chmilan18
USA & SECRET TORTURE PRISON/DETENTION: FURTHER UNTOLD FACT ON ... [#]
petitions, the USCIS NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER and USCIS District Office, Boston MA agreed to issue BIOMETRIC TEST APPOINTMENT but the Judge must sign, stamp and enter simple phrase, BIOMETRIC TEST IS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. ...
Philadelphia Independent Media Center - Passionate and Accurate Tellings of Truth (2008-08-16T18:46:15Z)
USCIS Announces 2 YR Renewal Pollicy! [#]
For more information on Employment Authorization Documents, please contact the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283 or review the USCIS Employment Authorization Documents web page at: ... the wrong validity period, ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-13T15:16:00Z)
Appointment Notice [#]
Specifically I will have it next week at around ten o'clock in the morning in the nearest uscis application support center. I'm happy for immigration's quick responce to my application. And hopefully before my hubby and I will make a ...
Simply Me (2008-08-15T22:06:00Z)
N-400 Naturalization - Continue to File with USCIS Service Center ... [#]
Applicants will continue to file their N-400 along with all supporting documents and fees with the USCIS Service Center having jurisdiction over their place of residence Also, applicants will also continue to report to ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-06T20:16:09Z)
USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support ... [#]
... Resident Card Employment Based Petition Permanent Labor Certification electronic approval notice The United States of America Employment Authorization Document USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I- 90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support Center ...
jurisdoctorstudent (2008-08-13T20:37:47Z)
FY2009 H-1B Cap Update [#]
According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the US Citizenship & Immigrations Service (USCIS) has provided the following update regarding H-1B cap subject cases that were received for fiscal year 2009: 1. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-12T16:17:45Z)
Just A Little Update! [#]
Today we went to USCIS Application Support Center in Salt Lake to have my biometrics taken for my green card application. After my biometric appointment, we went to Bountiful Temple and since Russ is not feeling good enough to do a ...
My Life, My Love, My Family, My World (2008-08-14T00:48:00Z)
Christian Milan L02773316 L01432062 L24033516 jurisdoctorstud ... [#]
The Esquire Christian Milan attempted more than once to provide to our American Bar Association, sufficient details for us to decide to aggree under oath to petition for Christian Milan L02773316 L01432062 LSAC L24033516 USCIS DHS Form ...
Jurisdoctorstud's Weblog (2008-07-29T14:59:06Z)
The United States of America Alien Registration Card The United ... [#]
BOS214F00040.0000The United States of America Federal Government+USCIS Related Blog Search Results Fact Sheet: The United States of America Legal Permanent Resident applications/petitions Processing [#] US Citizenship and Immigration ...
Citizenship and Immigration Services United States of America USCIS DHS (2008-07-29T21:40:03Z)
USCIS TO REQUIRE BIOMETRICS FOR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS [#]
... will become effective March 5, 2008, that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (eg, fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Centers (ASC) for background and. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-05T23:30:57Z)
New USCIS Resources Are Coming!!! [#]
As has been the established practice, we expect free dissemination to all naturalizations applicants reporting to the Application Support Center for their fingerprinting appointments to begin on October 1, 2008. ...
US Citizenship Podcast (2008-07-07T22:10:00Z)
USCIS BIOMETRICS CHANGES FOR RE-ENTRY PERMITS AND REFUGEE TRAVEL ... [#]
The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (eg, fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for ...
Immigration Blog (2008-07-09T16:21:48Z)
Torn Apart by War, Kept Apart by the Patriot Act [#]
Known as the material support bar, the law was also at the center of a high-profile case in April in which a Transylvania University student faced deportation to his native Sudan . Authorities said that because Lino Nakwa was kidnapped ...
Baltimore Nonviolence Center (2008-07-28T00:56:00Z)
The United States of America Permanent Resident Card [#]
... United States of America Employment Authorization Document USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I- 90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support Center Notice of an Approval Action The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Protected Person ...
The United States of America Permanent Residence The United States of America Permanent Labor Certi (2008-08-13T20:18:00Z)
L01432062 American Bar Association [#]
... fomer application to replace his United States of America Alien Registration Card Form I-90 ASC Appointment Notice application support center notice of approval the applicant named Christian Milan received his United States of ...
USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C INS DOS USDS CBP ICE FBI CIA DOE DOD DOL (2008-07-06T17:38:06Z)
Adoption social worker ohio. Find experienced adoption, support ... [#]
Pre- and post-placement visits to the adoptive home by an adoption social worker adoption tax credit; uscis to increase international adoption fees; adoption tax credit for ohio. Ohio s adoption system is so flawed that it cannot ...
higher education (2008-08-15T01:28:00Z)
USCIS Consolidates Biometrics Appointments for I-485 Applicants [#]
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that effective today it will begin consolidating biometrics collection when employment-based adjustment of status applications and employment authorization requests are filed at ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-02-15T16:30:45Z)
I-131 Re-Entry Permit and Refugee Travel Document Biometric ... [#]
Applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents will, effective March 5, 2008, be required to provide biometrics (fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center. Here are the new ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-06T02:59:38Z)
Philadelphia USCIS Application Support Center for Biometrics and ... [#]
I have received a few calls about the specific new address for the USCIS Philadelphia Application Support Center where fingerprinting and biometrics are taken in support of various USCIS immigration applications. ...
Philadelphia Immigration Lawyer Blog (2008-01-23T00:11:35Z)
No Credit Build Credit Unsecured Apply Online Cards [#]
You do not need to contact the national Visa center or uscis will then send Visa petition of you change your address? The center will notify you, there is a change and you may affect your eligibility, it is facilitating interest free ...
Credit Cards For Bad Credit With Balance Transfer (2008-08-15T07:59:00Z)
A conservative take on immigration reform [#]
The Reformation of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Reforms must provide adequate revenue to support services that: (1) meet the needs of customers; (2) protect the interest of the nation, including the integrity of ...
Fire and judgment (2008-08-07T14:21:00Z)
New Background Check Policy for I-485 Applicants [#]
to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired? A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed. Source: USCIS.gov ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-02-28T17:39:18Z)
Green Card Lawyer - Biometrics Now Required for Reentry Permits ... [#]
If you hold a green card and know in advance that you must be outside the United States for more than one year, it's worth applying to USCIS for a reentry permit. This lets you to stay away for up to two years. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-14T05:41:52Z)
Gulen v. Chertoff: USCIS MUST approve Extraordinary Ability Petition! [#]
To date, USCIS has issued no refund. On August 13, 2007, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a request for evidence in support of Gülen's petition. The request characterized Gülen as a "clergyman" on the basis of ...
Immigration News & Issues (2008-07-21T16:18:00Z)
How to file EAD renewal [#]
You will receive a notice in the mail from the USCIS that will provide you with your USCIS-scheduled appointment for capturing biometrics and photographs at an Application Support Center. You MUST bring the following materials to your ...
Kannan M Durai (2008-06-02T21:00:00Z)
The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) L02773316 ... [#]
Effective July 24, 2008, our address will be 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 110, Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone numbers remain the same. Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice ...
USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C INS DOS USDS CBP ICE FBI CIA DOE DOD DOL (2008-07-31T00:13:28Z)
Holding on... [#]
Our I-600A application was sent on June 9 via overnight mail, received by USCIS on June 10, processed on June 16 and we received notice on June 17 that we must appear at the USCIS Support Center in Hartford, Connecticut at 3 pm on July ...
seoulmama (2008-06-23T08:11:00Z)
Applying for a US Fiance Visa [#]
STEP 3: The USCIS will forward the approved petition to the National Visa Center (NVC), which will then forward this to the US Embassy in your country. "The Embassy will send the fiancé(e) information on how to apply for the K-1 visa, ...
bitsnpieces (2008-07-27T07:38:44Z)
I Understand Why The Government Screens Your Calls [#]
My first phone call this morning has been to the NVC (National Visa Center) to see if USCIS in Memphis had sent them the paperwork for processing. I actually was able to speak with a real live person named Renee and although she wasn't ...
McGowan Moments (2008-08-15T13:43:00Z)
Naturalization Interview Process Changes [#]
... appropriate training.4 Through this memorandum we are designating the USCIS officer corps, including Adjudications Officers, Fraud Detection and National Security Officers, Asylum Officers, Application Support Center Managers, ...
Michael Baker -Immigration & Naturalization Law, DUI & Criminal Lawyer, Chicago, I (2008-07-16T18:32:00Z)
26197 [#]
Dura Soft 1 Optifit Toric Contact Lens What Isdigital Publishing And Web Media Usb Stick Forum The Red Lion Hotel And Salt Lake City Java Tutorial X Uscis Support Center Idealism Approaches To Study Of International Rela ...
12848 (2008-06-06T15:48:00Z)
The United States of America Immigration and Customs Enforcement [#]
My USCIS DHS ASC Appointment Support Center Approval Notice of Action from our United States of America Department of Homeland Security Form I-90 Form I-797C of a US petition type Form I-90 before our United States of America ...
The United States of America SEVIS SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (2008-07-03T21:34:45Z)
The United States of America [#]
... America Department of Homeland Securityat the USCIS DHS application support center USCIS of Boston Massachusetts United States of America, to have me: Christian Milan of Bentley College or Bentley College student/alumni @02571288, ...
