion is completely inconsistent with maintaining their privacy."
--Sameer Parekh Community ConneXion

The SPA has settled the suit with Tripod & Geocities. Community ConneXion refused to negotiate, and the SPA dropped the suit.

Interesting thing about the SPA's filing of the suit: The plaintiffs are Adobe Systems, Inc., Claris Corporation, and Traveling Software, Inc. When EFGA contacted Adobe about the suits, they were quick to deny that they filed any such lawsuit. They claimed it was not Adobe, but attorneys that filed the lawsuit, and we should talk to the attorneys and their representatives, not Adobe. However the lawsuit (which I do not have an online copy of) clearly states "Plaintiffs, ADOBE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, CLARIS CORPORATION, and TRAVELLING SOFTWARE, INC., by their attorneys, complain against Defendants......".

CYBERSitter Where do we not want you to go today?

CYBERsitter, a blocking program from Solid Oak Software, is advertised as an Internet safety tool that filters "offensive" content. Demo copies are given away at the company web site, and the product is also marketed by Focus on the Family, a long-standing backer of the Communications Decency Act (peacefire). The Teen Net anti-censorship alliance's website was recently added to the list of web sites blocked by the CYBERSitter program. CyberSitter also blocks sites such as the National Organization for Women, the WELL, a Yahoo search of "gay rights", and others. According to Wired Magazine:
Solid Oak has added Peacefire to its list of blocked sites and has asked Peacefire's Internet provider, Media3, to remove Peacefire from its server. Milburn [Solid Oak's President] has also said he will block out all content Media3 hosts if it does not remove Haselton's site.
The Internet community is fighting this, by mirroring the peacefire site, all over. While SolidOak has said they will block the page wherever it shows up, it is hoped that parents will be able to learn the truth about the product they have purchased.

The Cult of Scientology's war on the Internet

The story of the COS's attempts to censor critics is a long one They have:
Raided several peoples homes.
Using court ordered search warrants, the COS has raided several people's homes, taking files, and randomly deleting files.
Harassed Anonymous Remailer operators
The COS, through Interpol, obtained a Finnish seizure order to get the names of three anonymous accounts, that they said were posting copyrighted material. The operator of the Finnish Anonymous Remailer has since shut it down, until Finnish law clarifies the right to anonymity.
Sued Netcom and other ISP's who would not cancel the accounts of critics.
After they raided Elrich's home they pressed a lawsuit against him, the BBS system he used, and Netcom, the ISP that the BBS used.
Threatened to sue people for "trade secret" violations.
The COS has threatened to sue about a dozen people. More details are available at here .
Spammed the newsgroup alt.religion.scientolgy (a.r.s), and have attempted to remove the forum altogether.
To prevent critism, they attempted to remove the most popular forum for discussion. When USENET admins ignored their cancel attempt, they tried to make the group unusable, by posting hundreds of garbage messages to it each day.
Harassed several journalists
They even tried to sue the Washington Post, when they quoted some material in an article about the COS's legal activities.
It kinda makes you wonder if they ever heard of "Fair use".

Conclusion

Civil Censorship is extremely dangerous. The government is only one group who may try and force their views on the people. They have boundaries set to prevent this. In the examples above the boundaries are much less clear. How can we protect against this new form of censorship? We cannot legislate to prevent it without removing the right of one party to address grievances against another. Lawsuits may help, but there is not always grounds to sue when this happens. The only real solution is to watch for it, and when it happens make sure the censored material is distributed as widely as possible. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -Thomas Jefferson.

Related links

http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/upsepta.html#princeton http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/cybr0110.html http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html http://www.links.net/law/shut.html http://www.links.net/law/ http://pathfinder.com/@@9aYF3gcAjFd40MaU/Netly/daily/961010txt.html