Congressional restrictions on violent television programming are unnecessary and would be unconstitutional.
By Laurence H. Tribe, LAURENCE H. TRIBE is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He is testifying today on this subject before Congress on behalf of broadcasters, cable operators and Hollywood studios.
June 26, 2007
THIS WEEK, Congress will once again consider what to do about the perceived threat to children from television violence.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers seem tempted by the idea of deeper government involvement in what television can show. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, suggests that Congress should "time channel" certain shows to late-night time slots, implement government-run ratings or compel the segregation of more-violent programs to premium channels.
But speech restrictions such as these would be grave mistakes — mistakes that courts are unlikely to tolerate. The better approach is for Congress to empower parents — not government — to control what TV programs are appropriate for children to watch.
Depictions of violence have long figured importantly in all media. That a program displays violence cannot automatically trump its positive social value. The Old Testament is often violent, as are "Hamlet," news coverage of war and many of our best television dramas. Depictions of violence and its consequences can contribute powerfully to a show's portrayal of our often violent world, and violence — however disquieting — can add a level of meaning that is achievable in no other way.
Even the staunchest critics of TV violence must concede that only certain depictions cause real concern. But letting government decide which depictions threaten children's welfare (and therefore should be labeled or otherwise restricted or segregated) is both unconstitutional and unwise. For starters, any definition of impermissibly violent television programming will be so vague that people must "guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" — a violation of due process, as the Supreme Court held more than 80 years ago. To test just two proposed definitions, is an abusive interrogation of a suspect on "24" patently offensive? Is a depiction of the Normandy landing in a television showing of "Saving Private Ryan" excessive? Who knows?
All vague prohibitions are unconstitutional, but vague regulations of speech are particularly troubling. They "chill" valuable expression as everyone tries to avoid any speech that risks penalty — even if that speech is not actually illegal. And vague laws give regulators and prosecutors leeway to restrict speech in ways that reflect their own predilections.
EQUALLY DANGEROUS, those who want to regulate televised violence are generally responding less to the violent content itself than to what particular depictions say about using violence. But the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government regulation based on the viewpoint speech expresses: Congress is forbidden to target speech voicing a "disapproved" message about violence (like a show admiringly portraying a mobster's violent rise through the ranks) while exempting "approved" speech on the same subject (like a show condemning a drug dealer's mayhem).
It's tempting to relax these standards when government restricts speech for children's sake, but that turns the 1st Amendment upside down. If anything, children's impressionable nature cuts against government dictating what they see or learn. Why else fight about teaching evolution?
Time channeling prevents parents and children alike from watching televised violence except during specified times, thus unconstitutionally requiring adults to view only programming "suitable" for youngsters. Likewise, compelling cable TV operators to offer more violent networks on an "a la carte" basis would also violate the 1st Amendment. Finally, even assuming the worst about how television violence affects young children, the interests Congress is trying to serve are too at odds with one another to meet the high court's standards. Our interest in protecting children from frightening material, for example, would suggest that depictions of violence should be cartoonish and sanitized — but that would undercut the asserted interest in making children understand the consequences of violence and avoiding material that some fear children might imitate. And even the strongest proponents of government control would likely tolerate violence on news and sports programs, even though that seems at least as likely to cause the very effects the proponents seek to prevent.
As a father and grandfather, I share the worries of other parents about what their children watch on TV. But it is in my role as a parent and grandparent — not just a scholar — that I write here.
We should resist moves by government to control the upbringing of our children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that more narrowly tailored measures, intended solely to facilitate parental control, are less restrictive of speech and should be invoked even when centralized government regulation might be more effective.
Fortunately, parents today have more options than ever to control what their children see on television, from the V-chip to time-shifting technologies to voluntary ratings systems. We should not bypass them on the easy but treacherous path to censorship.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The FCC's not our mommy and daddy
Why the Federal Communications Commission is wrong to recommend regulating violence on TV.
the FCC issued a report last week on "violent television programming and its impact on children" that calls not just for expanding governmental oversight of broadcast TV but extending content regulation to cable and satellite channels for the first time.
Despite its sober tone, the study rests on the demonstrably false idea that violent TV breeds violence in reality, and it also fails to take seriously the vast increase in child-friendly programming and parent-empowering viewing tools.
If fantasy violence translates readily into its real-world counterpart, then why have juvenile violent crime arrests dropped steadily for 12 years? The same trend is true for violent crime among the larger population. There seems little question that depictions of violence in media have become more frequent and more graphic since 1994. If Adelstein's thesis were true, the facts on the ground would be otherwise.
The ultimate goal of the report is not simply to empower parents who worry about what's on TV in their house but to change "the media landscape outside our homes" and to increase "the amount of family-friendly, uplifting and nonviolent programming being produced."
It's safe to say that when a quartet of do-gooder, pizza-chomping cartoon reptiles has become a predicate for federal regulation, American governance has gone seriously off the rails. More to the point, the FCC seems to be wholly unaware that, in recent years, cable TV has become jampacked with channels dedicated to the sort of fare Tate demands. Cartoon Network, Disney Kids and others devote most or all of their hours to kid-friendly culture.
At the same time, parents have gained unprecedented control over the tube. Since 2000, all new TV sets have come equipped with a government-mandated "V-chip," which allows parents to automatically block specific programs based on violence, language or sexual content ratings. The typical TV or cable/satellite box includes other controls as well that allow the blocking of channels and restrict access to the set. And, of course, all TVs come with an on/off switch.
the FCC issued a report last week on "violent television programming and its impact on children" that calls not just for expanding governmental oversight of broadcast TV but extending content regulation to cable and satellite channels for the first time.
Despite its sober tone, the study rests on the demonstrably false idea that violent TV breeds violence in reality, and it also fails to take seriously the vast increase in child-friendly programming and parent-empowering viewing tools.
If fantasy violence translates readily into its real-world counterpart, then why have juvenile violent crime arrests dropped steadily for 12 years? The same trend is true for violent crime among the larger population. There seems little question that depictions of violence in media have become more frequent and more graphic since 1994. If Adelstein's thesis were true, the facts on the ground would be otherwise.
The ultimate goal of the report is not simply to empower parents who worry about what's on TV in their house but to change "the media landscape outside our homes" and to increase "the amount of family-friendly, uplifting and nonviolent programming being produced."
It's safe to say that when a quartet of do-gooder, pizza-chomping cartoon reptiles has become a predicate for federal regulation, American governance has gone seriously off the rails. More to the point, the FCC seems to be wholly unaware that, in recent years, cable TV has become jampacked with channels dedicated to the sort of fare Tate demands. Cartoon Network, Disney Kids and others devote most or all of their hours to kid-friendly culture.
At the same time, parents have gained unprecedented control over the tube. Since 2000, all new TV sets have come equipped with a government-mandated "V-chip," which allows parents to automatically block specific programs based on violence, language or sexual content ratings. The typical TV or cable/satellite box includes other controls as well that allow the blocking of channels and restrict access to the set. And, of course, all TVs come with an on/off switch.
Toward a Federal Shield Law
When the subject of a journalists’ shield law comes up in Congress, as it has this week, the issue is often framed as an attempt by reporters to give themselves special privileges to the detriment of criminal investigations and even national security.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
A shield law does protect journalists. But the real benefit for society is that it protects sources, allowing whistle-blowers or other insiders to expose wrongdoing in government and the private sector. The information they provide is vital to the public’s ability to know what government and businesses are doing and to make informed judgments.
Yesterday, six members of Congress introduced a new, balanced and bipartisan bill that would allow a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source in most circumstances. The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, is supported by dozens of media companies.
It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering. The bill has strong protections for confidential sources but would permit disclosure to avoid “imminent and actual harm” to national security.
The only thing a federal shield law would threaten is the administration’s ability to make policy in secret. This measure of protection is long overdue.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Privacy Laws Slow Efforts on Gun-Buyer Data
Momentum is building in Congress behind a measure that would push states to report their mental health records to the federal database used to conduct background checks on gun buyers.
But a thicket of obstacles, most notably state privacy laws, have thwarted repeated efforts to improve the reporting of such records in the past and are likely to complicate this latest effort, even after the worst mass shooting in United States history at Virginia Tech last month.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a “mental defective,” as well as anyone involuntarily committed to a mental institution, from buying a firearm. But only 22 states now submit any mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, against which all would-be gun purchasers must be checked.