The United States of America Citizenship (2008-07-03T00:14:56Z)
#1: Your Employer is NOT H-1B quota exempt, BUT, your Employment ... [#]
The USCIS has interpreted the regulations to deem an H-1B nonimmigrant "quota exempt" who works "at" a quota exempt institution, even if he or she works for a non-exempt employer, under certain circumstances, as discussed in this ...
Physical Therapy Chat (2008-07-26T00:03:00Z)
University of Dayton School of Law [#]
cmilan485 Registration of my United States of America Legal Permanent Resident status (LPR) holding a United States of America Permanent Resident Card USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C application support center notice of action the ...
The Law School Admission Council LSAC L24033516 (2008-07-11T22:57:00Z)
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ( 3457 ) Fall 2007 [#]
Form I-90 application support center notice of action on which it said that the applicant received his legal permanent resident status ; Christian says : fly to Logan International Airport and pick his United States of America Permanent ...
The Law School Admission Council LSAC L24033516 (2008-07-13T23:38:00Z)
Free makeovers help put smiles on the faces of cancer patients ... [#]
Free makeovers help put smiles on the faces of cancer patients Mohave Valley News, NV - Jul 8, 2008 … Care Cancer Support Center, 1225 Hancock Road, Suite 202. For more information, or to schedule an appointment for Aug. ...
make an appointment (2008-07-09T21:37:55Z)
Opening Statement Making the Difference Access to Justice [#]
The Center has started a CLE series, the first conference of which the Nexus beteen the Education and Juvenile Justice Systems and the Impact of Mental Health Issues, is being held this fall and is cosponsored by the South Texas College ...
The United States of America Permanent Residence The United States of America Permanent Labor Certi (2008-08-13T21:24:00Z)
Immigration lawyer in houston tx. Criminal defense; white collar ... [#]
Certification form san antonio san marcos victoria, texas tx city dover ellendale etown greenwood harrington houston us usa uscis immigration law visa h1b i firm lawyer. Houston, tx during the last several years, i have the annual ...
adult social networking (2008-08-13T02:31:00Z)
We're Going to Have Our Biometrics Captured! [#]
Yay! Yesterday, we finally got appointments from the USCIS! We have been instructed to appear at the application support center on August 7 to have our biometrics captured--in other words, to have our fingerprints done. ...
The Mistrettas (2008-07-30T01:17:00Z)
Re: [immigration_info] Filing Form FD-258 as part of I-751 ... [#]
About a month later, the notification came with a date and time to have my photo and FP taked an the Application Support Center. Unless they have changed the procedure? ----- Original Message ----- From: lovenotrockets ...
Immigration Info (2008-07-23T18:31:00Z)
Phase 2, continued [#]
We received notice in the mail to appear at the USCIS Application Support Center for biometric fingerprinting. We were impressed with the efficiency of the operation - we didn’t have to wait too long. They put your fingers on a little ...
Our Adoption Abroad Weblog (2008-05-28T02:01:59Z)
Papers Send to USCIS [#]
I-797 USCIS Approval Notice * National Visa Center Approval Notice * Notice of her Interview w/ US Embassy * Passport pages w/ Non-Immigration Visa * I-94 Departure Record * I-864 Affidavit of Support * (Husband)Employment letter ...
In My Dreams (2008-08-01T22:50:38Z)
BIOMETRICS [#]
As expected, my fingerprints did not scan well and I will be making another trip to the US Citizenship and Immigration Support Center sometime in the future. I watched the screen as the tech scanned each finger. ...
Mary's Musings (2008-06-04T19:50:00Z)
Applying for UK Visa in USA [#]
We need to bring our appointment letter printout on USCIS Application support center. (Bring the payment receipt as well however they did not checked it for us). 5. The staff at USCIS office handled us politely and they took all of our ...
DoAnalyze.com (2008-04-26T20:42:50Z)
USCIS ANNOUNCES EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION UPDATE FOR TPS [#]
WASHINGTON - US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that certain Hondurans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) re-registration, who have an application pending with USCIS ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2007-03-09T13:19:00Z)
Hello world! [#]
Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired? A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks ...
JTM (2008-03-16T17:41:34Z)
Chase bank visa. Chase bank discover card american express bank of ... [#]
At the dads & grads guide audio & video business jp morgan chase visa gift cards center cameras cell the top safety scorecard honor went to bank of america s platinum. As it works with the world- p es, visa and mastercard, chase bank is ...
used car loan (2008-08-12T01:41:00Z)
Today I had my ASC appointment for biometrics! [#]
I went pretty early to the “Application Support Center” at the address written on the notice. It was really close from my apartment, on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. By the way, no cell phone is allowed inside. ...
French Lolie (2008-04-27T04:55:33Z)
Directions from the Misdirected [#]
For this purpose, I needed to travel 16 miles from Penn to an application support Center located at 10300, Drummond Road. The way to get there was fairly simple actually. “A subway to Frankford Station, then transfer to a bus to Academy ...
Aatir's Slate
chmilan18
*
USA Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
USA Diversity Visa Lottery Winner: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C http://www.blogenius.com/uscis+support+center.htmlU.S. Permanent R....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
USA Diversity Visa Lottery Winner: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
USA Green Card I-140: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
US Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
USA Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-797C: USA Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa U.S. ....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
Welcome back !: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Add Comments
*
Green Card I-140: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C GREEN CARD Form I-140 USCIS DHS U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form ....
by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
U.S. Green Card Form I-90 Form I-797C
Thanks to all of us that contributed in the issuance of my United States of America replacement of my U.S. Alien Registration Receipt Card, United States of America Permanent Resident Card. I Christian Milan is in possession of my United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-797C Form I-90 ASC appointment notice from the United States of America Citizenship and Immigration Services of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security. Our United States of America Department of State suggested to me personally the applicant beneficiary petitioner for the replacement of my United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-901 Form I-485 Form I-140 Form I-551 Form I-797C that my United States of America electronic evidence published on America Online by our United States of America Federal Government about my United States of America machine readable visa represents a U.S. lawful approval of my United States of America petition to renew my United States of America Department of State valid travel documents -- U.S. temporary evidences of my United States of America Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status - U.S. Naturalization eCertificates -- U.S. Permanent Residence approval of a U.S. Permanent Labor Certification Application ( USDS DOS INS USCIS DHS DOL ETA Form LCA, Form LC, Form LPR status )----
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
- - processing for a United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551--------------------
The United States of America machine readable visa types: K-1/F-1/M-1/J-1/F-3/M-3/H-1B/A-1/O-1/H2-B
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html .
The new passport version or biometric passport type may be required if the desired stay in the United States of America on my/a United States of America visa is for a period of less/more than ninety days for complying with the terms of our United States of America Visa Waiver Program The United States of America Visa Waiver Program Federal Nominee Christian Hamond Milan.
Love us dearly.
Christian Milan
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
PS: A private conversation transcript between me and a United States of America Diplomat appointed by Lord Excellency President Bush at the current Foreign Post of our United States of America Citizenship and Immigration Services of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security The American Embassy The United States of America Department of State www.state.gov The U.S. Diversity Visa Program Federal Award Nominee.
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
- - processing for a United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551--------------------
The United States of America machine readable visa types: K-1/F-1/M-1/J-1/F-3/M-3/H-1B/A-1/O-1/H2-B
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html .
The new passport version or biometric passport type may be required if the desired stay in the United States of America on my/a United States of America visa is for a period of less/more than ninety days for complying with the terms of our United States of America Visa Waiver Program The United States of America Visa Waiver Program Federal Nominee Christian Hamond Milan.
Love us dearly.
Christian Milan
http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
PS: A private conversation transcript between me and a United States of America Diplomat appointed by Lord Excellency President Bush at the current Foreign Post of our United States of America Citizenship and Immigration Services of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security The American Embassy The United States of America Department of State www.state.gov The U.S. Diversity Visa Program Federal Award Nominee.
http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html
http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html
Thursday, August 14, 2008
U.S. Permanent Resident Card
Home : Advanced Search
Search Results for US Permanent Resident Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 14116 | Next
ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons ... parolees who can apply for permanent resident status in the ... individuals who legally reside in the US and are ... checks as required to grant a green card or ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... He had his green card since he was 11. They would not tell us where he was being kept at one ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
kyr_english_4.pdf
... citizens who are already in the US do not ... who have been issued valid US immigration ... examples include an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card ... If you have your valid US immigration documents and you ...
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
Get Busy. Get Equal: Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in Canada?
If you are a permanent US resident, you will need your green card and a passport. Temporary US residents need a passport. Do we need a marriage license? Yes. You can apply for citizenship after becoming a permanent resident and meeting ... ...
www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/canada.html
ACLU and MN Community Groups Challenge Driver's License Rule That Turns ID into ""Internal Passport"" 07/22/2002
... license statute; and that the use of exempt ... present documents as proof of permanent US resident status, lawful short-term admission to the country or US citizenship ... Minnesota's driver license, permit or state identification
www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14809prs20020722.html
ACLU - Stand Up!
