The Washington Stock Exchange (WSX) has successfully launched! Because it uses market processes to predict electoral and legislative events, WSX promises to make political news more accurate and fun. Soon, reporters might routinely sprinkle their stories with statements like, “Traders on the Washington Stock Exchange still predict that Republicans will hold onto to the House, but the odds just got longer.” As an alternative to polls or talking heads, WSX offers the virtues of blogospheric decentralization plus hard numbers.
Continue reading →
On Wednesday, I was in New York City attending another installment of the Internet Content Rating Association’s (ICRA) outstanding ongoing series of summits on child protection & freedom of expression in a our new information age. As with previous ICRA events in Washington, Sunnyvale, CA, and Brussels, the focus of the New York roundtable discussion was: What steps can we take to shield children from potentially objectionable Internet or media content without repressing freedom of speech / expression? In particular, the role of private, self-regulation (labeling, rating, filtering, educating, etc) was discussed and debated in detail.
In addition to being the focus of much of my ongoing research at PFF, you might also recall that I wrote about a major summit on similar issues that took part in this June in Washington, D.C., which featured Senator Hillary Clinton among other distinguished speakers. And the Congressional Internet Caucus has an upcoming series of Capitol Hill panel discussions on these issues and just released a compilation of short white papers summarizing what various groups are doing about online child safety issues. So this continues to be a hot topic.
Continue reading →
My friends over at the Center for Democracy and Technology have just launched an important new website entitled NetDemocracyGuide.org. The site aims to provide the creators of blogs and other Internet sites and services information about what their rights are in light of stepped-up Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations in the wake of new campaign finance laws (McCain-Feingold). [See this, this, and this for some background.]
CDT’s new site assures us that:
“The new campaign finance rules for the Internet leave the vast majority of uncompensated citizen-initiated election activities on the Internet free from any regulation. With few exceptions, you may develop websites, blog, e-mail campaign material, raise money, and collaborate with your friends on election related activities online without worrying about running afoul of the rules. Campaign finance obligations kick in only in very limited circumstances – primarily where payments are made to place advertisements and other communications on third party blogs and websites.”
That’s great but I remain concerned and think that the empire still plans to strike back. Moreover, the very fact that a site like this has to exist at all is a little bit scary. The cyber-citizenry should not have to live in fear of over-zealous FEC regulators or members of Congress who will increasingly be scrutinizing online speech for supposedly “illegal” forms of political advocacy. Remain vigilant and monitor the new CDT site for updates regarding your blogging rights!
Peter Suderman of the Competitive Enterprise Insitute has penned a nice editorial on the regulatory threats facing MySpace and other social networking sites. In the essay he notes that “a mandatory [age] identification law would likely require the development of some sort of national identification system, and it would still be unlikely to be fully successful. ” He continues:
Moreover, calls to develop such an identification system would create the possibility for an array of unforeseen consequences, as there are inherent dangers in requiring minors to publicly register their identities. By creating a centralized ID database, such requirements would render minors’ personal information more vulnerable. Do parents really want their kids forced to give out personal data for public use?
Good point. Indeed, there are many dangers associated with requiring identify verification for minors before they get online, and policymakers must realize this becuase for many years they have worked hard to shield information about minors from the rest of society. There are various privacy laws on the books that tightly restrict the release or sharing of information about minors. So why change the rules for social networking? It seems to me like we’d be opening a major can of worms if we did.
Also, check out the outstanding summary of everything that’s been happening on the social networking regulatory front over at the 463 blog. And here’s a recent speech I did on the topic when I debate two state attorneys general at a major conference in D.C.
A reoccurring theme of many of my posts on this blog is the very real danger of policymakers–both here and abroad–attempting to extend traditional media content controls to new media outlets and technologies. My PFF colleague Patrick Ross has just released an excellent new report entitled “Do’s and Dont’s for Global Media Regulation: Empowering Expression, Consumers and Innovation,” which summarizes some of the most serious threats to new media that are developing in Europe, Australia and Canada.
Patrick’s new study builds on two other important papers he authored on Europe’s dreadful “Television without Frontiers” initiative, which Patrick has appropriately labeled “Content Regulation without Frontiers.” Patrick’s alternative vision focuses on achieving legal symmetry between old and new media by deregulating down instead of regulating up. He also warns policymakers about the dangers of continuing to distinguish between different types of content delivery or platforms, and to be careful not to discourage migration of content from one type of platform or device to another.
Anyway, read the whole study for more details.
The Associated Press reported yesterday on the latest battlefront in the broadcast indecency wars: a CBS documentary on 9/11. The film–which has aired before without controversy–has been criticized by some indecency advocates because of bad language used by firefighters as they struggled at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The American Family Alliance, for example, has readied its members to complain to the FCC and CBS. As a result, some two dozen affiliates have announced they will replace or delay broadcast of the piece.