The erratic reporting is a problem to which gun-control advocates, law enforcement officials and others have sought to draw attention for years.
“We’ve had these wake-up calls for years, and all we ever do is push the snooze button,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The federal system, in fact, contained only about 235,000 mental health records as of January 2006, even though it is estimated that as many as 2.7 million people have been involuntarily institutionalized nationwide.
“The biggest impediment is privacy relating to mental health records,” said Joey Hixenbaugh, a unit chief in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s criminal justice information systems division.
In 1998, Russell Weston barged into the United States Capitol and fatally shot two police officers. Mr. Weston had been involuntarily committed in Montana as a paranoid schizophrenic, but the authorities in Illinois, where he bought the gun, were unaware of that because privacy laws bar Montana from reporting those records to federal authorities.
Several years later, Peter Troy, who was twice admitted to a mental hospital, killed a priest and a parishioner at a Long Island church with a .22-caliber rifle he bought.
In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, a special justice declared in late 2005 that Mr. Cho was mentally ill and a danger to himself, ordering him to outpatient treatment after two women complained that he was harassing them. The finding should have disqualified him from buying a gun under federal law, which says that any court ruling that a person is a “danger to himself or others” because of mental illness is adjudicated as a mental defective.
But because Virginia reported only involuntary commitments to mental health facilities, Mr. Cho’s information was not reported to the state police and federal authorities.
Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia issued an executive order this week to try to close the gap between state and federal law by requiring that commitments for outpatient treatment be reported, as well.
The bill being pushed by Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Charles E. Schumer, both New York Democrats, takes a carrot-and-stick approach that offers money to states to automate records and speed their transmission to the federal database. It also withholds part of federal financing for a crime-prevention program from states that do not comply.
The measure is co-sponsored by Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who is a former board member of the National Rifle Association and a longtime opponent of gun control. Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, a current member of the association board, said he supported the thrust of the bill.
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the N.R.A., said it was mainly mental health groups that had stood in the way of similar legislation in the past.
“We are not an obstacle,” Mr. LaPierre said. “We’re strongly in support of putting those records in the system.”
But Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said his group was fighting the bill.
“Our biggest concern is this is being done as a denial of a civil liberty, and it’s being done without due process,” Mr. Pratt said.
Mental health advocates also opposed the measure, arguing that reporting these records to a federal database contributed to the stigmatization of mental illness.
David L. Shern, chief executive of Mental Health America, said the bill did not take into account how treatment could cure people.
“This is a classic example of a well-intentioned effort that’s going to have almost no effect and, in fact, is going to do harm,” Mr. Shern said.
The Supreme Court put up another hurdle to having states report records to federal authorities with a controversial ruling in 1997. In a lawsuit financed by the N.R.A.’s civil defense fund, the court struck down an earlier provision of the Brady bill that governs the background checks on gun purchases and ruled that state workers could not be ordered to carry out a federal regulatory program. States can be encouraged to share their information voluntarily, but in many cases they would have to amend their privacy laws to do so, an uphill battle in many states.
In North Carolina, gun-control groups tried in 2002 to require the reporting of additional mental health records but were stymied by both mental health and pro-gun groups.
Robin Peyson of the Texas chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness said she would oppose efforts to change privacy laws in her state.
“Its unintended consequence will be to discourage people from seeking treatment when they need it most,” Ms. Peyson said.
But a thicket of obstacles, most notably state privacy laws, have thwarted repeated efforts to improve the reporting of such records in the past and are likely to complicate this latest effort, even after the worst mass shooting in United States history at Virginia Tech last month.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a “mental defective,” as well as anyone involuntarily committed to a mental institution, from buying a firearm. But only 22 states now submit any mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, against which all would-be gun purchasers must be checked.
The erratic reporting is a problem to which gun-control advocates, law enforcement officials and others have sought to draw attention for years.
“We’ve had these wake-up calls for years, and all we ever do is push the snooze button,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The federal system, in fact, contained only about 235,000 mental health records as of January 2006, even though it is estimated that as many as 2.7 million people have been involuntarily institutionalized nationwide.
“The biggest impediment is privacy relating to mental health records,” said Joey Hixenbaugh, a unit chief in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s criminal justice information systems division.
In 1998, Russell Weston barged into the United States Capitol and fatally shot two police officers. Mr. Weston had been involuntarily committed in Montana as a paranoid schizophrenic, but the authorities in Illinois, where he bought the gun, were unaware of that because privacy laws bar Montana from reporting those records to federal authorities.
Several years later, Peter Troy, who was twice admitted to a mental hospital, killed a priest and a parishioner at a Long Island church with a .22-caliber rifle he bought.
In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, a special justice declared in late 2005 that Mr. Cho was mentally ill and a danger to himself, ordering him to outpatient treatment after two women complained that he was harassing them. The finding should have disqualified him from buying a gun under federal law, which says that any court ruling that a person is a “danger to himself or others” because of mental illness is adjudicated as a mental defective.
But because Virginia reported only involuntary commitments to mental health facilities, Mr. Cho’s information was not reported to the state police and federal authorities.
Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia issued an executive order this week to try to close the gap between state and federal law by requiring that commitments for outpatient treatment be reported, as well.
The bill being pushed by Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Charles E. Schumer, both New York Democrats, takes a carrot-and-stick approach that offers money to states to automate records and speed their transmission to the federal database. It also withholds part of federal financing for a crime-prevention program from states that do not comply.
The measure is co-sponsored by Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who is a former board member of the National Rifle Association and a longtime opponent of gun control. Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, a current member of the association board, said he supported the thrust of the bill.
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the N.R.A., said it was mainly mental health groups that had stood in the way of similar legislation in the past.
“We are not an obstacle,” Mr. LaPierre said. “We’re strongly in support of putting those records in the system.”
But Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said his group was fighting the bill.
“Our biggest concern is this is being done as a denial of a civil liberty, and it’s being done without due process,” Mr. Pratt said.
Mental health advocates also opposed the measure, arguing that reporting these records to a federal database contributed to the stigmatization of mental illness.
David L. Shern, chief executive of Mental Health America, said the bill did not take into account how treatment could cure people.
“This is a classic example of a well-intentioned effort that’s going to have almost no effect and, in fact, is going to do harm,” Mr. Shern said.
The Supreme Court put up another hurdle to having states report records to federal authorities with a controversial ruling in 1997. In a lawsuit financed by the N.R.A.’s civil defense fund, the court struck down an earlier provision of the Brady bill that governs the background checks on gun purchases and ruled that state workers could not be ordered to carry out a federal regulatory program. States can be encouraged to share their information voluntarily, but in many cases they would have to amend their privacy laws to do so, an uphill battle in many states.
In North Carolina, gun-control groups tried in 2002 to require the reporting of additional mental health records but were stymied by both mental health and pro-gun groups.
Robin Peyson of the Texas chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness said she would oppose efforts to change privacy laws in her state.
“Its unintended consequence will be to discourage people from seeking treatment when they need it most,” Ms. Peyson said.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Criminalising the consumer
IS IT legal to make a copy of that DVD you’ve just bought so the family can watch it around the home or in the car? In one of the most watched copyright cases in recent years, a judge in northern California ruled last month that copying DVDs for personal use was legal, given the terms of the industry’s licence and the way the copies were made.
The wider implication of the ruling remains clouded—not least because the DVD Copy Control Association, the loser in the case, has 60 days to appeal. But whatever the video industry may like to think, the writing is on the wall for copy protection.
Copyright is a tricky thing. It protects only the way that an author, designer, photographer, film-maker or composer has expressed himself. It does not cover the ideas or the factual information conveyed in the work.
What constitutes fair use or an infringement is trickier still. Much depends on the purpose and character of the borrowed material’s use. Limited reproduction for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research is considered fair game. But the wholesale repackaging of the content for commercial use is a flagrant infringement.
In America, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it legal for people to record copyrighted radio broadcasts for personal use. But while the act said nothing about making digital recordings, ripping copyrighted music tracks off CDs and storing them on an iPod has become an everyday occurrence. Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that.
Most people think it ludicrous that they can’t do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan’s favour.
