Art.Net: Keep Internet Speech Free!
Table of Contents:
- A Quest for Freedom...
- Censorship and What it Means
- History of Internet Censorship
- Art.Net joins Protest against Internet Censorship
- Art.Net joins ACLU in Court to Fight Internet Censorship
- Ongoing Efforts to Defend Freedom of Speech on the Internet
- Sites that are fighting for Free Speech on the Internet
Art.Net (also known as "Art on the Net") is a non-commercial artist community that supports free speech and the freedom of self-expression on the Internet. It is really important for artists to be able to share and show their works of art on the Internet without the fear of censorship and / or prosecution.
Artists who join Art.Net can share their art without fear of censorship. All we ask is that they show their work in a non-commercial way and that no prices be posted within the studios and gallery rooms hosted here.
While free expression and freedom of speech is supported here, Art.Net is not a porn site. Instead we are a fine arts site hosting original art and the artists who create it.
Since the conception of Art.Net in June of 1994, artists have always been able to show their art and share in an uncensored environment. This is a core value of Art.Net and is the thing that sets us apart from many other art websites.
Censorship is when something is the institution, system, or practice of censoring. Censoring means to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (ie. censor the news) and to suppress or delete content if it is objectionable (ie. censor out indecent passages).
There are now many art related websites on the Internet and World Wide Web that actively censor the content that is hosted on their sites. Some delete artists' posts on their forums and remove art that they do not approve of on their sites. This is called censorship.
Censoring content can cause confusion, especially if one is unaware that censorship is actively happening. Post and threads of conversation can be deleted from forums without the awareness of viewers. Removal of art can also cause confusion as the artist is effectively silenced. This silence causes the loss of conversation and meaning which the artist is trying to share.
History of Internet Censorship
The first attempt by the US government to censor Internet content occured on Febuary 8th, 1996 when the US President Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Bill that included the Communications Decency Act (CDA). With this signage, the CDA became a federal law. The CDA law criminalized "indecent" and "patently offensive" online communications.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with 19 other nonprofit groups, challenged provisions of this law in the Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not define "patently offensive," a term with no prior legal meaning. This law criminalized "indecent" and "patently offensive" online communications. A panel of three federal judges in Philadelphia ruled in favor of the ACLU and struck down those provisions.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in Reno v. ACLU in June 1997. In a vote of 7 to 2, the high court affirmed the lower court's ruling that major portions of the CDA violated First Amendment free-speech rights. The Supreme Court then struck down two anti-obscenity provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), finding they violated the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
Stated in the Ruling of the Reno v. ACLU case by the Honorable Judges:
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusions."
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."
Art.Net joins Protest against Internet Censorship
On Febuary 8, 1996 Art.Net joined many other Internet websites in protest of the passing of the Telecommunications Bill and CDA by blacking out our website.
In Febuary 1996 Art.Net also joined the Blue Ribbon Campaign which protested this law and called for the protection of Free Speech on the Internet. This campaigne was initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (also known as the EFF). From that time onward, Art.Net has displayed a blue ribbon on our site's home page to show our support for the essential human right of free speech on the Internet.
The artists on Art.Net who felt their work would be affected by censorship laws in the United States have put together the following exhibit of what art could be lost if Internet censorship laws were to go into effect.
It is understandable that people want to protect their children from content on the Internet that they might find objectionable. But this can be accomplished more successfully by having such people use filtering software on their own systems to avoid such content. It is not practical or fair to force content providers into censoring and/or rating the content that they make available on the Internet to meet this need. By trying to do so, our First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution are violated.
Art.Net does not support the forced use of blocking software in public places such as libraries as they should not censor content for people who use their services. PeaceFire, a teen run organization that is against youth censorship on the Internet, also has a history of bringing light to Internet censorship concerns.
from Rudolf Kinsky, an artist and member of our site Art.Net, which makes clear why such a law is harmful to artists.
Art.Net joins ACLU in Court to Fight Internet Censorship
With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Art.Net has been involved in many court cases defending freedom of speech on the Internet. In each case, Art.Net member artists were asked to testify in court about how laws censoring content on the Internet prevented the sharing of art due to fear of prosecution. There have been three such cases, in four different states. Each was successful in bringing injunctions against unjust Internet censorship laws, preventing their enforcement. This happened during the time that each state was trying to create local Communications Decency Act (CDA) laws for their local states.
