US WIFI Censored: "Free" Hotspots Censor Surfing

Don’t let the distraction of foreign wars, politics and terrorism distract you from homegrown censorship and limitations of freedom of speech. In many so-called hotspots, you can not surf freely.  Many websites are blocked and you don’t even know it.

When we can’t get to a website,we assume that something is wrong with our connection or computer. Not. Something is cooking in the censor’s lab and it’s your freedom to surf freely, withough censorship.

Overview

The strong protections for freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship are rooted in theFirst Amendment of the United States Constitution. These protections extend to the Internet and as a result very little government mandated technical filtering occurs in the U.S. Nevertheless, the Internet in the United States is highly regulated, supported by a complex set of legally binding and privately mediated mechanisms.^[1]

After a decade and half of ongoing contentious debate over content regulation, the country is still very far from reaching political consensus on the acceptable limits of free speech and the best means of protecting minors and policing illegal activity on the Internet. Gambling, cyber security, and dangers to children who frequent social networking sites are important ongoing debates. Significant public resistance to proposed content restriction policies have prevented the more extreme measures used in some other countries from taking hold in the U.S.^[1]

Public dialogue, legislative debate, and judicial review have produced filtering strategies in the United States that are different from those found in most of the rest of the world. Many government-mandated attempts to regulate content have been barred on First Amendment grounds, often after lengthy legal battles.^[2] However, the government has been able to exert pressure indirectly where it cannot directly censor. With the exception of child pornography, content restrictions tend to rely more on the removal of content than blocking; most often these controls rely upon the involvement of private parties, backed by state encouragement or the threat of legal action.^[3] In contrast to much of the rest world, where ISPs are subject to state mandates, most content regulation in the United States occurs at the private or voluntary level.^[1]

The first wave of regulatory actions in the 1990s in the United States came about in response to the profusion of sexually explicit material on the Internet within easy reach of minors. Since that time, several legislative attempts at creating a mandatory system of content controls in the United States have failed to produce a comprehensive solution for those pushing for tighter controls. At the same time, the legislative attempts to control the distribution of socially objectionable material on the Internet in the United States have given rise to a robust system that limits liability over content for Internet intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) and content hosting companies.^[1]

Proponents of protecting intellectual property online in the United States have been much more successful, producing a system to remove infringing materials that many feel errs on the side of inhibiting legally protected speech.^[1][4]

National security concerns have spurred efforts to expand surveillance of digital communications and fueled proposals for making Internet communication more traceable.^[1]

[edit]

Federal laws

With a few exceptions, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bar federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet. The primary exception has to do with obscenity, including child pornography, which enjoys no First Amendment protection.^[5]

[edit]

Communications Decency Act (CDA)

In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity incyberspace.^[6] In 1997, in the case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court found the anti-indecency provisions of the Act unconstitutional.^[7] Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that “the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech”.^[8]

Section 230^[9] is a separate portion of the CDA that remains in effect. Section 230 says that operators of Internet services are not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services and also protects ISPs from liability for good faith voluntary actions taken to restrict access to certain offensive materials^[10] or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

[edit]

Child Online Protection Act (COPA)

In 1998, the United States enacted the Child Online Protection Act^[11] (COPA) to restrict access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law was found to be unconstitutional because it would hinder protected speech among adults. It never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.^[12][13][14]

[edit]

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

Signed into law in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201) criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used tocircumvent copyright protection mechanisms^[15] and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet.^[16] The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is included as Title II of the DMCA^[17] and limits the liability of the on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.^[18]

[edit]

Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) went into effect on 21 April 2000.^[19] It applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age and details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children’s privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.^[20] While children under 13 can legally give out personal information with their parents’ permission, many websites disallow underage children from using their services altogether due to the amount of paperwork involved.

[edit]

Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

On December 21, 2000 the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)^[21] (CIPA) was signed into law.

CIPA requires K-12 schools and libraries receiving federal Universal Service Fund (E-rate) discounts or LSTA grants for Internet access or internal connections to:^[22]

• adopt and implement an Internet safety policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when usingelectronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) measures restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them;
• install internet filters or blocking software that prevents access to pictures that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors);
• to allow the filtering or blocking to be disabled upon the request of an adult; and
• adopt and enforce a policy to monitor the online activities of minors.

CIPA does not:^[22]

• require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults; or
• affect E-rate funding for schools and libraries receiving discounts for telecommunications services, such as telephone service, but not for Internet access or internal connections.READMOREHERE