------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 23:57:54 +0800 From: b131732@hp720a.csc.cuhk.hk (Benjamin C. Ostrov) Subject: Canadian Government Censorship threat to Internet To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Forwarded message from HELP-NET@TEMPLEVM.BITNET <=========================================================================> | Heather Upfield, Dept of Physiotherapy, Queen Margaret College, | | Edinburgh, EH12 8TS, Scotland, UK. Tel: 031-317 3642 Fax: 031-317 3256 | | JANET email: phupfi@uk.ac.qmced.main OR h_upfield@uk.ac.lut.hicom | | Internet email: phupfi@main.qmced.ac.uk OR h_upfield@hicom.org | <=========================================================================> This is an open letter to the Canadian "online community" -- system operators and administrators especially, but users as well. It's long, but I would ask that you read the whole thing through and consider it before responding to it. After years of being left alone, the government has "discovered" the Internet. Triggered by a new anti-pornography law, Bill C-128, we stand at a critical juncture when it comes to freedom of expression on the Internet in Canada, as well as all online systems and networks. For the past couple of decades there has been a lot of public and media attention focused on sexually explicit images and particularly pornography. While police have been going after video distributors, groups and individuals have agitated for new and stronger laws in order to come down hard on such things as child pornography and violence against women. Recently these people have begun to get their way. In the "Butler decision" (a case involving Winnipeg video store owner Donald Butler), the Supreme Court upheld the obscenity law (section 163 of the criminal code) despite the fact that it violates the charter's guarantee of freedom of expression. The court said material would "exceed contemporary Canadian community standards of tolerance" (ie. was obscene) if it was degrading or dehumanizing to women, children or men", but it didn't define those terms. In a recent Court of Appeal case the Crown argued: "that the depiction of sex for sex sake, is by its very nature, debasing, disgusting and obscene." Armed with this broad interpretation of obscenity and with a new law that now covers possession the police feel empowered to test the limits of their legal powers. In one of its last acts in parliament the Tory government pushed through Bill C-128 and created a new child pornography section -- 163.1 -- of the criminal code. It has always been illegal to produce or distribute "kiddie porn;" this bill made it illegal to possess anything, including the written word, that depicts people who are or *appear to be* under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity. What does this have to do with the Internet and online systems in general? A lot. In October, ten Toronto BBSs were busted by Metro police, under Canada's new anti-child pornography laws. The police and media have focused on the illegal pornographic computer images that were found. There was no comment on whether the people who ran these systems were consciously aware the material was being distributed through their system. >From reading the mainstream media, and, in particular, watching TV, one only gets a shallow analysis of Usenet and the Internet. From such news sources, it seems that every system busted by Project P is a blatant child-porn smuggling site. (Project P is the four-person, joint OPP and Toronto police anti-pornography unit.) For the most part, the attitude of Usenet carriers and online systems in general towards censorship and information suppression has been to take a low profile and hope the problems go away. That attitude won't work forever, and this looks like the decision time. We're not disputing that there is a problem with electronic media being used to distribute material such as child pornography, but the fact is that any site which carries a full Usenet newsfeed cannot help but have some questionable material slip through even the most vigilant administration. Basically what this means is that any network is at risk from the police coming in and closing them down. Obviously nobody wants this to happen and systems have started to censor themselves (by dropping certain newsgroups, monitoring files etc.); something which is contrary to the apparent spirit of online systems. Obviously efforts to curb abusive sexual material are worthwhile, but the problem is that this law is too broad and is being used without a full understanding of international electronic media. For example, Brian Greenspan, head of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association, condemns the phrase "explicit sexual activity" as far too vague; and the depiction qualification is denounced by the entire artistic community including the CBC, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the ACTRA performers Guild, the National Film Board and the Canadian Bar Association. Usenet has generally been the habitat of intelligent, free-thinking individuals and it has been blessed with a lack of censorship and government control that separates it from other forms of communication. But media attention on the Internet is growing; you can't help but hear about the Internet in every major media outlet, and more and more people are tapping into it every day. Half the media attention is positive, the other half seems to think that Usenet is a giant 'sex network'. Sooner or later the government and police are going to start checking into Usenet, and aren't going to like it since they don't have any control over it. What the government and police methods to control online systems will be we don't know. It's likely that it will involve further shutdowns of online systems that may not have an intentional collection of illicit pornography, but may have some sexual material, included as a small percentage of a larger body of information. A box of books with one page in one book showing some illegal pornography is an apt analogy. Of course, except for universities and very large systems, these systems are usually quite small and could not survive a raid and seizure of its equipment. So the police tactics are very effective ... As we know, on a Usenet system this questionable material is impossible to control due to the size of Usenet and the Internet. And where is the line drawn? After hunting down anything that *seems* like child pornography, an example being a nude picture of a 47 year old woman *wearing ponytails*, including material that may have been posted from countries where this is perfectly legal, we may have to go into other forms of questionable pornography and then into the free thinking discussions in newsgroups like alt.sex. Then it'll be other issues, sexually related or not, and there will be no way of ending the censorship. Eventually there will be a justification to monitor all moderated newsgroups and mailing lists, and after that point, it's possible that private mail and connections to other sites in other countries might be monitored in some way. Every topic has a side the government would like to control. Soon Usenet will go from being an open, free thinking resource that has the potential to grow into a network accessible by all people, to a worthless resource controlled by the government. It's a tough question - how much freedom should be given up to fight serious issues like child pornography - and are these tactics working at all? Are they harming an important resource more then they are helping fight the actual problem? Are there more effective ways to deal with the problem? In the US, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been formed to help protect individual and legal rights in this uncharted "electronic frontier". There's nothing similar in Canada and unfortunately the operators of these systems are a diverse lot and mostly resistant to any kind of alliance. Additionally, the EFF have no interest in setting up chapters in other countries. However there is a need for some sort of organization to help resolve legal issues, advise electronic systems and stand up for them when necessary. I've been speaking to some people about the whole issue and have had it suggested that interested parties, whether you administer an online system or are just concerned, should get together to discuss this issue, preferably with some interested legal experts present. I'm interested in helping to organize such a meeting and am wondering what kind of response there would be. I've been in touch with a number of media representatives as well as lobbying organizations who can help us or at least listen to what we have to say. If you are interested or have any issues which you think should be considered please email me at vid@io.org (an Internet address) and we will see what can be put together. Please spread this text file to as many systems as possible, big or small. A free electronic community can't exist unless we have the cooperation of a large part of the online community. We would like to get this started soon, and have a meeting within the next two or three weeks. -- vid@io.org *** Io Public Access Internet *** Toronto, Ontario Canada Data (416) 363-3783 (300 to v32bis) Telnet: io.org Voice (416) 363-8676 6000 Newsgroups, International Chat, Telnet, FTP, etc. Free access available ----- End forwarded message