The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital “jukeboxes” that store a person’s video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association’s CSS (content scrambling system) licence.
A Kaleidescape server stores digital content ripped from CDs and DVDs on its hard drive. The content is then encrypted and fed to various screens and speakers around the home by a secure cable. Kaleidescape claimed that content distributed this way was even safer than it was on the original polycarbonate disks. The judge not only agreed, but couldn’t find any breach of the copy-protection licence either.
If the case ends there, to all intents and purposes the notion of fair use would appear to apply to DVDs as well as CDs. The movie industry, which nowadays depends as much on DVD sales as on box-office receipts, still seems to think that making life difficult for its customers is a recipe for success.
After likewise shooting itself in the foot for ages, the record industry is now falling over itself to abandon DRM (digital rights management) on CDs. A number of online music stores such as eMusic, Audio Lunchbox and Anthology have given up using DRM altogether. In a recent survey by Jupiter Research, two out of three music industry executives in Europe reckoned that dropping DRM would improve sales.
The latest music publisher to do so is EMI, which announced in January that it had stopped producing CDs with DRM protection. “The costs of DRM,” it declared, “do not measure up to the results.”
In an open letter entitled “Thoughts on Music”, even Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic boss and chief evangelist, recently called for the elimination of DRM. From this month, Apple’s iTunes will sell EMI’s highest quality recordings (those with sampling rates of 256 kilobits per second) without DRM for a small premium.
Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesn’t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.
Now the copy protection on DVDs is proving just as easy to bypass. The biggest flop has been the CSS technology featured in the recent Kaleidescape case. It was first cracked back in 1999 by a Norwegian programmer called Jon Lech Johansen, who showed, in a few short lines of elegant code called DeCSS, just how trivial such lauded protection systems really were. Since then, even the DRM used to protect the new high-definition video disks (the Blu-ray format from the Sony camp and its HD-DVD rival from the Toshiba alliance) have been cracked wide open.
While most of today’s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.
One of the most promising is Audible Magic’s content protection technology. Google is currently testing this to find the “fingerprints” of miscreants who have posted unauthorised television or movie clips on YouTube.
The beauty of such schemes is that they don’t actually prevent anyone from making copies of original content. Their purpose is simply to collect royalties when a breach of copyright has occurred. By being reactive rather than pre-emptive, normal law-abiding consumers are then left in peace to enjoy their music and video collections in any way they choose. Why couldn’t we have thought of that in the beginning?
The wider implication of the ruling remains clouded—not least because the DVD Copy Control Association, the loser in the case, has 60 days to appeal. But whatever the video industry may like to think, the writing is on the wall for copy protection.
Copyright is a tricky thing. It protects only the way that an author, designer, photographer, film-maker or composer has expressed himself. It does not cover the ideas or the factual information conveyed in the work.
What constitutes fair use or an infringement is trickier still. Much depends on the purpose and character of the borrowed material’s use. Limited reproduction for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research is considered fair game. But the wholesale repackaging of the content for commercial use is a flagrant infringement.
In America, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it legal for people to record copyrighted radio broadcasts for personal use. But while the act said nothing about making digital recordings, ripping copyrighted music tracks off CDs and storing them on an iPod has become an everyday occurrence. Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that.
Most people think it ludicrous that they can’t do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan’s favour.
The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital “jukeboxes” that store a person’s video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association’s CSS (content scrambling system) licence.
A Kaleidescape server stores digital content ripped from CDs and DVDs on its hard drive. The content is then encrypted and fed to various screens and speakers around the home by a secure cable. Kaleidescape claimed that content distributed this way was even safer than it was on the original polycarbonate disks. The judge not only agreed, but couldn’t find any breach of the copy-protection licence either.
If the case ends there, to all intents and purposes the notion of fair use would appear to apply to DVDs as well as CDs. The movie industry, which nowadays depends as much on DVD sales as on box-office receipts, still seems to think that making life difficult for its customers is a recipe for success.
After likewise shooting itself in the foot for ages, the record industry is now falling over itself to abandon DRM (digital rights management) on CDs. A number of online music stores such as eMusic, Audio Lunchbox and Anthology have given up using DRM altogether. In a recent survey by Jupiter Research, two out of three music industry executives in Europe reckoned that dropping DRM would improve sales.
The latest music publisher to do so is EMI, which announced in January that it had stopped producing CDs with DRM protection. “The costs of DRM,” it declared, “do not measure up to the results.”
In an open letter entitled “Thoughts on Music”, even Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic boss and chief evangelist, recently called for the elimination of DRM. From this month, Apple’s iTunes will sell EMI’s highest quality recordings (those with sampling rates of 256 kilobits per second) without DRM for a small premium.
Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesn’t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.
Now the copy protection on DVDs is proving just as easy to bypass. The biggest flop has been the CSS technology featured in the recent Kaleidescape case. It was first cracked back in 1999 by a Norwegian programmer called Jon Lech Johansen, who showed, in a few short lines of elegant code called DeCSS, just how trivial such lauded protection systems really were. Since then, even the DRM used to protect the new high-definition video disks (the Blu-ray format from the Sony camp and its HD-DVD rival from the Toshiba alliance) have been cracked wide open.
While most of today’s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.
One of the most promising is Audible Magic’s content protection technology. Google is currently testing this to find the “fingerprints” of miscreants who have posted unauthorised television or movie clips on YouTube.
The beauty of such schemes is that they don’t actually prevent anyone from making copies of original content. Their purpose is simply to collect royalties when a breach of copyright has occurred. By being reactive rather than pre-emptive, normal law-abiding consumers are then left in peace to enjoy their music and video collections in any way they choose. Why couldn’t we have thought of that in the beginning?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to purchase two guns despite his history of mental illness has cast new attention on Virginia’s relatively lax gun laws. And since states are supposed to enforce federal gun laws, the sales raise questions about whether Virgina — and other states — fully comply with the federal restrictions.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. As a result, the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification only addresses the state criteria, which lists two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police — someone who was “involuntarily committed,” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” said Mr. Bonnie. The commission he chairs was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter: “We are going to fix this.”
He also said he believed similar problems likely exist elsewhere in the country.
“I’m sure that the mis-fit exists in states across the country, and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After a pair of female students complained about his behavior in 2005, Mr. Cho was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a professor of law at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health issues, said that under his reading of the Virginia law, outpatient treatment could also qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia state law should have barred him from buying a weapon as well, an interpretation Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagree with.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia state attorney general’s office declined to comment today, saying only that various agencies are “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, would only say today that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But he added: “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia has probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” he said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” he said, explaining the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing them. “When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this.”
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, has been pushing a bill that would require states to automate their criminal history records so that computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete. The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the NICS system, the statement said.
According to gun control advocates, however, the mental health information submitted is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate, with Ms. McCarthy. According to congressional aides, he is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The NRA doesn’t have objections,” he said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the NRA declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies: “It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms.”
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to purchase two guns despite his history of mental illness has cast new attention on Virginia’s relatively lax gun laws. And since states are supposed to enforce federal gun laws, the sales raise questions about whether Virgina — and other states — fully comply with the federal restrictions.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. As a result, the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification only addresses the state criteria, which lists two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police — someone who was “involuntarily committed,” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” said Mr. Bonnie. The commission he chairs was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter: “We are going to fix this.”
He also said he believed similar problems likely exist elsewhere in the country.
“I’m sure that the mis-fit exists in states across the country, and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After a pair of female students complained about his behavior in 2005, Mr. Cho was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a professor of law at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health issues, said that under his reading of the Virginia law, outpatient treatment could also qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia state law should have barred him from buying a weapon as well, an interpretation Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagree with.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia state attorney general’s office declined to comment today, saying only that various agencies are “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, would only say today that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But he added: “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Federal authorities apparently have not noticed Virginia’s failure to comply with federal guidelines restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia has probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” he said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” he said, explaining the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing them. “When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this.”
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, has been pushing a bill that would require states to automate their criminal history records so that computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete. The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the NICS system, the statement said.
According to gun control advocates, however, the mental health information submitted is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate, with Ms. McCarthy. According to congressional aides, he is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The NRA doesn’t have objections,” he said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the NRA declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies: “It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms.”
