FC: Justice Department recruiting anti-filter folk to testify for COPA

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35800,00.html

   Feds Try Odd Anti-Porn Approach
   by Declan McCullagh (declan () wired com)

  3:00 a.m. Apr. 22, 2000 PDT
   WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly recruiting
   critics of filtering software to help it defend a controversial
   anti-pornography law in court.

   Government attorneys are asking librarians and academics who have
   published criticisms of the controversial filtering products to
   testify in an expected trial over the Child Online Protection Act.

   The Justice Department's reasoning is simple: If products like
   Cyberpatrol and Surfwatch are so badly flawed that they don't block
   what they should, then the judge in the case should uphold a federal
   law making it a crime to post erotica online instead.

   "What they want me for is a kind of technical assault on filtering
   software, but the end result is that nothing can protect kids on the
   Web except some kind of blanket age restriction," says John Bowes, an
   associate professor at the University of Washington. "I don't like
   filtering, but I dislike age restrictions even more."

   During hearings in the case, the government has suggested that
   websites can comply with COPA simply by cordoning off erotic
   information from the public and requiring credit card or adult
   identification numbers for access by adults.

   "What they want is someone who's an academic to testify as an expert
   witness for the government saying filters don't work," says
   Christopher Hunter, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of
   Pennsylvania, who said the government contacted him last week.

   Hunter, who has written about the flaws in filters because he opposes
   their use in libraries, said he was surprised by the request. "Our
   research, meant to defeat restrictive mandatory filtering laws, may
   now be used in support of even more restrictive age verification
   regimes," he said.

   Hunter declined to participate, but it's likely that the Justice
   Department, which appealed a preliminary loss in the COPA case, will
   be able to find someone to take the stand instead.

   That prospect creates an unusual dilemma for the American Civil
   Liberties Union, which in 1998 sued to block enforcement of COPA.

   The ACLU sometimes appears to believe parents should use such
   software, saying in COPA court documents that filtering software
   provides an "alternative means (that is) more effective at assisting
   parents in limiting a minor's access to certain material."

   During a joint ACLU-American Library Association lawsuit against the
   Communications Decency Act, the plaintiffs called a Surfwatch
   executive as a witness to extol the benefits of filtering.

   But the ACLU has simultaneously criticized the software, saying as
   recently as last month in court in Boston that Mattel's Cyberpatrol
   product blocks innocuous websites, not just sexually explicit
   material. The ACLU joined a lawsuit that successfully prevented a
   public library in Loudoun County, Virginia, from using X-Stop, and has
   published a report titled "Censorship in a Box" that lists the faults
   of filters.

   "I find the positions consistent," said ACLU staff attorney Chris
   Hansen. "I understand why they look inconsistent, but I find them
   consistent."

   Under U.S. case law, courts will usually nix a law on free speech
   grounds if there are other "less restrictive" alternatives to
   accomplish the government's goal. For the ACLU, the existence of
   filtering software -- even with its faults -- is a way to convince
   judges that there are options other than COPA.

   [...remainder snipped...]

*********

> Reply-To: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs () bluehighways com>
> From: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs () bluehighways com>
> To: "ALA Council List"
> Cc: <declan () well com>, "Corn-Revere, Robert L." <CornRevere () hhlaw com>
> Subject: US DOJ on Warpath Against Free Expression
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:34:30 -0400
>
> Dear Council--not to deter anyone from the really important work of editing
> the Core Values Task Force statement, but the US DOJ has been contacting
> filtering experts in an attempt to persuade us to testify on behalf of the
> government's case for COPA.  See:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35800,00.html
>
> The article notes that I was "reportedly" contacted; the USDOJ did call me
> by phone and followed up with a package of material, but my guess is that
> after they read my expert reports for the Mainstream Loudoun case, they
> realized I wasn't their gal.  I may be critical of filters, but I'm even
> more critical of attempts to tighten a noose around the First Amendment.
>
> The idea that anyone under 17 could not legally access a wide variety of
> material scares the dickens out of me--I can't wait to see what
> "contemporary community standards" would boil down to.  As for
> authors--well, I've always thought Stephen King lacked artistic value; I've
> heard that kids like his books, too... so let's take away his Rocketbook and
> throw him in the pokey!
>
> Between COPA and UCITA, we're rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451...
>
> Karen G. Schneider kgs () bluehighways com
> Assistant Director of Technology
> Shenendehowa Public Library, Clifton Park, NY
> http://www.shenpublib.org

***********


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------