Because of our stand on the issue of Internet Censorship, Art.Net joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a named plaintiff in the following important court cases:
1. ALA v. Pataki
In March, 1997 Art.Net joined in the lawsuit ALA v. Pataki as a plaintiff to challenge New York's Internet censorship law. This law placed Art.Net in jeopardy and to help defend freedom of speech on the Internet, Art.Net joined this case. If we had lost, there would have been a strong chance that this site would have been shut down because of censorship laws.Represented by the ACLU, the case was won for the plaintiffs which included Art.Net and many others and a preliminary injunction against New York's censorship law, preserving freedom of speech on the Internet, was issued. Check out Art.Net's declaration in this case. It gives an in-depth description of our site, how it works, how this law affected us and why we had to fight it. Within the court transcripts
of this case, there is testimony (see page 224)
In this case, Federal District Judge Loretta A. Preska issued a preliminary injunction against the New York law, calling the Internet an area of commerce that should be marked off as a "national preserve" to protect online speakers from inconsistent laws that could "paralyze development of the Internet altogether." The New York CDA law was struck down to our great relief.
2. ACLU v. Johnson
In June, 1998 Art.Net joined in the lawsuit ACLU v. Johnson as a plaintiff to challenge New Mexico's online censorship law. The judge issued a preliminary injunction to prevent this law being inforced.This was another important case because even though the ACLU won, the case was appealed by New Mexico. The appeals court upheld the original ruling, which means that this case can now be used as federal precedent, supporting the freedom of speech on the Internet for all U.S. citizens.
3. Cyberspace v. Engler
In June 1999 Art.Net joined as a plaintiff in Cyberspace v. Engler with the ACLU, challenging Michigan's cyber-censorship law, citing the US Constitution's commerce clause and free speech rights. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, again upholding the right of free speech on the Internet.
Ongoing Efforts to Defend Freedom of Speech on the Internet
As time has passed, other Internet censorship laws have come up in states such as Georgia in (ACLU v. Miller) and Virgina (Urofsky v. Allen) which have been successfully fought and defeated. But the battle goes on... with new bills being introduced in states because people don't understand how the Internet works and fear it or because introducing such laws will bring them media attention.
Recently there has been a move to remove Internet Neutrality in reguards to equal access. SaveTheInternet.Com is a movement to prevent non-neutrality laws to pass. Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.
There is also a current case that challenges the "Child Online Protection Act" (COPA) in ACLU v. Gonzales. At issue is the ACLU's challenge of COPA, which would impose criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to six months imprisonment, for online material acknowledged as valuable for adults but judged "harmful to minors."
In a trial which started on October 23, 2006 and which is expected to last four weeks, the ACLU will present evidence from a broad range of Internet speakers including online magazines, an online dictionary, rap artists, painters and video artists, providers of safer sex information and writers. Attorneys will argue that the censorship law directly violates the First Amendment rights of the ACLU's plaintiffs, their members and tens of millions of other speakers to communicate protected expression on the Internet.
The ACLU said that the law will not provide effective protection for parents who are concerned about their children having access to some materials. For example, the law cannot be enforced on the more than 50 percent of speech posted overseas, and it does not apply to non-commercial sites or to instant messaging, peer-to-peer file sharing, chat rooms or e-mail.
This is yet another important case to watch and follow.
We continue to support free speech here on Art.Net and hope that you join us in supporting those who are fighting for our rights on the Internet. Following are sites that have joined in the fight to keep speech free on the Internet.
Sites that are fighting for Free Speech on the Internet:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- is fighting hard for freedom of expression on the Internet. It has a great section on why Cyberspace must be kept free.
- Art on the Net (art.net)
- is a artist community that supports Free Speech on the Internet and is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NYCDA. Check out our declaration in this case. It gives a indepth description of our site, how it works and how this law affected us.
- Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC)
- supports the battle against the CDA and keeps the public informed and updated on related events.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
- is a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free speech and access to public resources and information online, as well as to promote responsibility in new media.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
- is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. and was established to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.
- FACTNet
- publishes a digest devoted to alertng Netizens about the issues of Freedom of Speech, Right to Privacy, and Freedom of Thought.
- Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
- supports the freedom of speech and encryption as well as privacy on the Internet.
- Internet Privacy Coalition (IPC)
- promotes privacy and security on the Internet through widespread public availability of strong encryption and the relaxation of export controls on cryptography.
- Peacefire
- is a Teen Net anti-censorship Alliance and is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NYCDA.
Let us know if you might know of others who have joined this fight and we will add them to this list. Just send a note to webmaster@art.net.