“This is example #1” of the chilling effect of the FCC indecency rules, said Martin Franks, CBS’ executive vice president. “We don’t think it’s appropriate to sanitize the reality of the hell of Sept. 11,” Franks was quoted as saying. “It shows the incredible stress that these heroes were under. To sanitize it in some way robs it of the horror they faced.”
Well said. The simple fact is that some Americans will not be seeing this documentary because of the threat of FCC-imposed liability. Would the FCC actually find the piece indecent? That’s anybody’s guess. But the mere possibility has been enough to cause some stations–rationally enough, given increased fines–to cut and run.
A better example of the folly–and outrage– of government content controls would be hard to find. However well-intentioned, the FCC’s rules blow a clear, cold wind on speech.
Oh brother, I have heard some pretty silly censorship tales in my time, but this one is a real doozy. Last week, U.K. telecom and media regulator Ofcom announced that, in the wake of an investigation prompted by the anonymous viewer’s complaint, it had pressured the children’s cable TV channel Boomerang to edit out scenes in two “Tom & Jerry” cartoons that were deemed to glamorize or condone smoking. “We note that, in ‘Tom and Jerry’, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned,” reported Ofcom.
The complaint focused on two episodes–“Texas Tom” and “Tennis Chumps.” I seem to remember them from childhood, but my memory is a little fuzzy, so here’s a description from The Guardian: “In Texas Tom, Tom tries to impress a female cat by making a rollup cigarette while Tennis Chumps sees Tom’s opponent in a match smoking a large cigar.”
Continue reading →
In case you didn’t hear, Democratic FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein made some provocative remarks last week at PFF’s annual Aspen Summit, especially on the subject of broadcast indecency enforcement. In his speech, Adelstein had some very interesting things to say about the debates over a la carte regulation and multi-cast must carry mandates (both of which he vehemently opposes) and media ownership regulation (which he strongly supports). But when he got the sensitive subject of indecency regulation, none of us there could have guessed what was coming.
Commissioner Adelstein took FCC Chairman Martin and the rest of the agency to task for their over-zealous enforcement of indecency regulations: “I don’t believe the Commission has provided broadcasters a coherent and principled framework that is rooted in commonsense and sound constitutional grounds,” argued Adelstein. “While we often spend most of our time taking about economic freedom, freedom from governmental intrusion into speech is just as important.” Adelstein then detailed some of the problems with the agency’s recent indecency rulings and concluded that “the Commission’s last batch of decisions dangerously expands the scope of indecency and profanity law.”
Importantly, however, Adelstein noted that he is still a believer in some underlying authority for the agency in terms of broadcast speech regulation. He didn’t bother justifying that outside of using the usual tagline about “protecting the children.” And he didn’t bother explaining why these unique speech constraints should only be imposed on broadcasters while all the kids are bolting to new media outlets.
Regardless, Adelstein pointed out that the FCC’s recent actions threaten to undermine the basic foundations of the FCC’s regulatory regime:
“the Commission’s careless approach endanger[s] the very authority we so delicately retained to enforce broadcast decency rules. . . if the Commission’s zeal leads it to overstep its statutory authority, the Commission could find its authority circumscribed by the courts. We may forever lose the ability to prevent the airing of indecent material, barring an unlikely constitutional amendment setting limits on the First Amendment.”
Of course, some of us are hoping (and predicting) that that’s exactly what will happen!
The electronic gaming sector chalked up another impressive First Amendment victory on Monday in the case of Electronic Software Association v. Hatch. [Here’s the full decision]. James M. Rosenbaum, Chief District Judge of the District Court of Minnesota, struck down as unconstitutional a Minnesota law that passed in May of this year. The Minnesota law was unique in that it sought to impose fines on the buyers rather than the sellers of games rated either “M” for Mature or “AO” for Adults Only under the industry’s voluntary ratings system. Other state and local laws that have been struck down in recent years imposed penalties mostly on game retailers who sold games rated M or AO to minors.
But the unique Minnesota approach met the same legal fate as those other laws. Echoing the previous video game industry decisions, Judge Rosenbaum declared that “video games are a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.” In response to the State of Minnesota’s plea that, when balancing the interests in this matter, the Court should consider “the lesser societal value” of “worthless, disgusting” video games, Judge Rosenbaum cut loose with this wonderful rejoinder: “The First Amendment… was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes ‘worthless’ or ‘disgusting’ speech. The Court declines the State’s invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind.”
That’s pretty powerful stuff. But wait… it gets even better.
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.