Monday, April 09, 2007
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.
But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,” he said.
But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
Britain’s Military to Permit Former Captives to Sell Stories
Two days after they were paraded as heroes with a story to tell, some of the 15 British sailors and marines captured and released by Iran seemed Sunday to have decided they have a story to sell.
In a highly unusual decision, Britain’s Ministry of Defense — normally tight-lipped, to say the least — acknowledged Saturday that it had agreed to permit them to offer their experiences for sale to newspapers and television stations.
Such transactions are common enough among civilians, some of whom have traded the rights to their stories for considerable sums of money. But the notion of active military service members making a profit from their exploits — particularly when thousands of others serving in Iraq and Afghanistan face daily peril and sometimes death — has reinforced the criticism of the 15 Britons’ seemingly pliant behavior toward the Iranians holding them.
“Our armed forces are, I think, the most respected institution in the country pretty much, and they deserve to be after the job they have done in very difficult circumstances in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” William Hague, the opposition Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, said in a television interview.
“But if, whenever people have been in a difficult situation, they are going to be allowed to sell their story quickly after that, then I think we are going to lose steadily that dignity and respect for our armed forces.”
Six of the 15 former captives spoke at a news conference on Friday, recounting moments when some of them thought they were about to be executed as they faced psychological pressure to make public “confessions” on state-run Iranian television that they had unlawfully strayed into Iranian territorial waters.
The Ministry of Defense’s decision to allow them to tell the stories of solitary confinement and blindfolding to the public seemed intended to offset criticism in newspapers here that the sailors and marines had succumbed too easily and too quickly to Iranian pressure. The critics said their behavior contrasted markedly with that of service personnel in earlier eras, when captured service members were under orders to provide their captors with only limited information.
“It seems reasonable to at least wonder whatever happened to divulging one’s name, rank and number,” the columnist Marina Hyde wrote in The Guardian.
Opposition even came from the possibly unexpected quarter of Max Clifford, one of Britain’s leading publicists, who, as a well-known agent on behalf of people selling their stories, has done as much as anyone to put the word checkbook into checkbook journalism.
“This is purely a propaganda exercise,” Mr. Clifford told The Press Association news agency. “In the past troops were always stopped from talking about what had gone on.”
“They can control it, and they do control it when it suits them,” he said, referring to the Ministry of Defense. “It didn’t suit them in this particular case.”
The Ministry of Defense said in a statement on Sunday that the sale of stories would strengthen its control over what the released sailors and marines had to say.
“It was clear that the stories they had to tell were likely to have emerged via family and friends, regardless of any decision the navy took,” the statement said.
By allowing them to sell their stories, by contrast, the statement said, the navy and the Ministry of Defense would have “sight of what they were going to say as well as providing proper media support to the sailors and marines in the same way as would have been the case in more ordinary circumstances.”
Mr. Clifford estimated that the sales could earn about $500,000, with the biggest amount likely to be paid to Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman among the captives, who was said by Iranian television to have written letters home criticizing British and American policy.
Mr. Clifford said he had been approached by three or four of the service members about selling their stories.
In some ways, the unfolding saga of the 15 — captured on March 23 in the Persian Gulf — has become a parable for modern Britain in a time when warfare has become intertwined with the battle of perceptions and versions played out on 24-hour television news channels.
During the captivity, British, American and other broadcasters picked up and retransmitted Iranian video of the captives seeming to deny Britain’s official insistence that they were captured while performing a legal search in Iraqi waters.
“The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,” Col. Bob Stewart, a former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told The Sunday Times of London. “I am appalled that the Ministry of Defense is encouraging them to profit in this way.”
There is an element, too, of the class distinctions that still stratify some parts of British society. “No one complains if a general writes his memoirs,” said Flight Lt. John Nichol, who was captured and tortured during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. “But there is snobbery about a junior rank telling their story.”
The most poignant criticism came from the relatives of the 140 British service members who have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003 and of the 52 who have died in Afghanistan since 2001.
“This is wrong and I don’t think it should be allowed,” Rose Gentle, the mother of a 19-year-old soldier killed in Basra in 2004, said of the decision to allow the sailors and marines to sell their stories.
One of the former captives, at least, had a different view on the sale of stories. “I am not interested in making money out of this,” said Lt. Felix Carman of the navy, the highest-ranking of the 15 captives, who spoke at length during Friday’s news conference. “My main aim is to tell the story.”
“There’s some people who might be making money, but that’s an individual’s decision, that’s very private, but that’s not something that myself or many of the others will do,” he said.
In a highly unusual decision, Britain’s Ministry of Defense — normally tight-lipped, to say the least — acknowledged Saturday that it had agreed to permit them to offer their experiences for sale to newspapers and television stations.
Such transactions are common enough among civilians, some of whom have traded the rights to their stories for considerable sums of money. But the notion of active military service members making a profit from their exploits — particularly when thousands of others serving in Iraq and Afghanistan face daily peril and sometimes death — has reinforced the criticism of the 15 Britons’ seemingly pliant behavior toward the Iranians holding them.
“Our armed forces are, I think, the most respected institution in the country pretty much, and they deserve to be after the job they have done in very difficult circumstances in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” William Hague, the opposition Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs, said in a television interview.
“But if, whenever people have been in a difficult situation, they are going to be allowed to sell their story quickly after that, then I think we are going to lose steadily that dignity and respect for our armed forces.”
Six of the 15 former captives spoke at a news conference on Friday, recounting moments when some of them thought they were about to be executed as they faced psychological pressure to make public “confessions” on state-run Iranian television that they had unlawfully strayed into Iranian territorial waters.
The Ministry of Defense’s decision to allow them to tell the stories of solitary confinement and blindfolding to the public seemed intended to offset criticism in newspapers here that the sailors and marines had succumbed too easily and too quickly to Iranian pressure. The critics said their behavior contrasted markedly with that of service personnel in earlier eras, when captured service members were under orders to provide their captors with only limited information.
“It seems reasonable to at least wonder whatever happened to divulging one’s name, rank and number,” the columnist Marina Hyde wrote in The Guardian.
Opposition even came from the possibly unexpected quarter of Max Clifford, one of Britain’s leading publicists, who, as a well-known agent on behalf of people selling their stories, has done as much as anyone to put the word checkbook into checkbook journalism.
“This is purely a propaganda exercise,” Mr. Clifford told The Press Association news agency. “In the past troops were always stopped from talking about what had gone on.”
“They can control it, and they do control it when it suits them,” he said, referring to the Ministry of Defense. “It didn’t suit them in this particular case.”
The Ministry of Defense said in a statement on Sunday that the sale of stories would strengthen its control over what the released sailors and marines had to say.
“It was clear that the stories they had to tell were likely to have emerged via family and friends, regardless of any decision the navy took,” the statement said.
By allowing them to sell their stories, by contrast, the statement said, the navy and the Ministry of Defense would have “sight of what they were going to say as well as providing proper media support to the sailors and marines in the same way as would have been the case in more ordinary circumstances.”
Mr. Clifford estimated that the sales could earn about $500,000, with the biggest amount likely to be paid to Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman among the captives, who was said by Iranian television to have written letters home criticizing British and American policy.
Mr. Clifford said he had been approached by three or four of the service members about selling their stories.
In some ways, the unfolding saga of the 15 — captured on March 23 in the Persian Gulf — has become a parable for modern Britain in a time when warfare has become intertwined with the battle of perceptions and versions played out on 24-hour television news channels.
During the captivity, British, American and other broadcasters picked up and retransmitted Iranian video of the captives seeming to deny Britain’s official insistence that they were captured while performing a legal search in Iraqi waters.
“The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,” Col. Bob Stewart, a former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told The Sunday Times of London. “I am appalled that the Ministry of Defense is encouraging them to profit in this way.”
There is an element, too, of the class distinctions that still stratify some parts of British society. “No one complains if a general writes his memoirs,” said Flight Lt. John Nichol, who was captured and tortured during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. “But there is snobbery about a junior rank telling their story.”
The most poignant criticism came from the relatives of the 140 British service members who have died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003 and of the 52 who have died in Afghanistan since 2001.
