Some of the documents have been released by the organizations who participated. A number of those have taken issue with a proposal to require online platforms to report flagged content to law enforcement.
The government has also heard international perspectives on its plans. Ranking Digital Rights, which advocates for freedom of expression and privacy on the internet, said the proposal contradicts international commitments Canada has made, including to the Freedom Online Coalition and the Global Conference for Media Freedom. Digital rights advocacy group Access Now wrote that the 24 hour deadline to remove content is unreasonable and onerous.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has also previously warned hour takedowns could lead platforms to delete legitimate expression, Access Now said. Requiring online platforms to monitor content is a violation of freedom of expression, the group argued, noting the Council of Europe and United Nations have spoken out against such measures.
Many of the participants also took the government to task for the consultation itself. Your go-to source for all the best Black Friday deals: tech, toys, fashion, mattresses, beauty, wellness, travel and more.
The holiday, which is a big deal elsewhere, is becoming a thing here, too. If you're in the market for a new option this cold-weather season, we've rounded up four fashionable finds that will be sure to up your cool factor, while keeping out the cold.
Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. Comments are closed. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. Go To Top ». Governor DeSantis. Prohibits online transmission of material deemed "harmful to minors.
Paulk Directs all state agencies, including educational institutions, to remove all illegal obscene materials from their computer systems.
Prohibits any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material. Overturned, in Urofsky v. Calhoun Expands existing statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography.
Like the CDA, these state bills raise serious free speech concerns. They all overlook the unique nature of the online medium, and many censor speech that is protected by the Constitution for adults and older minors. Laws that try to keep adult materials away from minors end up reducing all online content to that which is suitable for children -- the Supreme Court delclared this outcome unconstitutional in Reno v.
Similarly, the use of blocking software at libraries prevents both adults and teenagers from getting access to valuable speech like sex education materials, abuse recovery discussions, and speech about lesbian and gay issues. The draconian effect of state censorship bills doesn't stop at state borders. A message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the fifty states and the globe by tomorrow.
You'd better be careful that the message isn't "indecent" in Oklahoma, "annoying" in Connecticut, or "vulgar" in Georgia. These state laws pose a cumulative threat to online speech that may be even more powerful than the CDA, because every online user must comply with every state law -- or risk prosecution if their speech is accessed in a state that makes it illegal.
In addition to violating the First Amendment, many of these state censorship laws violate the Constitution's Commerce Clause because they criminalize online conversations that occur entirely outside the state's borders and burden interstate commerce.
Earlier in this century, the Supreme Court struck down burdensome state laws that regulated the length of railway trains. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country.
The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post. The court in ALA v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether. The ACLU's nationwide network of local affiliate offices is ready and willing to counter state attacks on your right to speak freely online.
ALA v. Pataki: In a precedent-setting opinion, the court struck down a New York State online "indecency" law because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating speech wholly outside their own borders and from imposing inconsistent state burdens on speakers.
ACLU v. Miller: This case struck down on free speech grounds a Georgia state law that made it a crime 1 to communicate anonymously or using a pseudonym on the Internet; 2 to create links to Web sites that use tradenames, trademarks, or logos. Urofsky v.
0コメント