From ars technica, a report about a proposal from a couple of Congresscritters who opposed SOPA for a “Digital Bill of Rights,” to help maintain a free and open Internet. The proposal calls for these “rights”:
- The right to a free and uncensored Internet.
- The right to an open, unobstructed Internet.
- The right to equality on the Internet.
- The right to gather and participate in online activities.
- The right to create and collaborate on the Internet.
- The right to freely share their ideas.
- The right to access the Internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are.
- The right to freely associate on the Internet.
- The right to privacy on the Internet.
- The right to benefit from what they create.
This has some promise, but it’s both under- and over-inclusive. Under-inclusive in that it doesn’t call for the abolition of copyright, or for a radical reduction in term and penalties. In fact it suggests copyright is some kind of “right” in its call for “The right to benefit from what they create.” But so long as copyright exists, it is impossible to avoid its free-speech and free-press suppressing effects. There will continue to be a “balance” struck between copyright and First Amendment type rights; i.e., free speech will continue to be chilled and suppressed (see my post “Copyright is Unconstitutional”). It is impossible to have “a free and uncensored Internet,” which the new Digital Bill of Rights calls for, so long as there is copyright. You cannot have both free speech, and copyright.
And it is over-inclusive in that it calls for things like “the right to equality on the Internet” and “the right to access the Internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are.” These and some other proposals are troubling in that they are not clearly limits on government behavior, but potential authorizations to the government to limit private actors. For example these provisions could be used by the state to regulate private companies in the name of “net neutrality” or to provide some kind internet access as a positive welfare right or privilege. (See my posts Net Neutrality Developments and Internet Access as a Human Right.)
Congress should not be declaring “rights,” since it can then serve as a source of power to the feds to regulate private activity, much as the federalizing of the Bill of Rights by way of the Fourteenth Amendment has served not to limit federal power but to extend it to regulating state laws. Congress should do nothing but limit its own power, since it is the federal government that is itself the biggest threat to Internet and digital freedoms.
A better, simpler, more effective, and less dangerous proposal would read something as follows:
- Copyright law is hereby abolished [or its term reduce to 5 years and statutory damages eliminated].
- Congress shall have no power to regulate or tax activity on the Internet, including gambling or commerce.
Here’s the ars technica piece:
Recommended podcasts:Francis Scott Key and the Forgotten Washington Race Riot of 1835, KERA Think (Aug. 9, 2012). “What role did ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ lyricist Francis Scott Key play in preserving slavery? We’ll talk this hour with Jefferson Morley, former Washington correspondent for Salon and author of the new book Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835.” This is a fascinating interview. The book sounds great. Key, known for the nauseating, jingoistic, nationalist Star Spangled Banner, was a wheeler-dealer lawyer-politician who parlayed his fame with the song into Washington power, and was finally recruited by Andrew Jackson to help suppress the growing anti-slavery movement in Washington, D.C. He jumped into the job with zeal, arresting and prosecuting people who wrote in favor of abolition or slaves’ rights—by charging them with sedition or libel (or seditious libel). Another evil “patriot” (like Washington who conscripted slaves, used his slave’s teeth for his false teeth, shot deserters, killed tax rebels, and so on). Next time you see “patriots” putting hand over heart to the “Star Spangled Banner,” remind them of the scoundrel fascist who wrote it. He makes Emma Lazarus seem heroic.