... the detention of any non-US resident if he believes ... " This means that any US lawyer who defends ... sections mentioned above are permanent provisions of ... Got it? Become a card-carrying member of the ACLU!
www.aclu.org/standup/rants/rant_farrarhudkins.html
Discriminatory Bank Policy Prohibits Foreigners from Receiving Credit, ACLU Charges 05/24/2005
"Denying a credit card to someone because ... the United States as a lawful permanent resident. ... credit by applying for a credit card from Union ... denying credit to people who are not US citizens, the ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11744prs20050524.html
Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... documentation of his lawful permanent resident status and ... shows them his social security card, the stub ... everything -- everything you say to us, this ... the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html
ACLU Statement to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Regarding FISA "Modernization" 05/01/2007
... companies a get out of jail free card. ... communications into and out of the US are ... who is not a citizen, lawful permanent resident or company incorporated in the US who "is expected to possess, control ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29611leg20070501.html
Army0483_0486.pdf
... FCC 14 5 Claims form Us foreign commission ... citizen and national of I A permanent resident I-. h- TOTAL AMOUNT: US DOLLAR IX-3.c. The claims card provided by the claimant is not an original ...
www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/pdf/Army0483_0486.pdf
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Search Results for green card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 1826 | Next
Settlement Reached in Florida Election Lawsuit; Punch Card System Continues to Face Scrutiny Nationwide: Statement of Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project 09/03/2002
... challenging the use of punch card machines ... decertified further use of punch card machines ... California, further use of punch card machines was ... motion to dismiss the lawsuit, giving a green light to the ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/er/12929prs20020903.html
ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... have provided extensive information as part of their green card applications," he said ... INS arrested men who were simply waiting for approval of their green card applications, or those with ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html
Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... Riley shows them his social security card, the stub of ... and financial aid documents, his ATM card and the complete ... tells him that the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked chicken ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html
Federal Court Ends County Official's Policy Of Denying Marriage Licenses Based On Immigration Status 02/12/2008
... marriage license applicants by requiring that they show a green card or current visa in ... license, however, because Arias-Maravilla did not have either a green card or a current visa.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/34080prs20080212.html
kyr_english_4.pdf
... an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
ACLU Welcomes Immigration Detention Medical Treatment Legislation 05/05/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/35234prs20080505.html
ACLU Welcomes Detainee Basic Medical Care Act 05/13/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35244prs20080513.html
Pennsylvania Couple Wrongfully Denied Marriage License Because of Immigration Status, ACLU Charges 04/18/2007
... them that their application would not be accepted because Arias could not provide a current visa or green card, even though such documents are not required ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/29428prs20070418.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
My brother has lived in this country since age 11/2 . He had his green card since he was 11. Did the immigration system perpetuate injustice? Damn straight.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
kyr_english_5.pdf
If you are a non-citizen, you should carry your green card or other valid immigration status documents at all times.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_5.pdf
Home : Advanced Search
Search Results for Alien Registration Receipt Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 2431 | Next
kyr_english_4.pdf
... documents are often called "alien registration" documents ... unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15734lgl19981119.html
Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15735lgl19981119.html
ACLU Blog: Because Freedom Cannot Blog Itself: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
), illegal alien criminals, and for "doctors ... fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile ... I will happily put an ACLU card in my wallet ... book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
ACLU Amicus Brief in Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 02/20/1997
... use of a verified credit card, debit account ... Rather, the receipt of information on the Internet ... whether those defenses -- credit card verification ... A registration requirement would also prevent Americans from exercising ...
www.aclu.org/scotus/1996/22956lgl19970220.html
Take Back Your Data/Privacy Rights Pocket Card 12/31/1997
... discarding pay stubs, credit card receipts and other ... Stop filling out "warranty registration" cards. Their sole purpose is to collect personal information about you. Your sales receipt is all you need to ensure that ... ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15438res19971231.html
TreatyWatch.org
... fraud, including credit card fraud, have ... Receipt of this information would enable the ... , as well as the provision and registration of communication ... information of users of so-called prepaid cards for mobile ...
www.treatywatch.org/explanatoryreport.html
ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... immigrant fingerprinting and registration program ... Ashcroft is using the immigrant registration program ... information as part of their green card applications ... that mandates the fingerprinting and registration of all male ... ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html
Appeals Court Postpones California Recall Election Until State Can Correct "Punch Card" Voting Machines 09/15/2003
... , and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project ... use of decertified "punch card" voting machines ... outdate, decertified, "punch card" voting ... the Ninth Circuit in Southwest Voter Registration ... ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/12936prs20030915.html
The 110th Congress so far... 02/15/2008
... Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM ... Act called for a biometric national ID card and other invasive ... redefined as lobbying - and therefore subject to registration and strict quarterly ...
www.aclu.org/legislative/34133leg20080215.html
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Search Results for US Permanent Resident Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 14116 | Next
ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons ... parolees who can apply for permanent resident status in the ... individuals who legally reside in the US and are ... checks as required to grant a green card or ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... He had his green card since he was 11. They would not tell us where he was being kept at one ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
kyr_english_4.pdf
... citizens who are already in the US do not ... who have been issued valid US immigration ... examples include an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card ... If you have your valid US immigration documents and you ...
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
Get Busy. Get Equal: Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in Canada?
If you are a permanent US resident, you will need your green card and a passport. Temporary US residents need a passport. Do we need a marriage license? Yes. You can apply for citizenship after becoming a permanent resident and meeting ... ...
www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/canada.html
ACLU and MN Community Groups Challenge Driver's License Rule That Turns ID into ""Internal Passport"" 07/22/2002
... license statute; and that the use of exempt ... present documents as proof of permanent US resident status, lawful short-term admission to the country or US citizenship ... Minnesota's driver license, permit or state identification
www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14809prs20020722.html
ACLU - Stand Up!
... the detention of any non-US resident if he believes ... " This means that any US lawyer who defends ... sections mentioned above are permanent provisions of ... Got it? Become a card-carrying member of the ACLU!
www.aclu.org/standup/rants/rant_farrarhudkins.html
Discriminatory Bank Policy Prohibits Foreigners from Receiving Credit, ACLU Charges 05/24/2005
"Denying a credit card to someone because ... the United States as a lawful permanent resident. ... credit by applying for a credit card from Union ... denying credit to people who are not US citizens, the ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11744prs20050524.html
Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... documentation of his lawful permanent resident status and ... shows them his social security card, the stub ... everything -- everything you say to us, this ... the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html
ACLU Statement to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Regarding FISA "Modernization" 05/01/2007
... companies a get out of jail free card. ... communications into and out of the US are ... who is not a citizen, lawful permanent resident or company incorporated in the US who "is expected to possess, control ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29611leg20070501.html
Army0483_0486.pdf
... FCC 14 5 Claims form Us foreign commission ... citizen and national of I A permanent resident I-. h- TOTAL AMOUNT: US DOLLAR IX-3.c. The claims card provided by the claimant is not an original ...
www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/pdf/Army0483_0486.pdf
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Search Results for green card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 1826 | Next
Settlement Reached in Florida Election Lawsuit; Punch Card System Continues to Face Scrutiny Nationwide: Statement of Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project 09/03/2002
... challenging the use of punch card machines ... decertified further use of punch card machines ... California, further use of punch card machines was ... motion to dismiss the lawsuit, giving a green light to the ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/er/12929prs20020903.html
ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... have provided extensive information as part of their green card applications," he said ... INS arrested men who were simply waiting for approval of their green card applications, or those with ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html
Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... Riley shows them his social security card, the stub of ... and financial aid documents, his ATM card and the complete ... tells him that the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked chicken ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html
Federal Court Ends County Official's Policy Of Denying Marriage Licenses Based On Immigration Status 02/12/2008
... marriage license applicants by requiring that they show a green card or current visa in ... license, however, because Arias-Maravilla did not have either a green card or a current visa.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/34080prs20080212.html
kyr_english_4.pdf
... an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
ACLU Welcomes Immigration Detention Medical Treatment Legislation 05/05/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/35234prs20080505.html
ACLU Welcomes Detainee Basic Medical Care Act 05/13/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35244prs20080513.html
Pennsylvania Couple Wrongfully Denied Marriage License Because of Immigration Status, ACLU Charges 04/18/2007
... them that their application would not be accepted because Arias could not provide a current visa or green card, even though such documents are not required ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/29428prs20070418.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
My brother has lived in this country since age 11/2 . He had his green card since he was 11. Did the immigration system perpetuate injustice? Damn straight.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
kyr_english_5.pdf
If you are a non-citizen, you should carry your green card or other valid immigration status documents at all times.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_5.pdf
Home : Advanced Search
Search Results for Alien Registration Receipt Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 2431 | Next
kyr_english_4.pdf
... documents are often called "alien registration" documents ... unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf
Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15734lgl19981119.html
Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15735lgl19981119.html
ACLU Blog: Because Freedom Cannot Blog Itself: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
), illegal alien criminals, and for "doctors ... fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile ... I will happily put an ACLU card in my wallet ... book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
ACLU Amicus Brief in Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 02/20/1997
... use of a verified credit card, debit account ... Rather, the receipt of information on the Internet ... whether those defenses -- credit card verification ... A registration requirement would also prevent Americans from exercising ...
www.aclu.org/scotus/1996/22956lgl19970220.html
Take Back Your Data/Privacy Rights Pocket Card 12/31/1997
... discarding pay stubs, credit card receipts and other ... Stop filling out "warranty registration" cards. Their sole purpose is to collect personal information about you. Your sales receipt is all you need to ensure that ... ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15438res19971231.html
TreatyWatch.org
... fraud, including credit card fraud, have ... Receipt of this information would enable the ... , as well as the provision and registration of communication ... information of users of so-called prepaid cards for mobile ...
