Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Would Bar US Companies From Net Censorship

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the accountability-may-make-a-comeback-after-all dept.

Meredith writes "A bill that would penalize companies for assisting repressive regimes in censoring the Internet may finally be headed to a vote. The Global Online Freedom Act 'would not only prevent companies like Yahoo from giving up the goods to totalitarian regimes, but would also prohibit US-based Internet companies from blocking online content from US government or government-financed web sites in other countries.' Unfortunately, there's also a giant loophole: the president would be allowed to waive the provisions of the Act for national security purposes."

11 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. So.... by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks like this law applies only if the totalitarian regime is not your own? Considering the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if the US became a totalitarian state sooner or later.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    1. Re:So.... by piojo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, national security can be important, believe it or not. If somebody posted the floor plan and guard rotations for a large water processing plant, would you really want a law that said nobody could tell them to take down the information?

      I think that requiring the president himself to okay the exceptions is a good way to keep them in check. Not that I trust his judgement, but the government shouldn't start censoring like crazy, because the president has better things to do with his time than sign censorship permission slips all day long.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    2. Re:So.... by hpa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We KNOW he's breaking the law, but who's going to be the one who stands up to throw the first stone? So far, no one's doing it.

      Actually, quite a few are stepping up (including the ACLU), but with half the population believing the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, a.k.a. Fox News, is actually a news source, it's hard to get through to enough people to make a difference. At this point, the best bet is pretty much to make him do as little damage as possible before he gets thrown out. He certainly has lost any momentum toward eliminating the XXII Amendment, which was floated several times in the 2001-2003 timeframe.

  2. Re:Stop other people from censorship by superbus1929 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But censoring against your own citizens is still A-OK.

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
  3. What about American censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If a web site in another country (say, Japan) puts up images that are illegal in America (say, cartoon drawings of nude children engaged in sexual acts), and Google image search and other search engines block them because they are illegal child porn....are they then engaging in censorship? Are they then punishable?

  4. So .... let me get this straight .... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are they passing a law which would make it unlawful to comply with the laws of the country in which you do business?

    Because, that would leave Yahoo et al with the choice of having no presence in places like China -- or, in the front of a lawful subpoena in that country having to say "no, it would be illegal for me to obey the law".

    Am I getting this right? I fail to see how this law wouldn't leave these companies between a rock and a hard place.

    This sounds like a law which was ill thought out in terms of how you enforce it. Then again, that shouldn't exactly surprise me.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:What's the goal? by evilphish_mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to mention the lost revenue of these American countries for having to shut down those operations.

  6. Re:What's the goal? by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So to the average Chinese resident, services like YouTube will just disappear. Then they'll see a story on the gubmint-run news saying how the West cut off all those sites because they hate the Chinese and don't want them to succeed.

    And we're going to convince them otherwise... how again? I believe you misunderstand the goal of this bill. The goal is TO stop companies like Google, YouTube or Yahoo from helping repressive regimes (the Chinese in your example) censor information to the average citizen. Of course, we can't stop the Chinese gov't from doing it, but we can stop Google from doing it for them.
    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  7. O Rly? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And, what happens when some other country passes a law that a company that has a presence in their country, like Yahoo, can not provide any information to the U.S. Government?

    Or, said country passes a law saying all companies who do business in their country must provide any information requested?

    What then?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  8. Hmm... by SiriusStarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do we think that this includes caving to the US government? Thoughts of FBI snooping come to mind...

    --
    Fear the penguin.
  9. I know it's tin foil hat type of thinking.... by HerculesMO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But I honestly feel like this Administration is doing their level best to put as much possible power into the hands of a single individual (ie, KING) as possible.

    Right now technically according to law -- the President has the authority to be KING (literally) if we are in a state of emergency -- deemed by the President.

    I'm just sad Americans are too simple minded to realize it nowadays -- I wish people were more active in their politics, but most people are self minded (myself included mostly) and I guess it's a willful ignorance.

    Still sad though. And kind of scary.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.