Tim Krauskopf, Paul Resnick, et al., 'PICS 1.1 Label Distribution — Label Syntax and Communication Protocols,' October 31, 1996, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-labels (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6nJqgxN); Christopher Evans, Paul Resnick, et al., 'W3C Recommendation: PICS Rules 1.1, REC-PICS, Rules-971229,' December 29, 1997, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICSRules (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6nMGR34).
See Jonathan Weinberg, 'Rating the Net,' Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 19 (1997): 453, 478 n.108.
This claim, of course, is too strong. The site could block deceptively, making it seem as if the user were gaining access but actually not giving her access to what she believes she is gaining access to.
See Richard Thompson Ford ('The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in Legal Analysis,' Harvard Law Review 107 [1994]: 1841, 1844), who asserts that jurisdictional boundaries perpetuate racial segregation and inequality; Gerald E. Frug ('Universities and Cities,' Connecticut Law Review 30 [1998]: 1199, 1200), explains how universities erect borders to divorce themselves from surrounding poverty and argues that universities should critique these borders; Lani Guinier ('More Democracy,' University of Chicago Legal Forum 1995 [1995]: 1, 3) advocates a cross-racial participatory democracy that demands a concern for, and a familiarity with, the views of others.
See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265, 312 (1978) (Justice Lewis F. Powell, quoting Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 US 589, 603 [1967]: 'The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth `out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection'').
See Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, xvi–xx; Fiss, The Irony of Free Speech, 3, 37–38; Andrew Shapiro's powerful analysis of Sunstein's point is better tuned to the realities of the Net; see The Control Revolution, 107–12.
Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , xvi–xx.
Ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies Without Boundaries: On Telecommunications in a Global Age, edited by Eli M. Noam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), 15.
See Geoffrey R. Stone, 'Imagining a Free Press,' Michigan Law Review 90 (1992): 1246, 1264.
Dan Hunter argues it is not our choice anyway. See Dan Hunter, 'Philippic.com,' California Law Review 90 (2002): 611. Greg Laughlin is convinced the concerns are overstated. See Gregory K. Laughlin, 'Sex, Lies, and Library Cards: The First Amendment Implications of the Use of Software Filters to Control Access to Internet Pornography in Public Libraries,' Drake Law Review 51 (2003): 213, 267–68 n.287. For a review of Congress's latest effort to facilitate filtering, see Susan P. Crawford, Symposium, 'Law and the Information Society, Panel V: Responsibility and Liability on the Internet, Shortness of Vision: Regulatory Ambition in the Digital Age,' Fordham Law Review 74 (2005): 1, 6. ('The next information-flow membrane mandate to pass Congress — again, prompted by legislators' fixation on indecent (but legal) content online — was the Children's Internet Protection Act ('CIPA'), which required libraries to install filtering software on all their computers capable of accessing the Internet in order to hold on to their federal funding. The goal of this 2000 legislation was to condition provision of such funding on libraries' use of filters that block access to visual depictions that are harmful to minors (when accessed by a minor). On June 23, 2003, after another three years of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld CIPA, with two 'swing' Justices (Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer) suggesting that adults would be able to ask libraries to unblock legal sites (legal for adult viewing, if harmful to minors) that had been blocked by the installed filters. Even though the tie to the CDA was clear — this was another congressional attempt to eliminate online sexual material using technology that would also inevitably filter out protected speech — the link to federal funding made this case one the Justices could decide differently. Indeed, the federal funding element may have been the crucial difference between CDA and CIPA. One European commentator noted the CIPA opinion as an `important shift' by an American legal system that had been `previously critical of government's attempts to regular Internet access.'')
Compare Jonathan Zdziarski, 'Ending Spam: Bayesian Content Filtering and the Art of Statistical Language Classification 31 (2005) and DSPAM, available at http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/ (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6nP0fwQ).
