Comments on: Internet Filters Reconsidered http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Garry Hague http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-33577 Garry Hague Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:12:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-33577 <p>well as long as i can look at little girls i will be happy.</p> well as long as i can look at little girls i will be happy.

]]> By: Garry Hague http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-54978 Garry Hague Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:12:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-54978 <p>well as long as i can look at little girls i will be happy.</p> well as long as i can look at little girls i will be happy.

]]> By: Marjorie Heins http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-54977 Marjorie Heins Wed, 24 May 2006 15:47:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-54977 <p>Thanks to Adam Thierer for this thoughtful review of "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report." As he points out, the argument that voluntary use of filters is a "less restrictive alternative" to government-mandated censorship is certainly a tempting one. The problem, as Adam also recognizes, is that once the courts have bought into this argument, it becomes far more likely that filtering will become mandatory rather than voluntary -- as CIPA, the law requiring filters in schools and libraries that receive federal aid for Internet connections, starkly demonstrates. And mandatory filtering blocks much more than a direct government censorship law possibly could.<br><br>The report has two main purposes -- not only to show why mandatory filtering is unacceptable, but also to give parents information so that they can make more informed voluntary choices.<br><br>Marjorie Heins<br>Free Expression Policy Project</p> Thanks to Adam Thierer for this thoughtful review of “Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report.” As he points out, the argument that voluntary use of filters is a “less restrictive alternative” to government-mandated censorship is certainly a tempting one. The problem, as Adam also recognizes, is that once the courts have bought into this argument, it becomes far more likely that filtering will become mandatory rather than voluntary — as CIPA, the law requiring filters in schools and libraries that receive federal aid for Internet connections, starkly demonstrates. And mandatory filtering blocks much more than a direct government censorship law possibly could.

The report has two main purposes — not only to show why mandatory filtering is unacceptable, but also to give parents information so that they can make more informed voluntary choices.

Marjorie Heins
Free Expression Policy Project

]]> By: Marjorie Heins http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-33576 Marjorie Heins Wed, 24 May 2006 14:47:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-33576 <p>Thanks to Adam Thierer for this thoughtful review of "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report." As he points out, the argument that voluntary use of filters is a "less restrictive alternative" to government-mandated censorship is certainly a tempting one. The problem, as Adam also recognizes, is that once the courts have bought into this argument, it becomes far more likely that filtering will become mandatory rather than voluntary -- as CIPA, the law requiring filters in schools and libraries that receive federal aid for Internet connections, starkly demonstrates. And mandatory filtering blocks much more than a direct government censorship law possibly could.</p> <p>The report has two main purposes -- not only to show why mandatory filtering is unacceptable, but also to give parents information so that they can make more informed voluntary choices.</p> <p>Marjorie Heins Free Expression Policy Project</p> Thanks to Adam Thierer for this thoughtful review of “Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report.” As he points out, the argument that voluntary use of filters is a “less restrictive alternative” to government-mandated censorship is certainly a tempting one. The problem, as Adam also recognizes, is that once the courts have bought into this argument, it becomes far more likely that filtering will become mandatory rather than voluntary — as CIPA, the law requiring filters in schools and libraries that receive federal aid for Internet connections, starkly demonstrates. And mandatory filtering blocks much more than a direct government censorship law possibly could.

The report has two main purposes — not only to show why mandatory filtering is unacceptable, but also to give parents information so that they can make more informed voluntary choices.

Marjorie Heins Free Expression Policy Project

]]> By: John Middleton http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-54976 John Middleton Wed, 24 May 2006 14:12:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-54976 <p>You might be interested in the European Commission's recent proposal for amending the Television without Frontiers Directive. They aim, in part, to harmonise the levels of protection of minors in audiovisual services and racially offensive material across Europe through the new Directive. This would equate to a harmonisation of different Member States national legislation relevant to protecting minors from harmful/offensive material.<br>What the proposals utterly fail to do is twofold: firstly, they fail to recognise the global nature of the internet means that the 'bad guys' can simply locate outside of Europe and still be as easily accessible as if they were within the EU. Secondly, and more relevant here, they fail to recognise the possiblity of empowering the individual user on the internet to better understand the dangers, i.e. media literacy and better 'equip' their access point with software protection from harmful content, i.e. filters.<br>It would be interesting to hear a TechLibFront point of view on these proposals, particularly as they are beginning to go into first-reading in the European Parliament.</p> You might be interested in the European Commission’s recent proposal for amending the Television without Frontiers Directive. They aim, in part, to harmonise the levels of protection of minors in audiovisual services and racially offensive material across Europe through the new Directive. This would equate to a harmonisation of different Member States national legislation relevant to protecting minors from harmful/offensive material.
What the proposals utterly fail to do is twofold: firstly, they fail to recognise the global nature of the internet means that the ‘bad guys’ can simply locate outside of Europe and still be as easily accessible as if they were within the EU. Secondly, and more relevant here, they fail to recognise the possiblity of empowering the individual user on the internet to better understand the dangers, i.e. media literacy and better ‘equip’ their access point with software protection from harmful content, i.e. filters.
It would be interesting to hear a TechLibFront point of view on these proposals, particularly as they are beginning to go into first-reading in the European Parliament.

]]> By: John Middleton http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/comment-page-1/#comment-33575 John Middleton Wed, 24 May 2006 13:12:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/24/internet-filters-reconsidered/#comment-33575 <p>You might be interested in the European Commission's recent proposal for amending the Television without Frontiers Directive. They aim, in part, to harmonise the levels of protection of minors in audiovisual services and racially offensive material across Europe through the new Directive. This would equate to a harmonisation of different Member States national legislation relevant to protecting minors from harmful/offensive material. What the proposals utterly fail to do is twofold: firstly, they fail to recognise the global nature of the internet means that the 'bad guys' can simply locate outside of Europe and still be as easily accessible as if they were within the EU. Secondly, and more relevant here, they fail to recognise the possiblity of empowering the individual user on the internet to better understand the dangers, i.e. media literacy and better 'equip' their access point with software protection from harmful content, i.e. filters. It would be interesting to hear a TechLibFront point of view on these proposals, particularly as they are beginning to go into first-reading in the European Parliament.</p> You might be interested in the European Commission’s recent proposal for amending the Television without Frontiers Directive. They aim, in part, to harmonise the levels of protection of minors in audiovisual services and racially offensive material across Europe through the new Directive. This would equate to a harmonisation of different Member States national legislation relevant to protecting minors from harmful/offensive material. What the proposals utterly fail to do is twofold: firstly, they fail to recognise the global nature of the internet means that the ‘bad guys’ can simply locate outside of Europe and still be as easily accessible as if they were within the EU. Secondly, and more relevant here, they fail to recognise the possiblity of empowering the individual user on the internet to better understand the dangers, i.e. media literacy and better ‘equip’ their access point with software protection from harmful content, i.e. filters. It would be interesting to hear a TechLibFront point of view on these proposals, particularly as they are beginning to go into first-reading in the European Parliament.

]]>