As a cyber-libertarian, I’ve been lucky enough to work with people of all ideological stripes in pursuit of various public policy objectives. I’ve made selective alliances with people on the Right on economic policy issues (like opposing Net Neutrality regulation, Internet taxes, etc) and also worked closely with folks on the Left on speech and culture issues (content controls, anonymity, online safety concerns, etc).
While engaging with with people on both sides of the political fence, I’m often struck by some of their internal inconsistencies. Conservatives, for example, talk about a big game about personal responsibility on some issues, but quickly abandon that notion when they claim media content or online speech should be regulated by the State (typically “for the children.”) In this essay, I’d like to discuss interesting inconsistencies on the political Left, especially among advocates of strong privacy regulation (most of whom tend to be Left-leaning in their worldview). In particular, here are the two things I find most interesting about modern privacy advocates:
(1)
Most privacy advocates are vociferous First Amendment supporters, yet they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation. When it comes to proposals to regulate media content or online speech, most folks on the Left have a very principled, clear-cut position: people (or parents) should take responsibility for unwanted information flows in their lives (or the lives of their children). In particular, they rightly argue that the many user empowerment tools on the market (filters, monitoring software, other parental control technologies) constitute a so-called “less-restrictive means” of controlling content when compared to government regulation.
Advocacy groups that I have a great deal of respect for and work with quite closely on these issues–such as EFF, CDT and ACLU—all take this position. Generally speaking, they argue that, when it comes to speech regulation, “household standards” (user-level controls) should trump “community standards” (government regulation). And in Court—where I frequently file joint amicus briefs with them—they repeatedly employ the “less-restrictive means” test to counter government efforts to regulate information flows.
But when it comes to privacy, they throw all this out the window! Continue reading →
The always-excellent Wall Street Journal “Information Age” columnist L. Gordon Crovitz has another editorial worth reading today, which builds on the Second Circuit’s recent decision to reverse FCC content regulation for broadcasting. In “The Technology of Decency,” Crovitz explains “parents don’t need the FCC to protect their children.” “Technology makes it easier to block seven or any number of dirty words,” he notes. “Taking the FCC out of regulating indecency might just lead to more decency by refocusing responsibility where it belongs: on broadcasters and parents.”
That’s a point I’ve hammered on her in the past and in all my work on parental empowerment solutions, including my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” Indeed, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children. And, luckily, poll after poll shows that parents are stepping up to the plate and taking on that responsibility (contrary to what some policymakers in Washington imply).
Moreover, legally speaking, Crovitz shows why the old rationales for regulating broadcasting differently no longer work. “No medium is likely ever to be as pervasive as broadcasting once was,” he notes. He goes on to note that: Continue reading →
As part of its excellent “Room for Debate” series, the New York Times has an interesting new online symposium up now asking, “Will Networks Go Wild, With No Decency Rules?” It was in response to last week’s Second Circuit decision, which again slapped down an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to defend the agency’s indecency enforcement regime. I was honored to be asked to contribute a short essay on the subject. Here are the other contributors and their essays. Take the time to check them out:
I was particularly interested in former FCC’s Chairman Michael Powell’s admission that “The [FCC’s] fleeting expletive policy was a mistake,” and that “the real problem is the now-flawed constitutional foundation on which the law is built.” Powell goes on to argue that, “We cannot have one First Amendment for broadcasting and another one for every other medium. This vestige of a bygone era provides fertile ground for mischief — culture wars, political agenda and moral mandates. It’s high time for the high court to bring our laws into the 21st century.”
I wholeheartedly agree, and I wrote a lengthy law review article on just that topic back in 2007 entitled,“
Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.” If you find it too boring, just watch this video I made summarizing the key points, which I called “America’s First Amendment Twilight Zone.”
Today I am testifying at an FCC hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” [Speaker lineup here.] The purpose of the workshop is to explore:
- A brief history and overview of policies involving “public interest” requirements for commercial media and telecommunications companies;
- The state of local commercial broadcast TV and radio news and information; and
- The impact of media convergence and the emergence of the Internet, mobile technologies, and digital media on FCC media policy.