“This is wrong and I don’t think it should be allowed,” Rose Gentle, the mother of a 19-year-old soldier killed in Basra in 2004, said of the decision to allow the sailors and marines to sell their stories.
One of the former captives, at least, had a different view on the sale of stories. “I am not interested in making money out of this,” said Lt. Felix Carman of the navy, the highest-ranking of the 15 captives, who spoke at length during Friday’s news conference. “My main aim is to tell the story.”
“There’s some people who might be making money, but that’s an individual’s decision, that’s very private, but that’s not something that myself or many of the others will do,” he said.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Truth in College Lending
By rights, a student who calls a college financial aid office should reach one of the college’s aid officers. But that is often not the case, as a front-page article by Jonathan Glater of The Times pointed out last week. Many colleges route student calls to representatives of loan companies who pretend to work for the college but who actually have a vested interest in selling the costliest possible loans.
Colleges portray this as a harmless, cost-saving convenience that allows them to serve students without hiring more staff members. But it is part of a troubling — and possibly illegal — process that finds colleges steering students to “preferred lenders” in exchange for kickbacks based on volume.
Some financial aid officers argue that students are getting the best possible loan rates. That seems dubious, given that “preferred lender” agreements uncovered by prosecutors are based on the payments made to the colleges and make no mention of the interest rates the students will be charged. Deceptive packaging is also a problem. Some lenders name their loans after colleges and universities and use college mascots and logos on Internet sites and correspondence.
Colleges portray this as a harmless, cost-saving convenience that allows them to serve students without hiring more staff members. But it is part of a troubling — and possibly illegal — process that finds colleges steering students to “preferred lenders” in exchange for kickbacks based on volume.
Some financial aid officers argue that students are getting the best possible loan rates. That seems dubious, given that “preferred lender” agreements uncovered by prosecutors are based on the payments made to the colleges and make no mention of the interest rates the students will be charged. Deceptive packaging is also a problem. Some lenders name their loans after colleges and universities and use college mascots and logos on Internet sites and correspondence.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Abortion Plan in Mexico City Shakes a Heavily Catholic Land
Dominated by liberals, Mexico City’s legislature is expected to legalize abortion in a few weeks. The bill would make this city one of the largest entities in Latin America to break with a long tradition of women resorting to illegal clinics and midwives to end unwanted pregnancies.
But the measure has stirred a vicious debate and shaken this heavily Roman Catholic country to its roots.
The contours of the debate are familiar to veterans of similar battles in the United States. But Mexico City’s law would be groundbreaking in Latin America, where most countries allow abortion only under strict conditions, like when the life of the mother is in danger or when she is a victim of rape or incest. Only in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guyana can women have abortions on demand during the first trimester. Three countries — Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador — ban it without exception.
The Mexico City bill would make it legal to have an abortion during the first trimester for any reason. The procedure would be free at city health facilities. Private hospitals would be required to provide an abortion to any woman who asks for one, though doctors with religious or ethical objections would not be required to perform abortions.
Catholic leaders and church officials have denounced the proponents as “baby killers” and have warned that the law could provoke violence against doctors who agree to provide the service. A group of Catholic lawyers are pushing for a citywide referendum on the issue, hoping to avert the vote in the city Legislative Assembly.
“Women are dying, above all poor women, because of unsafe abortions,” said María Consuelo Mejía, the director of Catholics for the Right to Decide. “What we would like is that these women never have to confront the necessity of an abortion, but in this society it’s impossible right now. There is no access to information, to contraceptives. Nor do most women have the power to negotiate the use of contraceptives with their partners.”
Conservatives respond that abortion is tantamount to murder. “This law is a law that will cost many lives,” said Jorge Serrano Limón, the head of Provida, an anti-abortion group. “If it is signed, it will spill a lot of blood, the blood of babies just conceived in the maternal womb.”
Mr. Serrano Limón and other opponents also dispute that the law will end illegal abortions. The procedure carries such a stigma here, they say, that whether legal or not, many women will seek out underground clinics to keep their condition secret from their friends and families anyway.
“People are talking about abortion openly for the first time in Mexico,” said Lilian Sepúlveda, a lawyer with the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights who tracks the issue in Latin America. “It is historic.”
“They say that it’s a problem of a woman’s rights over her body, but they ignore the right over their bodies that all the aborted girls and boys have,” he said later in his homily. “They deny them the fundamental right, which is the right to life.”
Many women here are watching the political battle with a mix of trepidation and hope. Like many laws in Mexico, the abortion law is honored as much in its breach as its observance.
Government officials estimate at least 110,000 women a year seek illegal abortions in Mexico, and many abortion rights groups say the number is much higher. At least 88 women died in 2006 from botched abortions, the Health Ministry says, though it is far from clear that all cases were reported.
For the poor, unwanted pregnancies often mean finding a midwife or an underground clinic, abortion rights advocates say. Some young women also resort to huge doses of drugs for arthritis and gastritis, available over the counter, that can cause miscarriages. Others use teas made from traditional herbs to cause miscarriages. All of these methods carry dangers.
But the measure has stirred a vicious debate and shaken this heavily Roman Catholic country to its roots.
The contours of the debate are familiar to veterans of similar battles in the United States. But Mexico City’s law would be groundbreaking in Latin America, where most countries allow abortion only under strict conditions, like when the life of the mother is in danger or when she is a victim of rape or incest. Only in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guyana can women have abortions on demand during the first trimester. Three countries — Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador — ban it without exception.
The Mexico City bill would make it legal to have an abortion during the first trimester for any reason. The procedure would be free at city health facilities. Private hospitals would be required to provide an abortion to any woman who asks for one, though doctors with religious or ethical objections would not be required to perform abortions.
Catholic leaders and church officials have denounced the proponents as “baby killers” and have warned that the law could provoke violence against doctors who agree to provide the service. A group of Catholic lawyers are pushing for a citywide referendum on the issue, hoping to avert the vote in the city Legislative Assembly.
“Women are dying, above all poor women, because of unsafe abortions,” said María Consuelo Mejía, the director of Catholics for the Right to Decide. “What we would like is that these women never have to confront the necessity of an abortion, but in this society it’s impossible right now. There is no access to information, to contraceptives. Nor do most women have the power to negotiate the use of contraceptives with their partners.”
Conservatives respond that abortion is tantamount to murder. “This law is a law that will cost many lives,” said Jorge Serrano Limón, the head of Provida, an anti-abortion group. “If it is signed, it will spill a lot of blood, the blood of babies just conceived in the maternal womb.”
Mr. Serrano Limón and other opponents also dispute that the law will end illegal abortions. The procedure carries such a stigma here, they say, that whether legal or not, many women will seek out underground clinics to keep their condition secret from their friends and families anyway.
“People are talking about abortion openly for the first time in Mexico,” said Lilian Sepúlveda, a lawyer with the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights who tracks the issue in Latin America. “It is historic.”
“They say that it’s a problem of a woman’s rights over her body, but they ignore the right over their bodies that all the aborted girls and boys have,” he said later in his homily. “They deny them the fundamental right, which is the right to life.”
Many women here are watching the political battle with a mix of trepidation and hope. Like many laws in Mexico, the abortion law is honored as much in its breach as its observance.
Government officials estimate at least 110,000 women a year seek illegal abortions in Mexico, and many abortion rights groups say the number is much higher. At least 88 women died in 2006 from botched abortions, the Health Ministry says, though it is far from clear that all cases were reported.
For the poor, unwanted pregnancies often mean finding a midwife or an underground clinic, abortion rights advocates say. Some young women also resort to huge doses of drugs for arthritis and gastritis, available over the counter, that can cause miscarriages. Others use teas made from traditional herbs to cause miscarriages. All of these methods carry dangers.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
City in Florida Fires Official Who Planned to Change Sex
The longtime city manager here was fired early Saturday, one month after he disclosed his plans to seek a sex change.
The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.
Several transgender people spoke on Mr. Stanton’s behalf, including a former deputy mayor of St. Paul, as did a few dozen people from Largo and throughout the state. A smaller number spoke in favor of firing him, including one man who said Mr. Stanton had made Largo “the laughingstock of the whole country.”
Mr. Stanton’s wish to become a woman named Susan came to light last month, after The St. Petersburg Times learned of it, got him to confirm it and published an article. Before that, Mr. Stanton said, he planned to announce his decision later this year, when his son would be out of town.