www.treatywatch.org/explanatoryreport.html
ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... immigrant fingerprinting and registration program ... Ashcroft is using the immigrant registration program ... information as part of their green card applications ... that mandates the fingerprinting and registration of all male ... ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html
Appeals Court Postpones California Recall Election Until State Can Correct "Punch Card" Voting Machines 09/15/2003
... , and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project ... use of decertified "punch card" voting machines ... outdate, decertified, "punch card" voting ... the Ninth Circuit in Southwest Voter Registration ... ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/12936prs20030915.html
The 110th Congress so far... 02/15/2008
... Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM ... Act called for a biometric national ID card and other invasive ... redefined as lobbying - and therefore subject to registration and strict quarterly ...
www.aclu.org/legislative/34133leg20080215.html
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
U.S. Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status received Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-797C
American Civil Liberties Union
ACLU Supreme Court legislative update action center donate now
Home : Advanced Search
Search Results for U.S. Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status received Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-797C
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 10189 | Next
Did you mean: legal permanent resident status lpr [2] legal permanent resident status lpr [1] U.S legal permanent resident status of Sir Milan, Christian H. [10] legal permanent resident status leper [3] legal permanent resident status Lpr [3]
ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... wait even longer to become a legal permanent resident - for these ... granted conditional asylum status and must wait ... opportunity to apply for lawful permanent resident status in January ... Asian Law Caucus Asian Pacific ...... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and ... 7/2002) A Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
Human Trafficking: Modern Enslavement of Immigrant Women in the United States 05/31/2007
An asylee may adjust to permanent resident status one year after being granted asylum. ... trafficking, with the option of adjusting to legal permanent resident status. ' To find legal representation to pursue immigration relief, ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/humanrights/34683res20070531.html
ACLU Letter to the Department of Agriculture Expressing Concerns regarding Rural Development Regulations (USDA Proposed Rule 68 Fed. Reg. 3560) 08/01/2003
In this instance, the resident should not be ... abuser is a citizen or lawful permanent resident and the victim ... alien' and eventually obtain legal permanent resident status (Battered Immigrant ... sufficient time to pursue immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/13127leg20030801.html
Support the Rights of All Families to Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration Act" 05/10/2003
... Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration ... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status-and ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... Nadler (D-NY) introduced the &q ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12067res20030510.html
ACLU Charges Abuse in Case of Black US Student Shackled and Strip-Searched by Immigration Officials 10/17/2000
Richard Riley, a legal permanent resident of the United States ... someone who could understand his legal status. ... indicating that he was a lawful permanent resident, but, in ... numerous other incidents in which genuine legal visitor... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11755prs20001017.html
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships 01/07/2003
... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," HR 690 would ... law that provide immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12008res20030107.html
Upsetting Checks and Balances: Congressional Hostility to Courts in Times of Crisis, Statement of Laurie Kozuba 11/01/2001
... American wife of a long-time legal permanent resident, and ... for one technicality - his status. Robert, a long time Legal Permanent Resident, had a possession conviction ... American principals regardless of ones status.
www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12466prs20011101.html
ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill 01/27/2006
... agencies to verify the status of suspected ... their parents' immigration status, and to serve ... Even legal permanent resident immigrants are functionally ineligible ... detect and report the immigration status of ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html
Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in California: A Practical Guide for Same-Sex Couples 05/15/2008
... non-US citizen to gain legal permanent residence in the US? ... his or her spouse become a permanent legal resident; however, current ... hardship and can cause significant legal problems ... couples in which one member does ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35420res20080515.html
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Enter Search Term(s):
Sort Results by Relevance or Date:
Relevance Date
Narrow Results by State/Region:
Narrow Results by Document Type:
Narrow Results by Date:
Search Current Year Only
Search From:
To:
Issues (Check all that apply):
Criminal Justice Death Penalty
Disability Rights Drug Policy
Free Speech HIV/AIDS
Immigrants Rights Int'l Human Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights National Security
Police Practices Prisoners Rights
Privacy and Technology Racial Justice
Religious Liberty Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor Safe and Free
StandUp/Youth Supreme Court
Voting Rights Women's Rights
Your Local ACLU Congressional scorecard multimedia forums publications support us store contact
Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Human Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisoners' Rights
Privacy & Technology
Racial Justice
Religion and Belief
Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor
Safe and Free
Stand Up/Youth
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Ala. to Calif.
Colo. to Ga.
Hawaii to Iowa
Kan. to Md.
Mass. to Mo.
Mont. to N.J.
N.M. to Ohio
Okla. to S.C.
S.D. to Vt.
Va. to Wyo.
ACLU Supreme Court legislative update action center donate now
Home : Advanced Search
Search Results for U.S. Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status received Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-797C
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 10189 | Next
Did you mean: legal permanent resident status lpr [2] legal permanent resident status lpr [1] U.S legal permanent resident status of Sir Milan, Christian H. [10] legal permanent resident status leper [3] legal permanent resident status Lpr [3]
ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... wait even longer to become a legal permanent resident - for these ... granted conditional asylum status and must wait ... opportunity to apply for lawful permanent resident status in January ... Asian Law Caucus Asian Pacific ...... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html
Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and ... 7/2002) A Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html
Human Trafficking: Modern Enslavement of Immigrant Women in the United States 05/31/2007
An asylee may adjust to permanent resident status one year after being granted asylum. ... trafficking, with the option of adjusting to legal permanent resident status. ' To find legal representation to pursue immigration relief, ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/humanrights/34683res20070531.html
ACLU Letter to the Department of Agriculture Expressing Concerns regarding Rural Development Regulations (USDA Proposed Rule 68 Fed. Reg. 3560) 08/01/2003
In this instance, the resident should not be ... abuser is a citizen or lawful permanent resident and the victim ... alien' and eventually obtain legal permanent resident status (Battered Immigrant ... sufficient time to pursue immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/13127leg20030801.html
Support the Rights of All Families to Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration Act" 05/10/2003
... Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration ... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status-and ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... Nadler (D-NY) introduced the &q ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12067res20030510.html
ACLU Charges Abuse in Case of Black US Student Shackled and Strip-Searched by Immigration Officials 10/17/2000
Richard Riley, a legal permanent resident of the United States ... someone who could understand his legal status. ... indicating that he was a lawful permanent resident, but, in ... numerous other incidents in which genuine legal visitor... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11755prs20001017.html
Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships 01/07/2003
... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," HR 690 would ... law that provide immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12008res20030107.html
Upsetting Checks and Balances: Congressional Hostility to Courts in Times of Crisis, Statement of Laurie Kozuba 11/01/2001
... American wife of a long-time legal permanent resident, and ... for one technicality - his status. Robert, a long time Legal Permanent Resident, had a possession conviction ... American principals regardless of ones status.
www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12466prs20011101.html
ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill 01/27/2006
... agencies to verify the status of suspected ... their parents' immigration status, and to serve ... Even legal permanent resident immigrants are functionally ineligible ... detect and report the immigration status of ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html
Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in California: A Practical Guide for Same-Sex Couples 05/15/2008
... non-US citizen to gain legal permanent residence in the US? ... his or her spouse become a permanent legal resident; however, current ... hardship and can cause significant legal problems ... couples in which one member does ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35420res20080515.html
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Enter Search Term(s):
Sort Results by Relevance or Date:
Relevance Date
Narrow Results by State/Region:
Narrow Results by Document Type:
Narrow Results by Date:
Search Current Year Only
Search From:
To:
Issues (Check all that apply):
Criminal Justice Death Penalty
Disability Rights Drug Policy
Free Speech HIV/AIDS
Immigrants Rights Int'l Human Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights National Security
Police Practices Prisoners Rights
Privacy and Technology Racial Justice
Religious Liberty Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor Safe and Free
StandUp/Youth Supreme Court
Voting Rights Women's Rights
Your Local ACLU Congressional scorecard multimedia forums publications support us store contact
Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Human Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisoners' Rights
Privacy & Technology
Racial Justice
Religion and Belief
Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor
Safe and Free
Stand Up/Youth
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Ala. to Calif.
Colo. to Ga.
Hawaii to Iowa
Kan. to Md.
Mass. to Mo.
Mont. to N.J.
N.M. to Ohio
Okla. to S.C.
S.D. to Vt.
Va. to Wyo.
In re: Broadband Industry Practices and In the Matter of the Petition of Public Knowledge et al. for Declaratory Ruling Stating that Text Messaging a
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
April 17, 1994
In re: Broadband Industry Practices
and
In the Matter of the Petition of
Public Knowledge et al.
for Declaratory Ruling Stating that Text Messaging and Short Codes are Title II Services or are Title I Services Subject to Section 202 Nondiscrimination Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket Nos.
07-52
and
08-7
COMMENTS
OF
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
BY
Christian Milan, ESQ.
TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY DIRECTOR,
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of Northern California support the underlying petitions and urge the Commission to find in favor of Petitioners by upholding concepts of accessibility and non-discrimination in the provision of text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. 1
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Northern California and its Technology and Civil Liberties staff have been leaders on preserving Internet neutrality at both the national and state level. Our recent work has included advocacy for net neutrality, safeguarding unimpeded internet access at public libraries, and protecting the free speech, freedom of association and privacy of users of California’s growing number of municipal wireless (Wi-Fi) networks.5
The underlying Petitions are not just about a simple dispute between an ISP (Comcast) and service provider (BitTorrent) or about the ability of a text messaging provider (Verizon Wireless) to censor the political speech of an advocacy organization (NARAL Pro-Choice America), but about the future of the Internet as a marketplace of
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 For more information, please visit http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/index.shtml.
2
ideas for all users. Specifically, the Petitions raise the broader question of whether the Internet is to be preserved as a bastion for the exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. These principles are embodied in the Commission’s own “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.”6 We commend the Commission for that statement, which recognized the need to preserve neutrality rules in place prior to the 2005 Brand X decision. We further applaud the initiative of the Chairman and other members of the Commission for holding public hearings on the importance of preserving Internet freedom and neutrality. Nevertheless, corporate service providers increasingly are trampling on those Four Freedoms through actions like Comcast’s deliberate blocking of online file-sharing through BitTorrent and the refusal by Verizon Wireless to allow text messaging by NARAL Pro-Choice America. The growing body of content-based discrimination demonstrates that the threat to Internet freedom has never been greater.
Congress and the courts have recognized how an open Internet facilitates speech and associational activities. Unlike other media, “the Internet has no ‘gatekeepers’ – no publishers or editors controlling the distribution of information.”7 It provides “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”8 Equally important, “[i]t enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and efficiency and is rapidly
6 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
7 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 n.7 (D.D.C. 1998) at 48 n.7.
8 47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(1)(3).
3
revolutionizing how people share and receive information.”9 No one “owns” the Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”10
Neutrality promotes open discourse. The Internet’s openness enhances speech through its decentralized, neutral, nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination without interference. Consumers decide what sites to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from those sites rather than having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster.
The Internet’s structure facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books, the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a worldwide audience at little cost.”11 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence thought and opinion on a grand scale.”12 The Internet has thus become one of the leading marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech, association, and content.
Content discrimination by service providers such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless threatens the online free exchange of ideas. At the end of 2007, Comcast
9 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp..at 48.
10 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
11 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
12 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006). 4
engaged in “traffic shaping,” which can be an appropriate and even necessary way of managing data flows over the Internet. However, Comcast went further by blocking file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella.13 To prevent the successful transmission of materials, Comcast delivered messages to users involved in file-sharing that forced them to terminate the transmission. It succeeded in its attempts by using hacking technology to pose as a party involved in the file-sharing process, contrary to company statements that it “[respects its] customers’ privacy.”14 Comcast’s online discrimination is contrary to the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement, which provides that “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice” and “are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.”15
In late 2007, Verizon Wireless similarly committed an egregious act of discrimination by cutting off NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging program that the right-to-choose group uses to communicate messages to its supporters. Verizon Wireless stated it would not service programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”16 Verizon claimed that it had the right to ban NARAL’s messages because current laws that prohibit carriers from blocking voice transmissions do not apply to text messages. In addition, Verizon argued that the
13 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet users. Comcast’s actions were confirmed by nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press.
14 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
15 Complaint at 10, Hart v. Comcast, PG 07355993 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, Nov. 13, 2007), available at http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/legal_docs/comcast_bittorrent.
16 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
5
Communications Act, which requires that commercial cellular providers must be nondiscriminatory for commercial mobile services, does not apply to non-traditional uses of phone services such as text-messaging.
In both cases, the service providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity. Verizon Wireless claimed the company’s initial resistance to NARAL’s messages was merely “an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy” that was implemented before text messaging technology could ensure that customers would not receive unwanted messages.17 Recently, Comcast and BitTorrent announced a side agreement they described as a collaborative effort to jointly manage Internet traffic.18 While the reversal of these intentionally discriminatory policies is a positive development, it does not alter the need for relief in the underlying Petitions.
BitTorrent is but one of an infinite number of present and future applications to make use of the Internet. The fact that Comcast has reached an agreement with this particular company provides no guarantee that other application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that such innovators will be able to communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to BitTorrent, will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on the value of their product alone, or will they be
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Message, N.Y TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
18 Vish Kumar, Comcast, BitTorrent to Work Together on Network Traffic, WALL ST. J., Mar. 27, 2008, at B7.
6
hamstrung unless and until they can swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally despises?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a genuine network neutrality policy would avert. A city might award a company a charter to build a bridge across a river and give the company the right to collect a toll. But it would not be conducive to efficient commerce or the public interest in general to allow that company to meddle or interfere with the people or goods that cross the bridge, thereby forcing businesses and individuals to strike individual bargains with the bridge keeper. Such a scheme could permit a farmer with inferior produce to gain an advantage in the marketplace because he has gained favor with the bridge keeper and can bring his vegetables across more cheaply. The same holds true in the case of Internet connectivity, and “the marketplace of ideas.” The Internet is too valuable a public conduit to allow it to fall prey either to ideology or to parochial business interests.
Comcast claims that its interference with Internet traffic was conducted only for network management purposes. However, it is significant that the application that Comcast appears to have intended to target most of all, BitTorrent, is one used most commonly for the distribution of video – an activity that has long been Comcast’s core business in its role as cable television operator (as opposed to Internet Service Provider). 7
Comcast and other companies appear to want to position themselves as providers of video services over the Internet. But the problem for such providers is that, on a free Internet, the producers of video or other content can distribute that content directly to individuals – perhaps using a protocol such as BitTorrent – thereby cutting the provider out of the deal entirely. Comcast, in short, may have a strong interest outside of network traffic management in obstructing BitTorrent.
Whether or not such interests were at work in the Comcast-BitTorrent case or will come into play at a later date, the fact is that providers have: (1) strong business incentives to interfere with content, and; (2) the technical ability to do so. Should Comcast decide to refrain from pursuing any revenue-producing strategies for exploiting its technological control over Internet traffic, it would not long be able to maintain that stance if its competitors do not. This is a clear case in which the government needs to step in and declare: “Competition that depends upon discrimination is not conducive to the public good; it has too great a distorting effect on other markets and on the marketplace of ideas. We’re declaring it off limits.”
Some have implied that the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement has proven that, after all, the free market has worked, and that the agreement shows that government action is not needed.19 But there is a glaring flaw in that argument: the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement was hardly the product of fair business bargaining in a free market. Standing behind BitTorrent Inc. at the table and tipping the scales in its favor was an assortment of factors that cannot be routinely relied upon to produce fair outcomes in the future: (1) the full glare of the media spotlight; (2) a number of public-interest groups including the
19 An Alternative to ‘Net Neutrality,’ editorial, WALL ST. J., April 12, 2008, at A8.
8
ACLU; (3) a highly engaged segment of the educated public; (4) a powerful government regulator debating the wisdom of intervening; and (5) a looming presidential election in which several candidates have expressed support for such regulation. In the absence of these factors, it is far from clear what kind of leverage or power BitTorrent Inc. would have had to extract concessions from Comcast, much less what kind of leverage other, smaller, parties would have in a future negotiation. It is only because this battle is live that this deal was struck in the way it was. Once the issue is settled, the power will swing decisively to the side of the providers.
Internet access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of making available to citizens a First Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and self-expression of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the kind of tomfoolery that Comcast exhibited with its attempt to sabotage particular uses of the bandwidth that it sells.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California endorse the requests in the underlying Petitions for the FCC to act immediately and apply the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act – as well as the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” policy – to conclude that discrimination is prohibited in providing text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. We also support the Petitioners’ alternative request to exercise ancillary jurisdiction to apply the nondiscrimination
9
10
provisions of Title II to these services to ensure a robust and open communications infrastructure. Regardless of the mechanism used in evaluating the Petitions, the resulting regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality, non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those services. We urge the Commission to act favorably on the underlying Petitions, which seek a result consistent with these principles.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
April 17, 1994
In re: Broadband Industry Practices
and
In the Matter of the Petition of
Public Knowledge et al.
for Declaratory Ruling Stating that Text Messaging and Short Codes are Title II Services or are Title I Services Subject to Section 202 Nondiscrimination Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket Nos.
07-52
and
08-7
COMMENTS
OF
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
BY
Christian Milan, ESQ.
TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY DIRECTOR,
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of Northern California support the underlying petitions and urge the Commission to find in favor of Petitioners by upholding concepts of accessibility and non-discrimination in the provision of text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. 1
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Northern California and its Technology and Civil Liberties staff have been leaders on preserving Internet neutrality at both the national and state level. Our recent work has included advocacy for net neutrality, safeguarding unimpeded internet access at public libraries, and protecting the free speech, freedom of association and privacy of users of California’s growing number of municipal wireless (Wi-Fi) networks.5
The underlying Petitions are not just about a simple dispute between an ISP (Comcast) and service provider (BitTorrent) or about the ability of a text messaging provider (Verizon Wireless) to censor the political speech of an advocacy organization (NARAL Pro-Choice America), but about the future of the Internet as a marketplace of
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 For more information, please visit http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/index.shtml.