In my remarks, I focused on “Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable.” Down below I have attached my written remarks. Continue reading →
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC essentially stands for the proposition that free speech is free speech regardless of the speaker. The 5-4 majority for the Court ruled that “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion.” (at 25) Echoing its early decision in Bellotti, the Court noted that “Political speech is ‘indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.’” (at 33) “All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas.” (at 35) “There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations.” (at 37)
Somehow this has proven controversial, even radical, to some. But, as George Will correctly notes, “This was radical only because after nearly four decades of such ‘reform’ the First Amendment has come to seem radical. Which, indeed, it is. The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect — political speech.” Essentially, the decision gets Congress out of the game of picking who, or what platform, deserves full First Amendment protection when it comes to uttering political speech. And there’s nothing radical about that.
Indeed, as Justice Kennedy noted for the majority, there is nothing surprising about this reasoning once you realize that almost every other type legislative or regulatory speech restriction has been struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. “The law before us is an outright ban [on political speech], backed by criminal sanctions,” Kennedy noted (at 20). “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” (at 33) Think about this for a second: Criminal sanctions or jail time for political speech! How in the world did we get to the point in this nation where criminalizing political speech became acceptable to our legislators? Ignoring the obvious answer—it’s all about protecting incumbents—what is really “radical” here is not that the Supreme Court setting us back on the right path, but that our legislative branch has veered so far off of it.
Continue reading →
This morning at the Newseum in Washington, DC, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered remarks on Internet freedom and the future of global free speech and expression. [Transcript is here + video.] It will go down as a historic speech in the field of Internet policy since she drew a bold line in the cyber-sand regarding exactly where the United States stands on global online freedom. Clinton’s answer was unequivocal: “Both the American people and nations that censor the Internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote Internet freedom.” “The Internet can serve as a great equalizer,” she argued. “By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.”
Unfortunately, however, “the same networks that help organize movements for freedom… can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.” Echoing Winston Churchill’s famous “iron curtain” speech, Sec. Clinton argued that “With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.” She noted that virtual walls are replacing traditional walls in many nations as repressive regimes seek to squash the liberties of their citizenry. That’s why the Administration’s bold stand in favor of online freedom is so essential.
Importantly, Sec. Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration is ready to commit significant resources to this effort. She said that, over the next year, the State Department plans to work with others to establish a standing effort to promote technology and will invite technologists to help advance the cause through a new “innovation competition” that will promote circumvention technologies and other technologies of freedom. Sec. Clinton also challenged private companies to stand up to censorship globally and challenge foreign governments when they demand controls on the free flow of information or digital technology.
That is particularly important because Secretary Clinton’s speech comes on the heels of the recent news that Google and at least 30 other Internet companies were the victims of cyberattacks in China, which raises profound questions about the future of online freedom and cybersecurity. Sec. Clinton’s remarks will make it clear to online operators that the U.S. government stands prepared to back them up when they challenge the censorial policies of repressive foreign regimes.
Continue reading →
One of the themes you come across again and again in public policy debates about privacy, advertising, marketing, or even free speech battles, is the notion that the public at large is made up of mindless sheep being duped at every turn. And, as Berin Szoka and I noted in our paper “What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?” if you buy into the argument that consumers are basically that stupid then it logically follows that people cannot be trusted or left to their own devices. Thus, government must intervene and establish a baseline “community standard” on behalf of the entire citizenry to tell them what’s best for them.
But there are good reasons to question the premise that consumers are blind to efforts to persuade or influence them — regardless of what type of media content or communications efforts we are talking about. I was recently reading Communication Power by Manuel Castells and liked what he had to say about how so many media critics make this false assumption. Castells rightly notes:
Interestingly enough, critical theorists of communication often espouse [a] one-sided view of the communications process. By assuming the notion of a helpless audience manipulated by corporate media, they place the source of social alienation in the realm of consumerist mass communication. And yet, a well-established stream of research, particularly in the psychology of communications, shows the capacity of people to modify the signified of the messages they receive by interpreting them according to their own cultural frames, and by mixing the messages from one particular source with their variegated range of communicative practices. (p. 127)
That’s exactly right, and it is even more true in an age of ubiquitous, interactive communications technologies. “The people formerly known as the audience” have the unprecedented ability to talk back, to compare notes, to collectively criticize and hold accountable those who previously held all the cards in the mass media age of the past. Most consumers are perfectly capable of judging the merits of advertising, commercial messages, or other content on their own; they cast a skeptical eye toward most claims but process those claims alongside other counter-claims, independent judgments, informational inputs, and “cultural frames,” as Castells rightly argues. We need to give the public some credit.