The City Commission had generally praised Mr. Stanton in performance reviews, and it gave him a raise last year. But within a week of the newspaper’s report, the commission voted to begin the process of firing him. Mr. Stanton filed an appeal on March 8 in hopes of keeping his job of 14 years, which paid $140,000 a year.
The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.
Several transgender people spoke on Mr. Stanton’s behalf, including a former deputy mayor of St. Paul, as did a few dozen people from Largo and throughout the state. A smaller number spoke in favor of firing him, including one man who said Mr. Stanton had made Largo “the laughingstock of the whole country.”
Mr. Stanton’s wish to become a woman named Susan came to light last month, after The St. Petersburg Times learned of it, got him to confirm it and published an article. Before that, Mr. Stanton said, he planned to announce his decision later this year, when his son would be out of town.
The City Commission had generally praised Mr. Stanton in performance reviews, and it gave him a raise last year. But within a week of the newspaper’s report, the commission voted to begin the process of firing him. Mr. Stanton filed an appeal on March 8 in hopes of keeping his job of 14 years, which paid $140,000 a year.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law
background
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
pros
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
cons:
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
“We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or anything that delays someone’s access, has a big impact on traffic,” said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued that depending solely on filters was insufficient. “It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” he wrote.
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
pros
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
cons:
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
“We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or anything that delays someone’s access, has a big impact on traffic,” said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued that depending solely on filters was insufficient. “It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” he wrote.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
China Scrambles for Stability as Its Workers Age
The proportion of people 60 and older is growing faster in China than in any other major country, with the number of retirees set to double between 2005 and 2015, when it is expected to reach 200 million. By midcentury, according to United Nations projections, roughly 430 million people — about a third of the population — will be retirees.
That increase will place enormous demands on the country’s finances and could threaten the underpinnings of the Chinese economy, which has thrived for decades on the cheap labor of hundreds of millions of young, uneducated workers from the countryside. Changes in the country’s population structure are taking place hand in hand with changes in the structure of the Chinese family. China’s one-child policy, which began in 1980, means that, beginning with the current generation of young adults, couples will face the difficult task of caring for four parents through old age.
By the same token, the ratio of workers to retired people will decline from about six to one now to about two to one by 2040.
Obviously, raising the retirement ages would ease a substantial amount of pressure on the pension system. But there are no plans to do so, and raising the retirement ages would present another set of problems for the government, experts here say.
Last year, for example, 4.13 million young Chinese graduated from universities, and fully 30 percent of them are still unemployed. Unemployment is high among those who are not university graduates, as well. Prolonging employment for older workers would make this predicament worse, possibly with volatile consequences.
The bind that China finds itself in takes form in an often-posed question: Can the country grow rich before it grows old? Increasingly, experts here say the answer, which also has huge implications for the global economy, appears doubtful.
Already, experts say the large financing gap resulting from the early retirement of public sector workers has repeatedly caused the state to improvise to keep the system afloat. Receipts from lottery ticket sales and from foreign initial private offerings of stocks, for example, have been drawn upon to finance the system.
Most troubling to financial experts, the government has used payroll taxes paid by the current generation of workers, who in theory are paying into their individual retirement accounts, to pay pensions for the previous generation.
China’s relatively young private life insurance industry is one of the sectors that stands to benefit most from the growing uncertainty over aging and pensions, but even within the industry, analysts express worry.
“If we continue to have sound and healthy development in the economy we might get through this, but what if we cannot?” said Jiang Shihua, a senior official of the Pingan Life Insurance Company, who spoke of a time when China would have 400 to 500 million old people who “only consume and don’t produce at all.”
That increase will place enormous demands on the country’s finances and could threaten the underpinnings of the Chinese economy, which has thrived for decades on the cheap labor of hundreds of millions of young, uneducated workers from the countryside. Changes in the country’s population structure are taking place hand in hand with changes in the structure of the Chinese family. China’s one-child policy, which began in 1980, means that, beginning with the current generation of young adults, couples will face the difficult task of caring for four parents through old age.
By the same token, the ratio of workers to retired people will decline from about six to one now to about two to one by 2040.
Obviously, raising the retirement ages would ease a substantial amount of pressure on the pension system. But there are no plans to do so, and raising the retirement ages would present another set of problems for the government, experts here say.
Last year, for example, 4.13 million young Chinese graduated from universities, and fully 30 percent of them are still unemployed. Unemployment is high among those who are not university graduates, as well. Prolonging employment for older workers would make this predicament worse, possibly with volatile consequences.
The bind that China finds itself in takes form in an often-posed question: Can the country grow rich before it grows old? Increasingly, experts here say the answer, which also has huge implications for the global economy, appears doubtful.
Already, experts say the large financing gap resulting from the early retirement of public sector workers has repeatedly caused the state to improvise to keep the system afloat. Receipts from lottery ticket sales and from foreign initial private offerings of stocks, for example, have been drawn upon to finance the system.
Most troubling to financial experts, the government has used payroll taxes paid by the current generation of workers, who in theory are paying into their individual retirement accounts, to pay pensions for the previous generation.
China’s relatively young private life insurance industry is one of the sectors that stands to benefit most from the growing uncertainty over aging and pensions, but even within the industry, analysts express worry.
“If we continue to have sound and healthy development in the economy we might get through this, but what if we cannot?” said Jiang Shihua, a senior official of the Pingan Life Insurance Company, who spoke of a time when China would have 400 to 500 million old people who “only consume and don’t produce at all.”
F.D.A. Rule Limits Role of Advisers Tied to Industry
Expert advisers to the government who receive money from a drug or device maker would be barred for the first time from voting on whether to approve that company’s products under new rules announced Wednesday for the F.D.A.’s powerful advisory committees.
Indeed, such doctors who receive more than $50,000 from a company or a competitor whose product is being discussed would no longer be allowed to serve on the committees, though those who receive less than that amount in the prior year can join a committee and participate in its discussions.
A “significant number” of the agency’s present advisers would be affected by the new policy, said the F.D.A. acting deputy commissioner, Randall W. Lutter, though he would not say how many. The rules are among the first major changes made by Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach since he was confirmed as commissioner of food and drugs late last year.
Advisory boards recommend drugs for approval and, in rare cases, removal, and their votes can have enormous influence on drug company fortunes.
“The $50,000 threshold is something that we think strikes an appropriate balance between” getting smart advisers and reassuring the public that their advice is not tainted, Dr. Lutter said.
The changes are intended to respond to a growing chorus of critics who contend that drug and device makers have hijacked the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process by paying those who serve on the agency’s advisory panels.
In one famous example, 10 of the 32 advisers who voted in 2005 to allow the painkiller Bextra to remain on the market and the painkiller Vioxx to return to the market despite safety worries had taken money from the drug makers. Under the new rules, their votes would not have counted and the committee would have voted to keep both drugs off the market.
In the end, the F.D.A. removed Bextra from the market anyway, and Vioxx has never returned. But the controversy surrounding that panel’s vote, and similar ones, tarnished the process and provided new fodder for critics in Congress.
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, said he was delighted with the change, which will not become final until the end of a 60-day comment period.
“So many lives have been lost as a result of the failure of the F.D.A. to review drugs properly,” said Mr. Hinchey, who for two years has proposed legislation to ban agency advisers from having financial conflicts of interest. “The F.D.A. is now moving back to where it was supposed to be, a principled agency that protects the people.”
“F.D.A. is trying to strike a balance here,” Mr. Troy said, “and they would rather strike it themselves than have it struck for them.”
Drug makers routinely hire doctors as consultants for marketing and research. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that records in Minnesota show that at least 20 percent of licensed physicians in the state received money from drug makers between 1997 and 2005 — an average of $10,000.
Some conservatives were not happy with the new rule.
“I think it’s likely to improve the quality of the recommendations, remove the taint of the recommendations and improve the credibility of the recommendations,” Dr. Lurie said.
Advisory panels are important to the F.D.A. not so much because they provide the agency with expert advice — the F.D.A. can get that privately any time — but because they serve to increase public confidence in the agency’s decisions.