2
ideas for all users. Specifically, the Petitions raise the broader question of whether the Internet is to be preserved as a bastion for the exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. These principles are embodied in the Commission’s own “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.”6 We commend the Commission for that statement, which recognized the need to preserve neutrality rules in place prior to the 2005 Brand X decision. We further applaud the initiative of the Chairman and other members of the Commission for holding public hearings on the importance of preserving Internet freedom and neutrality. Nevertheless, corporate service providers increasingly are trampling on those Four Freedoms through actions like Comcast’s deliberate blocking of online file-sharing through BitTorrent and the refusal by Verizon Wireless to allow text messaging by NARAL Pro-Choice America. The growing body of content-based discrimination demonstrates that the threat to Internet freedom has never been greater.
Congress and the courts have recognized how an open Internet facilitates speech and associational activities. Unlike other media, “the Internet has no ‘gatekeepers’ – no publishers or editors controlling the distribution of information.”7 It provides “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”8 Equally important, “[i]t enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and efficiency and is rapidly
6 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
7 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 n.7 (D.D.C. 1998) at 48 n.7.
8 47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(1)(3).
3
revolutionizing how people share and receive information.”9 No one “owns” the Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”10
Neutrality promotes open discourse. The Internet’s openness enhances speech through its decentralized, neutral, nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination without interference. Consumers decide what sites to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from those sites rather than having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster.
The Internet’s structure facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books, the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a worldwide audience at little cost.”11 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence thought and opinion on a grand scale.”12 The Internet has thus become one of the leading marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech, association, and content.
Content discrimination by service providers such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless threatens the online free exchange of ideas. At the end of 2007, Comcast
9 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp..at 48.
10 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
11 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
12 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006). 4
engaged in “traffic shaping,” which can be an appropriate and even necessary way of managing data flows over the Internet. However, Comcast went further by blocking file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella.13 To prevent the successful transmission of materials, Comcast delivered messages to users involved in file-sharing that forced them to terminate the transmission. It succeeded in its attempts by using hacking technology to pose as a party involved in the file-sharing process, contrary to company statements that it “[respects its] customers’ privacy.”14 Comcast’s online discrimination is contrary to the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement, which provides that “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice” and “are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.”15
In late 2007, Verizon Wireless similarly committed an egregious act of discrimination by cutting off NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging program that the right-to-choose group uses to communicate messages to its supporters. Verizon Wireless stated it would not service programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”16 Verizon claimed that it had the right to ban NARAL’s messages because current laws that prohibit carriers from blocking voice transmissions do not apply to text messages. In addition, Verizon argued that the
13 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet users. Comcast’s actions were confirmed by nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press.
14 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
15 Complaint at 10, Hart v. Comcast, PG 07355993 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, Nov. 13, 2007), available at http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/legal_docs/comcast_bittorrent.
16 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
5
Communications Act, which requires that commercial cellular providers must be nondiscriminatory for commercial mobile services, does not apply to non-traditional uses of phone services such as text-messaging.
In both cases, the service providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity. Verizon Wireless claimed the company’s initial resistance to NARAL’s messages was merely “an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy” that was implemented before text messaging technology could ensure that customers would not receive unwanted messages.17 Recently, Comcast and BitTorrent announced a side agreement they described as a collaborative effort to jointly manage Internet traffic.18 While the reversal of these intentionally discriminatory policies is a positive development, it does not alter the need for relief in the underlying Petitions.
BitTorrent is but one of an infinite number of present and future applications to make use of the Internet. The fact that Comcast has reached an agreement with this particular company provides no guarantee that other application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that such innovators will be able to communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to BitTorrent, will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on the value of their product alone, or will they be
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Message, N.Y TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
18 Vish Kumar, Comcast, BitTorrent to Work Together on Network Traffic, WALL ST. J., Mar. 27, 2008, at B7.
6
hamstrung unless and until they can swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally despises?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a genuine network neutrality policy would avert. A city might award a company a charter to build a bridge across a river and give the company the right to collect a toll. But it would not be conducive to efficient commerce or the public interest in general to allow that company to meddle or interfere with the people or goods that cross the bridge, thereby forcing businesses and individuals to strike individual bargains with the bridge keeper. Such a scheme could permit a farmer with inferior produce to gain an advantage in the marketplace because he has gained favor with the bridge keeper and can bring his vegetables across more cheaply. The same holds true in the case of Internet connectivity, and “the marketplace of ideas.” The Internet is too valuable a public conduit to allow it to fall prey either to ideology or to parochial business interests.
Comcast claims that its interference with Internet traffic was conducted only for network management purposes. However, it is significant that the application that Comcast appears to have intended to target most of all, BitTorrent, is one used most commonly for the distribution of video – an activity that has long been Comcast’s core business in its role as cable television operator (as opposed to Internet Service Provider). 7
Comcast and other companies appear to want to position themselves as providers of video services over the Internet. But the problem for such providers is that, on a free Internet, the producers of video or other content can distribute that content directly to individuals – perhaps using a protocol such as BitTorrent – thereby cutting the provider out of the deal entirely. Comcast, in short, may have a strong interest outside of network traffic management in obstructing BitTorrent.
Whether or not such interests were at work in the Comcast-BitTorrent case or will come into play at a later date, the fact is that providers have: (1) strong business incentives to interfere with content, and; (2) the technical ability to do so. Should Comcast decide to refrain from pursuing any revenue-producing strategies for exploiting its technological control over Internet traffic, it would not long be able to maintain that stance if its competitors do not. This is a clear case in which the government needs to step in and declare: “Competition that depends upon discrimination is not conducive to the public good; it has too great a distorting effect on other markets and on the marketplace of ideas. We’re declaring it off limits.”
Some have implied that the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement has proven that, after all, the free market has worked, and that the agreement shows that government action is not needed.19 But there is a glaring flaw in that argument: the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement was hardly the product of fair business bargaining in a free market. Standing behind BitTorrent Inc. at the table and tipping the scales in its favor was an assortment of factors that cannot be routinely relied upon to produce fair outcomes in the future: (1) the full glare of the media spotlight; (2) a number of public-interest groups including the
19 An Alternative to ‘Net Neutrality,’ editorial, WALL ST. J., April 12, 2008, at A8.
8
ACLU; (3) a highly engaged segment of the educated public; (4) a powerful government regulator debating the wisdom of intervening; and (5) a looming presidential election in which several candidates have expressed support for such regulation. In the absence of these factors, it is far from clear what kind of leverage or power BitTorrent Inc. would have had to extract concessions from Comcast, much less what kind of leverage other, smaller, parties would have in a future negotiation. It is only because this battle is live that this deal was struck in the way it was. Once the issue is settled, the power will swing decisively to the side of the providers.
Internet access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of making available to citizens a First Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and self-expression of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the kind of tomfoolery that Comcast exhibited with its attempt to sabotage particular uses of the bandwidth that it sells.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California endorse the requests in the underlying Petitions for the FCC to act immediately and apply the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act – as well as the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” policy – to conclude that discrimination is prohibited in providing text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. We also support the Petitioners’ alternative request to exercise ancillary jurisdiction to apply the nondiscrimination
9
10
provisions of Title II to these services to ensure a robust and open communications infrastructure. Regardless of the mechanism used in evaluating the Petitions, the resulting regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality, non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those services. We urge the Commission to act favorably on the underlying Petitions, which seek a result consistent with these principles.
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
En Banc Hearing on Broadband and the Digital Future
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
July 21, 2008
COMMENTS
OF Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
By
Barb Feige
Deputy Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania and
Director, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, ACLU of Pennsylvania
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Jay Stanley
Director of Public Education
The Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU
And
Dr. James Thomas Tucker
Policy Counsel, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Christian Milan ACLU appointed Chair of the American Bar Association Student Lawyer Section The White House Fellow United States of America Department of Justice Intern Legal Writing Lawyering Extensive American Publications Electronic Evidences jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF
THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of
Pennsylvania have been principal participants in many of the important Internet
censorship and neutrality cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past
two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies
providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of
regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Pennsylvania was
co-counsel in two of the leading Internet decisions, Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU.
Last year, the ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained relief in the Ashcroft litigation that
permanently enjoined the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”).5
We applaud the Commission for holding today’s hearing on broadband and the
digital future. We also commend Chairman Martin for encouraging the Commission to
take enforcement action against Comcast for violating open access rules by unlawfully
blocking file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. We join the Chairman in urging the
Commission to impose penalties on Comcast for censoring its own customers. The
Commission’s proposed action will ensure that the rule of law is followed in keeping the
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the
government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which
imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The
ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s
amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
2
exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. In the
process, it will reaffirm the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005
policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice”
and running “applications and services of their choice.”
Today, we are at a crossroads where the fate of broadband and the digital future
hangs in the balance. The Internet has grown into one of the most important methods of
communication in human history because of neutrality rules. Corporate gatekeepers,
such as Comcast, threaten the existence of the Internet as a forum for speech, making it
essential to restore neutrality to the Net immediately. At the same time, the Commission
must avoid engaging in censorship itself, including the imposition of unconstitutional
license conditions such as mandatory and automatic filtering. Likewise, the increasing
use of intrusive deep packet inspections, which track and share private information about
consumers without their knowledge or consent, chill speech and associational activities.
Perhaps most importantly at a basic level, despite the Internet’s explosive growth,
millions of Americans have been left behind. The Commission must take steps to bridge
the digital divide by encouraging applicants to provide low-cost or no-cost Internet
services in exchange for licenses to use the dormant bandwidths of the wireless
broadband spectrum. The Commission’s actions going forward will play a significant
role in what the future of broadband will hold.
