Just read this AP article that reported on a Tuesday hearing of the Ohio Supreme Court about an Ohio “harmful to minors” law. According to the article, the statute makes it illegal to distribute harmful material to minors through “direct communications by people who know or have reason to believe the recipient is a minor.”
The case is in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to interpret “mass distribution” and “personally directed devices.” Per the law:
2) A person remotely transmitting information by means of a method of mass distribution does not directly sell, [etc.] … if either of the following applies:
(a) The person has inadequate information to know or have reason to believe that a particular recipient of the information or offer is a juvenile.
(b) The method of mass distribution does not provide the person the ability to prevent a particular recipient from receiving the information.
In the hearing (see the video) Justice Robert Cupp coins this beauty of a statement: “It’s not really the statute that’s confusing here, it’s the technologies.” Judge say what?
Isn’t the whole point of a statute to be applied to factual situations? Anything can make sense in the abstract (even law!). But applied to everyday life, the simplistic becomes complex — and can have unintended consequences. Continue reading →
We’ve talked here before about the dangers of a government-subsidized press as a way of “saving journalism.” But I don’t think I’ve ever read anything quite as eloquent on the issue as Seth Lipsky’s editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled “All the News That’s Fit to Subsidize.” Mr. Lipsky is a member of the adjunct faculty at the Columbia Journalism School. In his essay today, he warns of the very real slippery slope associated with proposal to have government step in and somehow bailout newspapers as they find themselves in a time of crisis.Specifically, Mr. Lipsky addressees a new report (“The Reconstruction of American Journalism“) by Leonard Downie (former executive editor of the Washington Post) and co-author Michael Schudson (also of Columbia Journalism School), in which the authors call for a mixture of legal and regulatory changes as well as government subsidies to help prop up failing news operations.
Mr. Lipsky argues that they have “stepped onto an exceptionally slippery slope”: Continue reading →
The motivation for the paper was simple: I love playing virtual worlds with my daughters, who are avid explorers of the medium. I wouldn’t consider letting them do this without pretty serious parental supervision, so instead I went with them, joining them in their virtual world adventures. Here’s me talking about it: How Parents can Connect with their Children in Virtual Worlds.
As I began to explore in greater depth, however, it became clear that parents’ involvement in virtual worlds is not a given. The trend is toward segregating children and adults into separate virtual worlds. Thus, my paper, which I have posted for your convenience on SSRN here (Virtual Parentalism), works out some of the dangers replacing parents with parentalist regulation in virtual worlds. Continue reading →
Today the House of Representatives is debating H. Res. 672, which would call on the government of Vietnam to release imprisoned bloggers and respect Internet freedom.
Here is an articleortwo about what is happening with Vietnamese bloggers.
And here’s the current WashingtonWatch.com vote on H. Res. 672.
Sometimes legislators vote along political party interests, sometimes in their self interest, and as we saw in Maine–sometimes legislators will have the constitutional interests of free speech and the commerce clause in mind.
I traveled with my NetChoice colleague Steve DelBianco to Augusta last week to testify at a joint judiciary committee hearing of the Maine legislature. Our mission: persuade the committee members to repeal the Predatory Marketing Act, which became law just two months ago–and a law so bad that it ranked #1 on NetChoice’s iAWFUL top ten list of worst legislation.
This law’s potentially sweeping (negative) impact is a big deal. So big that the Maine legislature met out-of-session to re-consider it. It dedicated a webpage to the hearing and received over 30 comments from various interests — including comments from NetChoice.
The law seriously restricts the exchange of information between Web 2.0 services and their users by making it unlawful to knowingly collect or receive health-related or personal information for marketing purposes from a minor, without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. In effect, the law restricts advertising that is most relevant to user interests.
We arrived confident but with a “tail between our legs” feeling — after all, we had just sued the state of Maine and agreed to a court order that said very favorable words about our chances to win on the merits. In the court case, NetChoice was joined by Reed Elsevier, the Maine Independent Colleges Association, and the Maine Press Association in calling for an injunction against the law, arguing that it tramples First Amendment rights while wreaking havoc with interstate commerce.
So here we were, with but a day or two to show how the existing law broadly harms a number of online services. Continue reading →
Another great column by the Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Crovitz, who is quickly becoming my favorite tech policy columnist. In today’s column, “Bloggers Mugged by Regulators,” he comments on the FTC’s new disclosure rules for bloggers, which I discussed here over the weekend. Crovitz focuses on the enforcement challenges associated with the new rules and also argues that self-regulation should be given a chance to work:
There should be more disclosure, but the Web is different from earlier media in ways that make government regulation less relevant and practical. The Web has its own self-regulatory mechanisms. Failing to disclose interests sullies one’s reputation online, and reputation harm travels faster and lasts longer than it did before the Web.