Indeed, such doctors who receive more than $50,000 from a company or a competitor whose product is being discussed would no longer be allowed to serve on the committees, though those who receive less than that amount in the prior year can join a committee and participate in its discussions.
A “significant number” of the agency’s present advisers would be affected by the new policy, said the F.D.A. acting deputy commissioner, Randall W. Lutter, though he would not say how many. The rules are among the first major changes made by Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach since he was confirmed as commissioner of food and drugs late last year.
Advisory boards recommend drugs for approval and, in rare cases, removal, and their votes can have enormous influence on drug company fortunes.
“The $50,000 threshold is something that we think strikes an appropriate balance between” getting smart advisers and reassuring the public that their advice is not tainted, Dr. Lutter said.
The changes are intended to respond to a growing chorus of critics who contend that drug and device makers have hijacked the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process by paying those who serve on the agency’s advisory panels.
In one famous example, 10 of the 32 advisers who voted in 2005 to allow the painkiller Bextra to remain on the market and the painkiller Vioxx to return to the market despite safety worries had taken money from the drug makers. Under the new rules, their votes would not have counted and the committee would have voted to keep both drugs off the market.
In the end, the F.D.A. removed Bextra from the market anyway, and Vioxx has never returned. But the controversy surrounding that panel’s vote, and similar ones, tarnished the process and provided new fodder for critics in Congress.
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, said he was delighted with the change, which will not become final until the end of a 60-day comment period.
“So many lives have been lost as a result of the failure of the F.D.A. to review drugs properly,” said Mr. Hinchey, who for two years has proposed legislation to ban agency advisers from having financial conflicts of interest. “The F.D.A. is now moving back to where it was supposed to be, a principled agency that protects the people.”
“F.D.A. is trying to strike a balance here,” Mr. Troy said, “and they would rather strike it themselves than have it struck for them.”
Drug makers routinely hire doctors as consultants for marketing and research. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that records in Minnesota show that at least 20 percent of licensed physicians in the state received money from drug makers between 1997 and 2005 — an average of $10,000.
Some conservatives were not happy with the new rule.
“I think it’s likely to improve the quality of the recommendations, remove the taint of the recommendations and improve the credibility of the recommendations,” Dr. Lurie said.
Advisory panels are important to the F.D.A. not so much because they provide the agency with expert advice — the F.D.A. can get that privately any time — but because they serve to increase public confidence in the agency’s decisions.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils
British authorities proposed new rules on Tuesday to allow schools to forbid Muslim students to wear full-face veils in class, reflecting a wider debate over Britain’s relationship with its Muslim minority.
The recommendation was the latest episode in a saga of rancorous discussion of the full-face veil, known as the niqab. Last October, Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a “mark of separation” that made “other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.”
The Department of Education published the new guidelines after a court in Buckinghamshire rejected a 12-year-old Muslim girl’s demand to wear the niqab in class last month.
The proposed regulations, which have yet to be formally adopted, said the individual right to “manifest a religion or belief” did not bestow a right to demonstrate faith “at any time, in any place or in any particular manner.”
School principals should be allowed to order pupils to show their faces because otherwise “the teacher may not be able to judge their engagement in class,” the proposed regulations said. Moreover, they said, “schools need to be able to identify individual pupils in order to maintain good order and identify intruders easily.”
The issue of Islamic dress in schools has been contentious in many parts of Europe, sometimes pitting secularist ideologies against the religious beliefs of growing Islamic minorities.
But Islamic dress made headlines in Britain for another reason recently, when a trial of terrorism suspects included surveillance television footage of a male suspect at a bus station as he fled London in what appeared to be an all-covering burqa-style dress.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, said Tuesday that schools should consult with parents when setting their regulations on permissible uniforms. “While they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence,” he said in a statement.
The government’s position drew angry responses from some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, whose chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, said it was “simply shocking” for the government to “issue guidance against Muslim communities.”
“Successive ministers dealing with education issues have failed to give proper guidance when requested by human rights campaigners about schools’ obligations regarding religious dress, including the head scarf,” he said.
Others sought to defuse the debate by insisting that disagreements over dress codes could be resolved within schools. “The vast majority of schools are able to solve these issues locally, and that should continue to be the case,” said Tahir Alam, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
The proposed dress regulations also included recommendations enjoining school principals not to discriminate indirectly against minorities by banning hair styles “more likely to be adopted by specific racial groups.”
The rules urged school authorities to outlaw forms of dress “associated with gangs,” but said students should not be expelled for refusing to wear standard school uniforms except in the event of “persistent and defiant” transgressions.
The recommendation was the latest episode in a saga of rancorous discussion of the full-face veil, known as the niqab. Last October, Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a “mark of separation” that made “other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.”
The Department of Education published the new guidelines after a court in Buckinghamshire rejected a 12-year-old Muslim girl’s demand to wear the niqab in class last month.
The proposed regulations, which have yet to be formally adopted, said the individual right to “manifest a religion or belief” did not bestow a right to demonstrate faith “at any time, in any place or in any particular manner.”
School principals should be allowed to order pupils to show their faces because otherwise “the teacher may not be able to judge their engagement in class,” the proposed regulations said. Moreover, they said, “schools need to be able to identify individual pupils in order to maintain good order and identify intruders easily.”
The issue of Islamic dress in schools has been contentious in many parts of Europe, sometimes pitting secularist ideologies against the religious beliefs of growing Islamic minorities.
But Islamic dress made headlines in Britain for another reason recently, when a trial of terrorism suspects included surveillance television footage of a male suspect at a bus station as he fled London in what appeared to be an all-covering burqa-style dress.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, said Tuesday that schools should consult with parents when setting their regulations on permissible uniforms. “While they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence,” he said in a statement.
The government’s position drew angry responses from some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, whose chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, said it was “simply shocking” for the government to “issue guidance against Muslim communities.”
“Successive ministers dealing with education issues have failed to give proper guidance when requested by human rights campaigners about schools’ obligations regarding religious dress, including the head scarf,” he said.
Others sought to defuse the debate by insisting that disagreements over dress codes could be resolved within schools. “The vast majority of schools are able to solve these issues locally, and that should continue to be the case,” said Tahir Alam, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
The proposed dress regulations also included recommendations enjoining school principals not to discriminate indirectly against minorities by banning hair styles “more likely to be adopted by specific racial groups.”
The rules urged school authorities to outlaw forms of dress “associated with gangs,” but said students should not be expelled for refusing to wear standard school uniforms except in the event of “persistent and defiant” transgressions.
LOGICAL ENDINGS
Computers may soon be better than kin at predicting the wishes of the dying
When machines trespass into the area of medical ethics, though, hackles rise. Here it is not the doctor that is being second-guessed, but the patient's relatives. The question is, if you were in a coma, whom would you more trust to come to the conclusion that you would want: your spouse or a machine?
David Wendler, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and his colleagues have looked into this question. Their answer, just published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, is surprising. At the moment, both are equally reliable—but only the machines are likely to get better at it.
Dr Wendler's study began last year, when his team reviewed all the experiments they could find that had attempted to test how well people predict the wishes of patients with life-threatening conditions. Some of these studies used real patients whose conditions might have led them to fall into a coma—when, obviously, they could not make the decision for themselves. Others employed surrogates who were asked to make “living wills” outlining their preferences for treatment (or the lack of it) in various hypothetical circumstances. The desires expressed by these patients, whether real or surrogate, were then compared with what those patients' kin predicted the patients would want, and also with the predictions of unrelated people (doctors, for example) who might be called on to make the decision if kin could not be found.
Dr Wendler found 16 published reports containing almost 20,000 pairs of decisions. His analysis showed that kin and patient agreed only 68% of the time. When they did not agree, kin were more likely to recommend treatment when the patient wanted treatment withdrawn rather than mistakenly to recommend withdrawal. Surprisingly, the bias towards treatment was equally strong when the decision was made by an unrelated person such as a doctor.
Other research has suggested that the variable most reliably governing whether a patient would want the machine turned off is the “1% rule”. This is that people seem to want life-saving interventions if there is at least a 1% chance they will recover the ability to reason, remember and communicate. Less than 1%, and it is time to pull the plug.