1. The Importance of the Internet as a Marketplace of Ideas
The Internet binds its users together in a virtual world that transcends geography.
An Internet user in the farthest reaches of the world is just a few keystrokes away from
searching the greatest libraries for the wealth of human knowledge. A soldier in
3
Afghanistan can post a picture of herself online, letting her loved ones back home know
that she is safe. Political activists previously confined to passing out a handful of leaflets
in a local park can now communicate their messages to millions online. The Internet
“enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and
efficiency” in a way that “is rapidly revolutionizing how people share and receive
information.”6 These qualities make the Internet a shining example of a modern day
marketplace of ideas.7
The Internet’s marketplace has thrived because of its decentralized, neutral,
nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination
without interference. Neutrality promotes open discourse. Consumers decide what sites
to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from sites rather than
having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other
media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster. The Internet’s structure
facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. Accessibility to a
mass audience at little or no cost makes the Internet a particularly unique forum for
speech. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or
distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books,
the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a
6 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 (D.D.C. 1998).
7 See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., joined by Brandeis, J., dissenting).
The marketplace of ideas metaphor aptly applies to an Internet free of corporate or government censors of
lawful content. See generally Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 885 (rejecting government censorship of content
in “the new marketplace of ideas,” the Internet).
4
worldwide audience at little cost.”8 “Any person with a phone line can become a town
crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”9
The Internet differs from other forms of mass communication because it “is really
more idea than entity. It is an agreement we have made to hook our computers together
and communicate by way of binary impulses and digitized signals.”10 No one “owns” the
Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these
distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to
address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”11
Never before has it been so easy to circulate speech among so many
people. John Doe can now communicate with millions of people from the
comfort, safety and privacy of his own home. His communication
requires minimal investment and minimal time – once the word is written,
it is disseminated to a mass audience literally with the touch of a button.
Moreover, Internet speakers are not restricted by the ordinary trappings of
polite conversation; they tend to speak more freely online.12
“It is ‘no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is as diverse as human
thought.’”13 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence
thought and opinion on a grand scale.”14 The Internet truly has become one of the leading
marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech,
association, and content.
8 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other
grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
9 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870.
10 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Bruce W. Sanford & Michael J. Lorenger, Teaching An
Old Dog New Tricks; The First Amendment In An Online World, 28 CONN. L. REV. 1137, 1139-43 (1996)).
11 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
12 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Sanford & Lorenger, supra note 9).
13 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 852 (quoting ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 842 (E.D. Pa. 1996)).
14 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
2. Corporate Gatekeepers Threaten the Future of the Internet’s Marketplace
Chairman Martin’s recommendation that Comcast be sanctioned for its censorship
recognizes the growing threat corporate gatekeepers pose to the Internet. Content
discrimination is real and it is happening every day. Comcast applied hacking technology
to block its own customers from using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent,
eDonkey, and Gnutella,15 violating its policy of respecting customer privacy.16 Similarly,
Verizon Wireless suspended NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging
program for grassroots lobbying by citing a company policy of terminating service to any
group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be
seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”17 In both cases, the service
providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity and
in the face of possible FCC sanctions. The reversal of these intentionally discriminatory
policies and the Commission’s proposed Comcast ruling are positive developments and
bolster the need to restore enforceable neutrality principles immediately.
That conclusion is inescapable in light of the growing list of other examples of
corporate censorship in the aftermath of Brand X. In 2006, Time Warner/AOL blocked a
grassroots e-mail campaign by the DearAOL.com Coalition to inform and mobilize
customers against AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail tax scheme.18 In 2007, AT&T censored a
15 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet
users.
16 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
18 Rob Malda, Pay-per-e-mail and the "Market Myth,” Slashdot, March 29, 2006, available at
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/1411221.
6
portion of Eddie Vedder’s musical critique of President Bush19 and threatened to use its
terms of service contract to terminate a customer’s DSL service for any activity that it
considered “damaging” to its reputation.20 In 2006, BellSouth blocked its customers in
Florida and Tennessee from using MySpace and YouTube.21 Cingular Wireless has
blocked the ability of its customers to use PayPal, a popular billing service used to pay
for many online purchases, such as those from eBay.22 Every major service provider has
engaged in censorship since 2005. The list of examples of corporate censorship doubtless
would be much longer if the Commission had not required many service providers to
temporarily comply with neutrality rules in the recent wave of mergers.
Comcast’s censorship of BitTorrent is just the tip of the iceberg. The recent
agreement between Comcast and BitTorrent that ended Comcast’s content-based
restrictions on BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file sharing provides no guarantee that other
application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation
with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that innovators will be able to
communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more
powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to
BitTorrent – in a garage, perhaps – will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on
19 Reuters, AT&T Calls Censorship of Pearl Jam Lyrics an Error, Aug. 9, 2007,
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN091821320070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=tr
ue
20 Ken Fisher, AT&T Relents on Controversial Terms of Service, Announces Changes, ArsTechnica, Oct.
10, 2007, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071010-att-relents-on-controversial-terms-of-serviceannounces-
changes.html?rel
21 Steve Rosenbush, The MySpace Ecosystem, BUSINESS WEEK, July 25, 2006,
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060721_833338.htm.
22 Scott Smith, Cingular Playing Tough on Content Payments, The Mobile Weblog, July 7, 2006,
http://www.mobile-weblog.com/50226711/cingular_playing_tough_on_content_payment.php.
7
the value of their product alone, or will they be hamstrung unless and until they can
swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they
possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a
powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is
speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally
despises? Might the next Comcast-BitTorrent deal require Comcast to keep such
innovators offline?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use
of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with
network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a
genuine network neutrality policy would avert. In addition, providers have strong
business incentives to interfere with content and the technical ability to do so. Internet
access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of providing a First
Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and selfexpression
of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution
to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in
assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the censorship of
corporate gatekeepers.
Restoration of meaningful rules protecting Internet users from corporate
censorship is essential to the future of free speech on the Internet. Neutrality rules would
simply restore the status quo in effect before the Brand X decision in 2005, when ISPs
were prohibited from picking and choosing which users could access what lawful content
through the gateways they provided to their paying customers. With a single order, the
8
Commission could restore net neutrality to all Americans who use broadband services, as
the Supreme Court made clear in Brand X. Such an action would merely be a formal
codification of the “Four Freedoms” established by the FCC in its 2005 policy statement,
which assured users “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running
“applications and services of their choice.”23 In the process, FCC’s action would afford
consumers the peace of mind to know that they, not corporate gatekeepers, hold the
power to decide the lawful content that they could access and exchange. It would provide
greater certainty by applying a uniform set of rules to all providers, under the
Commission’s oversight. And equally important, it would do so while still allowing
service providers to engage in reasonable network management, as long as they did not
cross the line into unlawful censorship of online activities and speech.
The future of the Internet as we know it is at stake. Now is the time for the
Commission to act by restoring net neutrality rules to all providers.
3. Mandatory Online Filters are Unconstitutional and Censor Lawful Speech
Recently, the Commission proposed rules that for the first time would impose a
requirement that licensees use mandatory filters to block certain websites and content.
Under the proposed rules for broadband wireless licenses in certain bandwidths,24 any
content deemed to be pornographic or harmful to adolescents or minors would have to be
automatically blocked by the licensee. Adult users could unblock the filter, but only after
affirmatively opting-out by identifying themselves and providing corroborating personal
23 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
24 The broadband wireless bandwidths affected by the proposed rules are in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2175 MHz, and 2175 MHz-2180 MHz bands.
9
information demonstrating they are eighteen years or older.25 The Commission’s
proposed rules are ill-conceived efforts to impose unconstitutional conditions on
licensees. The rules would censor the exchange of lawful content and violate the privacy
rights of users seeking to disable the filter to access that content.
The Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in COPA26 and
the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”).27 In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made
it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to
content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.28 “Sexual expression
which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 29 Therefore,
strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based regulation of speech, requiring the
Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.30 We can assume, without further comment, that the government
has a compelling interest in protecting minors. But “even where speech is indecent and
enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket
ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”31 And even if
the speech is merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny
25 See Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Dkt. Nos. 04-356 & 07-195.
26 Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681.
27 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103
28 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny
that should be applied” to the Internet).
29 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
30 Id.
31 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10
review.32 The proposed mandatory filters fail strict scrutiny because they are not the least
restrictive means and are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.33
The proposed rules offer no guidance regarding the content being censored, as
required by Miller v. California.34 They likewise do not identify who will make the
determination of what must be censored, or how that will be accomplished consistent
with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005.35 Contrary to Miller’s
mandate, the Commission has not identified the contemporary community standards that
are to be applied. The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the
CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way.36 Even if it were
possible to resolve the problems with the proposed rules under Miller, the Commission
has failed to explain how users could continue to access all material protected by the First
Amendment. Of course, no explanation exists – it is impossible to craft a mandatory
filter that would not block some constitutionally protected material and speech. In the
process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the
First Amendment. The application of the proposed rules is unworkable and as such, is
facially unconstitutional.37
32 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of
degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its contentbased
bans.”).
