One of the things I find most interesting about calls to regulate “excessively violent” content on television, in movies, or in video games is the way critics make massive leaps of logic and draw outrageous conclusions based on myopic, anecdotal reasoning. I was reminded of that again today when reading through an interview with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va), one of the most vociferous critics of all sorts of media content and a long-time proponent of regulation to censor such violent content in particular (however it is defined). (I have written about his past regulatory proposals here and here).
Here’s what he recently told the editorial board of The Register-Herald of West Virginia:
Continue reading →
Earlier today, Jim Harper raised some valid concerns about the new “Do Not Track List” that some groups are proposing be mandated by the FTC. I’d like to point out another concern with this concept. A mandatory “Do Not Track” registry creates a potentially dangerous precedent / framework for a nationwide mandatory registry of URLs of websites that some policymakers might deem objectionable in other ways beyond just spam. When I first read these two provisions on page 4 of the Do Not Track proposal, I could not help but think of how a savvy Net-censor might use them in an attempt to regulate Internet content in other ways:
“Any advertising entity that sets a persistent identifier on a user device should be required to provide to the FTC the domain names of the servers or other devices used to place the identifier.”
..and…
“Companies providing web, video, and other forms of browser applications should provide functionality (i.e., a browser feature, plugin, or extension) that allows users to import or otherwise use the Do Not Track List of domain names, keep the list up-to-date, and block domains on the list from tracking their Internet activity.”
I can easily imagine would-be Net censors using that language as a blueprint to regulate other types of online speech. For example, it could be rewritten as follows [with my additions in brackets]:
“Companies providing web, video, and other forms of browser applications should provide functionality (i.e., a browser feature, plugin, or extension) that allows users to import or otherwise use the [government-approved ] list of domain names, keep the list up-to-date, and block domains on the list [that are harmful to minors].”
Perhaps I’m just being paranoid, but because would-be Net censors have struck out on other regulatory fronts over the past 10 years, they are looking for a new framework. A mandatory Do Not Track List might give them an opening.
A new Zogby/463 Internet Attitudes poll finds that:
“More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Twenty-nine percent said it should be regulated just like television content while 24% said government should institute an online rating system similar to the one used by the movie industry. In contrast, only 36% said the blocking of Internet video would be unconstitutional. The older you get, the more likely you are to support government restrictions. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.”
This is really troubling to me because almost all my public policy work is devoted to the proposition that the Internet should not be regulated like broadcasting and communications. As the Net continues to rapidly erode the legitimacy or practicality of traditional regulatory systems and institutions, it will increasingly prompt an obvious response from policymakers: We must grow regulation! We must expand the tentacles of the regulatory state to include all those new technologies of freedom! We cannot let people think and act for themselves!
But while we know that’s how policymakers will respond as they see their traditional power over media and communications slipping away, it’s always been less clear to me how average Americans will respond. Will they begin calling for the renewal and extension of the old regulatory standards to new technologies? This new poll suggests that many of them will. That’s troubling because it reinforces what many policymakers want to do. And that’s how we’ll end up with a heavily regulated Internet (taxes, speech controls, Net neutrality regulations, etc, etc.).
As Tom Galvin, a partner with 463, notes: “Some view the Internet as their new best friend, others as an increasingly powerful tool that can infect our youth with harmful images and thoughts and therefore must be controlled. Our challenge as a society is to let the Internet flourish as a dynamic force in our economy and communities while not chipping away at the fundamental freedoms that created the Internet in the first place.”
Amen, brother.
The Financial Times posted an article this week about the ongoing push by state attorneys general to impose age verification regulation on social networking sites and followed it up with an outstanding editorial entitled “Out of MySpace.” They note:
Age verification… just will not work. The practical problems are considerable. Fourteen-year-olds do not have drivers’ licences and credit cards that can be checked via established agencies. The sites could insist on verifying the parents, but anyone who believes that a teenager will not “borrow” his father’s Visa has never been 14 years old.
The consequences of successful age verification, meanwhile, would be even worse. Minors would be driven off mainstream sites such as MySpace and Facebook and on to unaccountable offshore alternatives or the chaos of newsgroups and minor bulletin boards. There they would be far more vulnerable than on MySpace, which now makes efforts to keep tabs on its users.
That’s exactly right and it very much follows what I have found in my own research. If you’re interested, check out my paper “Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions,” as well the transcript of an event I hosted in March on “Age Verification for Social Networking Sites: Is it Possible? Is it Desirable?”
