Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Here’s a good article by Declan McCullagh on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s outrageous vendetta against Usenet. The article is good not only because yours truly is quoted.
I’ve been looking, and haven’t found a single advocate from the left or critic of Comcast’s network management practices that has said a word of support for Comcast on this subject. This is where Internet freedom is really in peril – and nothing?
Facing threats of legal action from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, many ISPs have curbed newsgroup access in the name of fighting child porn. Now, it looks like a big fish is holding out: Comcast.
Good for them. While it’s understandable that other ISPs elected to fold under intense pressure from an overzealous AG with a powerful bully pulpit, Comcast is entirely justified in standing its ground.
It’s not the responsibility of network providers to police their servers for potentially illegal files, as the Communications Decency Act makes clear. The only legal obligation of an ISP is to remove illegal content upon gaining knowledge of its existence on their network. But that hasn’t stopped Cuomo from sending a harsh letter to Comcast threatening to pursue “legal remedies to stop child pornography” if the cable giant doesn’t comply with his terms.
Cuomo wants ISPs to go far beyond merely removing illegal content as it’s discovered. The “voluntary agreement” that New York is pushing on ISPs has already resulted in many providers dropping newsgroup access completely, causing millions of subscribers to lose access to Usenet. Even among users who haven’t been completely cut off from newsgroups, the popular alt.* hierarchy has been disabled, making it nearly impossible to acquire anything larger than text files. The worst part is that the “bad guys” are unaffected by the crackdown on child porn—third-party Usenet servers with uncensored newsgroup access are a dime a dozen these days.
A legal battle with Cuomo might not be cheap, but it’d be worth fighting nevertheless. As I pointed out last month, suppressing speech through so-called “voluntary agreements” likely runs afoul of the First Amendment, and ISPs enjoy immunity under the Safe Harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act.
Like his notorious predecessor, Andrew Cuomo seems bent on building his image as a crime-fighter through meaningless publicity stunts, even if it means extorting legitimate businesses to the detriment of consumers.
Let’s hope Comcast forces Cuomo to put his money where his mouth is—the future of free speech online may hang in the balance.
Time Warner, Verizon, and Sprint will restrict access to tens of thousands of Newsgroups in order to stem
illegal child pornography as part of an agreement with New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday. Although ISPs have no obligation to provide newsgroup access, and there are plenty of alternative methods for users to browse Usenet discussion groups, the agreement raises serious Constitutional questions.
The agreement is supposedly “voluntary,” but this doesn’t necessarily resolve all First Amendment concerns. Hans Bader, CEI’s Counsel for Special Projects, posted a good overview on the Constitutional implications of the New York announcement over at OpenMarket.org:
“In truth, the settlement blocking access to newsgroups is not really “voluntary.” It’s the coercive result of threats of litigation from the New York Attorney General’s office. Supposedly “voluntary” settlements can constitute government regulation that violates the constitution. The Supreme Court has said that even a State’s “contractual condition” is subject to constitutional scrutiny (See South-Central Timber Dev. Co. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 87, 97 n.10 (1984)), and federal appeals courts have observed that the fact that a state official and a business “have entered into an agreement does not necessarily insulate it from scrutiny under” the Constitution. (See Automated Salvage Transport, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Ent’l Sys. Inc., 155 F.3d 59, 78 (2d Cir. 1998)). And a “voluntary agreement” incorporated into a consent decree can constitute state regulation that is preempted by federal law, as the Supreme Court observed in 1981. (Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 47, 53 (1981)).
This isn’t the first time Andrew Cuomo has pressured firms to engage in online censorship. Back in October 2007, I discussed how Facebook “voluntarily” agreed to censor user content to reduce the chances that minors would encounter obscene images.
Mr. Cuomo seems awfully effective at persuading providers to curtail user speech–perhaps he made an offer the ISPs couldn’t refuse.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