Calculating will
Using that rule of thumb, Dr Wendler and his colleagues wrote a computer program that assesses the prognosis for a patient, based on the sort of clinical criteria that the studies had described to both patients and predictors. Only 12 of the 16 original studies contained sufficient detail to be used, but the result was remarkable. In these 12 studies, human predictors guessed the patient's wishes rather more accurately than was true when all 16 were lumped together—getting them right 78.4% of the time. Dr Wendler's program achieved an almost identical result—78.5%.
At the moment, such data do not exist. No one has yet had a reason to collect them. But they do have a reason now. The decision about when to pull the plug on a patient who is not expected to recover is unlikely ever to be handed over completely to a machine. But when no kin can be found, the program's opinion might help. And even when a dying patient is surrounded by people who care about him, those people may welcome some guidance about what his wishes were likely to have been. Individuals are, indeed, individual. But that does not mean their dying wishes are all that different.
When machines trespass into the area of medical ethics, though, hackles rise. Here it is not the doctor that is being second-guessed, but the patient's relatives. The question is, if you were in a coma, whom would you more trust to come to the conclusion that you would want: your spouse or a machine?
David Wendler, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and his colleagues have looked into this question. Their answer, just published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, is surprising. At the moment, both are equally reliable—but only the machines are likely to get better at it.
Dr Wendler's study began last year, when his team reviewed all the experiments they could find that had attempted to test how well people predict the wishes of patients with life-threatening conditions. Some of these studies used real patients whose conditions might have led them to fall into a coma—when, obviously, they could not make the decision for themselves. Others employed surrogates who were asked to make “living wills” outlining their preferences for treatment (or the lack of it) in various hypothetical circumstances. The desires expressed by these patients, whether real or surrogate, were then compared with what those patients' kin predicted the patients would want, and also with the predictions of unrelated people (doctors, for example) who might be called on to make the decision if kin could not be found.
Dr Wendler found 16 published reports containing almost 20,000 pairs of decisions. His analysis showed that kin and patient agreed only 68% of the time. When they did not agree, kin were more likely to recommend treatment when the patient wanted treatment withdrawn rather than mistakenly to recommend withdrawal. Surprisingly, the bias towards treatment was equally strong when the decision was made by an unrelated person such as a doctor.
Other research has suggested that the variable most reliably governing whether a patient would want the machine turned off is the “1% rule”. This is that people seem to want life-saving interventions if there is at least a 1% chance they will recover the ability to reason, remember and communicate. Less than 1%, and it is time to pull the plug.
Calculating will
Using that rule of thumb, Dr Wendler and his colleagues wrote a computer program that assesses the prognosis for a patient, based on the sort of clinical criteria that the studies had described to both patients and predictors. Only 12 of the 16 original studies contained sufficient detail to be used, but the result was remarkable. In these 12 studies, human predictors guessed the patient's wishes rather more accurately than was true when all 16 were lumped together—getting them right 78.4% of the time. Dr Wendler's program achieved an almost identical result—78.5%.
At the moment, such data do not exist. No one has yet had a reason to collect them. But they do have a reason now. The decision about when to pull the plug on a patient who is not expected to recover is unlikely ever to be handed over completely to a machine. But when no kin can be found, the program's opinion might help. And even when a dying patient is surrounded by people who care about him, those people may welcome some guidance about what his wishes were likely to have been. Individuals are, indeed, individual. But that does not mean their dying wishes are all that different.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Students’ Right to Free Speech
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that has attracted attention mainly because of its eccentric story line: An Alaska student was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed by. But the case raises important issues of freedom of expression and student censorship that go far beyond the words on that banner. The court should affirm the appeals court’s well-reasoned decision that when the school punished the student it violated his First Amendment rights. The principal took it from him, and suspended him for 10 days.
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
The Bush administration joined the school district in arguing that schools have broad authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping drugs away from young people. But if schools can limit speech on any subject deemed to be important, students could soon be punished for talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq because the government also considers those subjects important.
Some school administrators would no doubt use their power to clamp down on conservative speech while others would clamp down on liberal speech. A school that values diversity could punish students who criticize affirmative action, while a more conservative school could ban students from taking outspoken positions about global warming. Religious groups have joined civil libertarians in backing Mr. Frederick because they fear schools will punish students who talk about their religious beliefs.
If the Supreme Court wants to dodge the free-speech-in-school issues, it could rule that the off-campus Olympic torch event was not a formal school activity — and that the principal had no right to limit anyone’s free speech there. That would not harm students’ free speech rights, but it would also do little to affirm them.
The court should go further, and rule that Mr. Frederick’s rights were infringed. Students do not have the right to interfere substantially with school activities, but Mr. Frederick did not do that. The court should use this case to reaffirm Tinker’s famous pronouncement that students do not shed their right to free speech “at the schoolhouse gate.”
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
The Bush administration joined the school district in arguing that schools have broad authority to limit talk about drugs because of the importance of keeping drugs away from young people. But if schools can limit speech on any subject deemed to be important, students could soon be punished for talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq because the government also considers those subjects important.
Some school administrators would no doubt use their power to clamp down on conservative speech while others would clamp down on liberal speech. A school that values diversity could punish students who criticize affirmative action, while a more conservative school could ban students from taking outspoken positions about global warming. Religious groups have joined civil libertarians in backing Mr. Frederick because they fear schools will punish students who talk about their religious beliefs.
If the Supreme Court wants to dodge the free-speech-in-school issues, it could rule that the off-campus Olympic torch event was not a formal school activity — and that the principal had no right to limit anyone’s free speech there. That would not harm students’ free speech rights, but it would also do little to affirm them.
The court should go further, and rule that Mr. Frederick’s rights were infringed. Students do not have the right to interfere substantially with school activities, but Mr. Frederick did not do that. The court should use this case to reaffirm Tinker’s famous pronouncement that students do not shed their right to free speech “at the schoolhouse gate.”
Monday, March 19, 2007
An evil weed
Cigarettes may kill, but their makers know that the addiction will last
THE single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire.The deaths of more than 400,000 Americans each year, 160,000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50m Americans still go on smoking.
Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr Brandt writes: “The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad.”
Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the first world war. Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising.
That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking cigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general's advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking.
But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: “In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for wilful risk-taking,” notes Mr Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock.
However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient “satisfaction”.
For those who thought the settlement was akin to “dancing with the devil”, it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian's hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish.
THE single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire.The deaths of more than 400,000 Americans each year, 160,000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50m Americans still go on smoking.
Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr Brandt writes: “The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad.”
Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the first world war. Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising.
That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking cigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general's advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking.
But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: “In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for wilful risk-taking,” notes Mr Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock.
However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient “satisfaction”.
For those who thought the settlement was akin to “dancing with the devil”, it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian's hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Delays for Casino License Appeals Could Cost Pennsylvania
The legal battle over appeals filed by four companies that lost out in the recent round of bidding for casino licenses in Pennsylvania could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in gambling tax revenue and delay promised property tax relief.
“If this drags on,” said Thomas A. Decker, the board chairman, “you end up having the citizens lose that valuable tax relief, the economic development, the horse racing industry income, even the jobs that would be created at the casinos would be delayed, and you never get that back.”
When all 11 casinos are up and running, they are expected to generate about $1.7 billion annually from a 55 percent tax on their gross terminal revenue, what remains after bettors are paid their winnings but before casinos pay their expenses.
Of that 55 percent, 34 percent is to go to property tax relief statewide, 12 percent to the horse racing industry, 5 percent to tourism and economic development and 4 percent to local and county governments where the licenses were awarded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/us/17casino.html?ex=1331784000&en=f5e5c3e4fe74db52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“If this drags on,” said Thomas A. Decker, the board chairman, “you end up having the citizens lose that valuable tax relief, the economic development, the horse racing industry income, even the jobs that would be created at the casinos would be delayed, and you never get that back.”
When all 11 casinos are up and running, they are expected to generate about $1.7 billion annually from a 55 percent tax on their gross terminal revenue, what remains after bettors are paid their winnings but before casinos pay their expenses.
Of that 55 percent, 34 percent is to go to property tax relief statewide, 12 percent to the horse racing industry, 5 percent to tourism and economic development and 4 percent to local and county governments where the licenses were awarded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/us/17casino.html?ex=1331784000&en=f5e5c3e4fe74db52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