As I wrote about here, the last big showdown in the states took place in North Carolina in July. But it won’t be the last.
In an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, joins Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in calling for congressional investigation of purported censorship by wireless operators. Combs, who has vociferously argued for net-neutrality regulation for communications and Internet companies, is now stepping up those calls, claiming that private companies want to squelch speech over wired or wireless networks. “We’re asking Congress to convene hearings on whether existing law is sufficient to guarantee the free flow of information and to protect against corporate censorship,” Combs and Keenan write.
Prompting this latest call for regulation was an incident two weeks ago in which Verizon Wireless blocked text messages from NARAL. Verizon admitted that it had made a mistake and immediately changed its policy. But net-neutrality fans like NARAL and Christian Coalition say that the incident shows why a Fairness Doctrine for the communications and online sector is essential. In reality, as I point out in my latest City Journal column, the incident proved the opposite: the message got out, and this episode is hardly an excuse for imposing Net neutrality mandates on the Internet. Read on…
Continue reading →
PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.
This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf
Like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the Fairness Doctrine is still dead. But will it remain that way? Supporters of disterring the doctrine were thrashed in a House vote this summer, but the debate continues in Congress over legislation to permanently bar the FCC from re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.
In the Senate, the effort is being led by Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman spoke on the issue last week at The Heritage Foundation. If you want to see it, you can tune in here.
Legislation has been proposed in the House of Representatives that would regulate “violent entertainment” shown during airline flights. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) and several co-sponsors argue that a “Family Friendly Flights Act” is needed to protect kids from such fare while they are flying. In my latest editorial for the City Journal, I point out why it would be a mistake to empower federal regulators to become “Long-Range Censors” and show that many voluntary alternatives exist. Read on…
___________________
Long-Range Censors
We don’t need government regulations on in-flight programming.
by Adam Thierer
City Journal
October 3, 2007
Any parent who travels regularly with young children knows that fidgety kids and long, cramped airline flights are a bad mix. And when the kids start pulling each other’s hair or running up and down the aisle, a good movie or TV program can serve as the perfect sedative. But not all in-flight shows are okay for kids. When airlines show programming with violent content on the overhead screens—a bloody gunfight, say, or King Kong ripping apart a dinosaur’s jaws—it can terrify children, and disturb mom and dad.
Some in Congress are suggesting that new regulation is the answer. Democratic representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, along with several cosponsors, recently introduced the Family Friendly Flights Act, which demands that airlines create “child safe viewing areas”: no publicly viewable TV screens would air violent programming within ten rows of the designated zones. The act defines “violent programming” as any movie originally rated PG-13 or above, or any television show rated PG-V or PG-14-V or above. In other words, the pre-edited versions of films or TV shows that studios produce especially for the airlines would still face a ban, based on their original ratings.
Despite the best intentions behind it, such regulation is unwarranted. Enforcement of the FFFA would spawn a needless and expensive regulatory apparatus, and given the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes “violent programming,” constitutional challenges would certainly follow, too.
Continue reading →
The New York Times editorializes today about “The Verizon Warning,” which refers to the incident last week involving Verizon blocking text messages from NARAL, an abortion rights organization. Verizon quickly admitted they had made a mistake and changed its policy. As my TLF blogging colleague Tim Lee pointed out, “the market worked: Verizon’s decision sparked a consumer outcry, which in turn caused Verizon to re-consider its decision within barely 24 hours of its coming to public attention. This is hardly a good example of the need for greater regulation.”
Indeed. But that didn’t stop some regulatory activists from using the incident as their latest rallying cry for Net neutrality mandates. But the New York Times actually goes much further in today’s editorial suggesting that Verizon’s mistake constitutes “textbook censorship.” The Times goes on to say that, “Any government that tried it would be rightly labeled authoritarian. The First Amendment prohibits the United States government from anything approaching that sort of restriction.”
Whoa. The Times apparently needs a First Amendment 101 lesson. While it is certainly true that any government action restricting speech in this fashion would constitute a violation of the First Amendment rights of the citizenry, what Verizon did in this case is not on par with that. When government censors, it censors in a sweeping and coercive fashion; it prohibits (at least in theory) the public from seeing or hearing everything it disapproves of, and it punishes those who evade such restrictions with fines, penalties, or even jail time. Not so for Verizon or any other private carrier.
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.