My friend Pablo Chavez, Managing Policy Counsel of Google, brings to my attention the fact that the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act (H.R. 3714) was pending before the House today, and I’m happy to note that it passed late this afternoon. The bill, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Schiff and Pence in the House and is co-sponsored by Sen. Dodd in the Senate, would expand the examination of press freedom worldwide in the State Department’s annual human rights report and establishes a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening media independence internationally. Specifically, the bill would identify “countries in which there were violations of freedom of the press, including direct physical attacks, imprisonment, indirect sources of pressure, and censorship by governments, military, intelligence, or police forces, criminal groups, or armed extremist or rebel groups.”
This is a worthwhile goal and a fine tribute to a great journalist, a first-class human being, and someone I was honored to briefly count as a friend in this world before he was murdered by terrorist scum in 2002. Indeed, some of my fondest memories from the mid-90s are of the times I would meet Danny Pearl for beers at Cap City Brewery or other bars in downtown Washington, DC. He was an up-and-coming star reporter covering telecommunications policy for
The Wall Street Journal and I was just starting to make a name for myself as a policy geek in this field. Because I was working very closely with a number of Hill offices at that time and helping to craft some of what eventually went into the Telecom Act of 1996, Danny knew I had a lot of good inside information. And like any great journalist, he knew that enough beers and late-night banter would eventually get me to spill the beans about something I wasn’t suppose to be sharing with a reporter! I didn’t mind being an “unnamed source” in a couple of his stories, and the fact that he sometimes quoted me in others gave me and my career an unbelievable boost. I still remember sending my family the first big WSJ story I was ever quoted in. It was a piece Danny wrote back in ’94.
Everyone now knows the tragic story of how Danny was abducted and murdered by terrorists in 2002. I remember how numb I went when I heard the news and still find it hard to fathom how such a gentle, down-to-earth soul could have been viciously murdered.
Continue reading →
PFF has just released the transcript of an excellent panel discussion I moderated last week entitled, “Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum.” As I’ve mentioned here before, one of the hottest issues in DC right now is the question of broadcast TV spectrum reallocation. Blair Levin, who serves as the Executive Director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission, recently raised the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. Such a “cash-for-spectrum” swap would give mobile broadband providers to spectrum they need to roll out next generation wireless broadband networks while making sure broadcaster receive compensation for any spectrum they hand over. The FCC just recently released a public notice on “Data Sought on Users of Spectrum,” (NBP Public Notice # 26) that looks into the matter. “This inquiry,” the agency says,” takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable.” Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on the issue next Tuesday.
PFF’s panel discussion on this issue featured an all-star cast of characters, including opening remarks by Blair Levin, and a terrific discussion ensued. [You can hear the full audio from the event here.] Down below I have highlighted some of the major points each speaker made during the discussion and also embedded the complete transcript in a Scribd reader. Also, just a reminder that my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I authored a short paper on this issue recently: “An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Spectrum Reallocation That Can Benefit Consumers, Broadcasters & the Mobile Broadband Sector.”
Continue reading →
One of the more troubling aspects of the contentious debate over Net neutrality regulation is the way some proponents have sought to cast Net neutrality as “the Internet’s First Amendment.” As a die-hard free speech advocate, I find this truly outrageous and a complete contortion of the true purpose of the First Amendment. As I have argued here before, it is incredibly dangerous thinking that puts our real First Amendment liberties at stake by empowering a regulatory agency with more means of controlling online speech and expression. Simply stated, the Internet’s First Amendment is the First Amendment, not some new, top-down, heavy-handed regulatory regime that puts the Federal Communications Commission in control of the Digital Economy.
On this point, I wanted to bring two things to your attention. The first is an outstanding address delivered today by Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, at a Media Institute event here in Washington, DC. And the second is this new paper by my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin.
McSlarrow’s speech was entitled, “Net Neutrality: First Amendment Rhetoric in Search of the Constitution” and it squarely addressed the fundamental fallacy set forth by the Net neutralitistas when it comes to the First Amendment. “Whatever our present-day policy disagreements about net neutrality, or even differing politics, let’s not forget that the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government,” he argued. “By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government,” McSlarrow said. “And… if there’s one thing the Supreme Court has made clear, it’s that rules that directly restrict protected speech cannot be justified by a government interest that is merely hypothetical.”
Absolutely correct. And these views are buttressed by the comments of Barbara Esbin in her new paper, in which she argues that “Net Neutrality is not the First Amendment for the Internet.” She continues: 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.