There’s also greater need for caveat emptor online, because there is no practical way that any government agency can monitor the world’s bloggers and posters. There will always be people who post comments about products and services that are self-serving in one way or another, at least by someone’s definition. […]
Instead of trying to extend analog-era regulations onto the Web, the FTC should encourage readers to be vigilant about assessing for themselves the independence of sources online. At least we now know the biggest fraudulent claim so far on the Web: It’s been committed by regulators claiming there can be a government stamp of approval on everything anyone posts anywhere on the Web.
Three cheers for Randall Rothenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) for having the guts to send this splendid open letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Jon Leibowitz about the agency’s new disclosure rules for bloggers. Rothenberg’s entertaining and brutally honest letter is a rarity for a trade association chief. Most of the time trade associations fall all over themselves to whisper sweet-nothings in the ears of regulators, even when those regulators are out to crush the industries in question. But Rothernberg doesn’t pull any punches in his letter to Chairman Leibowitz. After walking through some of the stunning ambiguities of the rules, such as how much “weight consumers give to [a] review” by a blogger who might have a commercial sponsor, Rothenberg asks:
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman: Huh? Does the FTC really intend to probe America’s opinion-mongering apparatus this closely? Do you have a team of Freuds and Jungs able to examine “the weight” consumers give such opinion – and the way they weigh that weight?
Naturally, this expedition from Oceania – that’s the place Big Brother ruled – should be worrisome to all Americans, and to all viewers, readers, listeners, users, and providers of any communications medium. But for the 400 members of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises struggling to build their businesses in the face of the worst decline in marketing spending since the 1930’s, the implication that online social media represent a separate class of communications channels with less Constitutional protection than corporate-owned newspapers, radio stations, or cable television networks is of particularly grave concern.
They – and we — are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. After all, most newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television networks, in recognition that Americans are embracing new forms of social communications, have established their own blogs, boards, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and the like. Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.
Yep, exactly right and it echoes the questions I’ve raised here before. And his letter just gets better from there regarding the enforcement nightmare presented by these ambiguous rules:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested at an FCC field hearing this week that the federal government might create its own “version of iTunes.” Multichannel News reports:
The chairman asked panelists to think about the value of a clearinghouse where best practices could be shared. He suggested that might be a way to spur the spin-off of public-sector apps from private sector initiatives and to prevent reinventing the wheel, rather than tapping into what is already being done. There is not a lot of shared info out there, he said.
If all we’re talking about is a clearinghouse that provides easy access to apps for government-developed apps, Google Code or SourceForge may be a better model than iTunes—though perhaps without the instant name recognition by ordinary consumers. Like SourceForge, Google Code allows hosting and management of open source projects, including Google’s own products. iTunes, by contrast, essentially offers consumers finished apps. Also, iTunes is a stand-alone piece of software, of which the Apps Store is just one part, while I can’t imagine why Genachowski’s “store” need be anything more than a website.
Whatever the analogy, such a “store” could well be a valuable tool for sharing the benefits of software development by government employees, both with the private sector and among federal agencies as well as state, local and even foreign governments. But what, exactly, Genachowski had in mind for the store remains awfully vague: Multichannel News mentions, as examples, “applications that do everything from monitoring heart rates and blood sugar to checking for greenhouse gas levels.” If the idea ever goes anywhere, it should be based on two principles:
All apps should be open source and available to all users to use as they see fit.
The store should be limited to apps developed by government employees to meet the needs of government agencies.
I really enjoyed my Second Life appearance on “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities,” which was hosted by Metanomics. You can watch the entire segment on the Metanomics site. But the folks at Metanomics have also posted 6 clips from the show at YouTube that highlight some of the topics we discussed. Here’s the list of clips and the videos:
Like James Gattuso, I have a lot of questions about the Federal Trade Commission’s new “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” especially as they apply to bloggers. (And over at Silicon Angle, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins has been doing a great jobkeeping tabs on the many questions and hypothetical situations that others have been posing about the new rules). But the one thing I just can’t wrap my head around is how the FTC plans to enforce these rules against those speakers or media outlets who have print publications which are fully protected by the First Amendment. So, I was pleased to see my favorite press critic Jack Shafer of Salon, ask the same question in his latest column on “The FTC’s Mad Power Grab”:
Because of a pesky thing called the First Amendment, the guidelines don’t apply to news organizations, which receive thousands of free books, CDs, and DVDs each day from media companies hoping for reviews. But if the guidelines don’t apply to established media like the New York Review of Books, which also happens to publish reviews on the Web, why should they apply to Joe Blow’s blog? Regulating bloggers via the FTC while exempting establishment reporters looks like a back-door means of licensing journalists and policing speech.
Exactly. Is the FTC just going to ignore such speakers or media organizations but enforce against everyone else? Isn’t that just a bit silly and radically unfair? Moreover, might such a policy end up incentivizing some folks to create token print publications to get around such the regulations? I doubt it, but you never know.
Regardless, as Shafer notes, the rules are so hopelessly open-ended and arbitrary that they are bound to pose problems for whomever they are enforced against: Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Sometimes legislators vote along political party interests, sometimes in their self interest, and as we saw in Maine–sometimes legislators will have the constitutional interests of free speech and the commerce clause in mind.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.