33 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion
– operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
34 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
35 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to
the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
36 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
37 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68
(1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and
11
Furthermore, requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority”
does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court rejected
a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user
to provide a credit card number, and found that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail
a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”38 Reno concluded that
“there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing
material” online.39 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting
enforcement of COPA,40 in part because the adult identification requirements it included
– like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrow tailoring’ that will save
an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”41 Moreover, requiring credit
card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it severely burdens the
expression of users and content providers who wish to maintain their privacy.42 It also
would violate the rights of those users to engage in constitutionally protected anonymous
where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too
imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the
statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
38 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877.
39 Id. at 855.
40 See 542 U.S. at 656.
41 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
42 See ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users
of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online
shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
12
speech.43 Federal courts have struck down similarly flawed identity requirements for
other communications media regulated by the Commission.44
Finally, the proposed mandatory filters are unconstitutional because there are less
restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected
Internet content. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an
alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of
restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”45 The Court recognized that
the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the
use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting
protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter
mandatory.46 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view
rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
We strongly urge the Commission to abandon its proposed rules to censor lawful
content and activity on the Internet. We respectfully submit that the Commission should
focus on enforcing neutrality rules to stop censorship by service providers, instead of
pursuing its own unconstitutional course of policing morality on the Internet.
43 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political
speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify
themselves).
44 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 754 (1996); Fabulous Assocs.,
Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990); ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F.
Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999).
45 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
46 Id. at 670 (emphasis added).
13
4. Deep Packet Inspections (DPI) Violate Privacy and Chill Speech
We also urge the Commission to scrutinize the growing practice of intrusive Deep
Packet Inspections (DPI), which service providers use to scrutinize data packets as they
traverse the Internet. Under the agreements and standards that established the Internet
and by which it continues to operate and thrive, network participants forward data
according to the “envelope” of each packet. Each envelope contains a destination and
return address and a few other basic pieces of information, which are separate from the
actual content of the packet. DPI involves scrutinizing the content itself. DPI is
intrinsically a highly suspect activity, because it threatens privacy and threatens the
neutrality of the Internet as a forum for speech. It has already been implicated in
numerous abusive online practices.
As a mechanism for examining the content of Internet traffic, DPI opens up a vast
realm of potential for privacy invasion. Americans expect that when they use an ISP or
broadband provider, their communications will be processed neutrally and privately just
as when they use a telephone or mail or package delivery service. They do not expect
their service provider to scrutinize the contents of their transmission, whether to collect
information about them, improve marketing efficiency, serve ads, or make technical
decisions over how the communication is delivered. Indeed, that is precisely why so
many Internet users install spyware applications on their computers. Unfortunately, those
applications do nothing to stop DPI, giving many Internet users a false sense of security
and privacy that no longer exists.
Services such as NebuAd and Phorm that scrutinize or alter the Internet traffic of
ISP customers represent merely the extreme of predictable attempts to exploit this
14
technology. Ultimately, this kind of behavior threatens to leave Americans’ online lives,
including their Web surfing, online reading, blog posting, Web searches, e-mails, and all
other activities vulnerable to snooping and manipulation. There is no end to the
“innovation” that could follow in using and abusing personal information. It could lead
to embarrassment and annoyance through “targeted marketing,” to adverse decisions
from insurance companies and financial institutions – and to a general chilling of the
Internet’s potential as a communications medium and forum for free speech.
Moreover, DPI undermines the neutrality principles in the Commission’s “Four
Freedoms” statement. Under the guise of applying differential pricing based on the
speed, volume, application preferences, or even the substance of content, service
providers would snoop on every facet of user activity. Such flagrant flouting of open
Internet rules on the pretext of monitoring the level of user activity is precisely what led
to Comcast’s unlawful actions against BitTorrent. DPI is incompatible with user freedom
and choice that are the foundation of the Internet as we know it.
DPI also threatens to blur the boundary between the forum in which speech and
communication takes place, and the content of that speech and communication. Some
examples illustrate this point. We do not allow the postal service to route mail according
to the content of letters. We do not allow the telephone companies to provide better
connections to those whose conversations the companies deem to be more important. We
do not allow governments to grant parade permits only to those protesters it thinks are
reasonable. We do not allow the chair of a hearing to alter Robert’s Rules of Order
according to the sagacity and eloquence of the speaker. Once the operator of a forum
begins to scrutinize the content of the communications that take place within it, it opens
15
up the potential for abuse, especially where there is money to be made. The Commission
must ask some very sharp questions about the reasons for that scrutiny, or, better yet, put
an end to it.
DPI has already been associated with a great deal of abuse. The presence of DPI
equipment (a Narus STA 6400) is part of what alerted whistleblower Mark Klein to the
existence of an apparent NSA warrantless wiretapping facility in a San Francisco AT&T
facility.47 DPI is what broadband provider Comcast used in its program of interfering
with peer-to-peer application traffic. DPI is what NebuAd and Phorm are using to
eavesdrop upon Internet users’ Web surfing for the purpose of serving ads. Additional
government surveillance will certainly follow the adoption of widespread DPI usage.
Defenders of DPI argue that restricting its use will curb innovation, but much of
the “innovation” that is taking place appears to be intrusive and dangerous to the health
of the Internet as a free and neutral forum for the exchange of information, speech and
expression. We do not allow the telephone company to “innovate” in how it can make
use of transcripts of our telephone calls – something that is now completely feasible –
because the benefits of such innovation would be far outweighed by its disadvantages. In
addition, credible network experts have argued that continuing growth in bandwidth is a
far better solution to any network congestion than interfering with the foundational
agreements that have brought the Internet to where it is today. We urge the Commission
to examine the increasing danger DPI poses, and to take appropriate action to ensure that
consumers are informed of the practice and their privacy is protected.
47 Wired, “Whistle-Blower’s Evidence, Uncut, May 22, 2006, available at
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944.
16
5. Unused Portions of the Broadband Spectrum must be developed to make the
Internet More Accessible
The Commission is charged to “make available, so far as possible, to all the
people of the United States” a communications system “with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges.”48 Changes in communications technology now provide the
Commission with an excellent opportunity to expand the availability of broadband access
to the American public, and promote the maximum possible range of content available to
the public.
Only a relatively small portion of the vast radio spectrum has been opened up for
unlicensed public use. On these tiny slices there has been an explosion of innovation,
from WiFi to cordless telephones to baby monitors to many other wireless devices, which
all share those small swaths of spectrum. As vacant frequencies become available due to
the evolution of technology, including the so-called white space between television
channels, the Commission should take advantage of the opportunities that technology
offers. The use of this public spectrum has tremendous implications for freedom of
speech because it makes the Internet more accessible and affordable for everyone. As
greater equality of access to the Internet is provided, our nation will benefit from the
vibrant marketplace of ideas that the online world has become. We urge the Commission
to facilitate the development of the untapped portions of the radio spectrum to the
maximum extent possible.
There are many options to expand spectrum use. New technologies such as
“spectrum sensing” as well as alternatives proposed by Google, Motorola and other
48 47 U.S.C. 151 § 1.
17
companies maximize spectrum use, without the risk of interference to existing television
channels. In any case, the Internet has been an astonishing engine for economic,
technological, political, and cultural innovation in recent years; the dramatic expansion of
affordable Internet access (as well as the potential explosion of innovation in devices)
that proper use of this unlicensed spectrum could generate far dwarfs the risk to the
public of interference on one or two television channels. In evaluating the technological
possibilities of such proposals, we ask the Commission to keep in perspective its larger
mission. The small risks of occasional interference and the pecuniary interests of
incumbent occupants of portions of the public airwaves must not be permitted to stand in
the way of this dramatic advance in the public interest. More broadly, we urge the
Commission, within the limits of its discretion provided by Congress, to take a greater
leadership role by embracing technologies that promise to eliminate or reduce the
technological scarcity of the airwaves.
We also urge the Commission to take greater steps to help bridge the digital
divide that leaves millions of socio-economically disadvantaged and geographically
isolated Americans without access to the Internet. Increasing use of new technologies to
expand the use of the broadband wireless spectrum will help narrow that divide. Other
proposals that would expand opportunities for service providers offering low cost or nocost
Internet access also are encouraging. But as the M2Z proposal illustrates, the
Commission must actively avoid unconstitutional conditions such as mandatory and
automatic filtering that would deny lawful content to economically disadvantaged users.
Online free speech must not be available only to those who can pay a fee.
18
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of
Pennsylvania applaud the FCC’s public hearings on the Internet. But the Commission
must do more. Today, the status of broadband and the digital future and the role of the
online marketplace of ideas are uncertain. The Commission can eliminate much of that
uncertainty immediately by reinstating neutrality principles, supported by the
Commission’s existing “Four Freedoms” policy. The future of the Internet must remain
robust, open, and free of censorship by both corporate gatekeepers and the Commission
itself. The regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and
content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text
messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality,
non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those
services. We urge the Commission to act consistently with these principles to ensure that
speech and association on the Internet has a future.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
En Banc Hearing on Broadband and the Digital Future
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
July 21, 2008
COMMENTS
OF Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
By
Barb Feige
Deputy Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania and
Director, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, ACLU of Pennsylvania
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Jay Stanley
Director of Public Education
The Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU
And
Dr. James Thomas Tucker
Policy Counsel, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Christian Milan ACLU appointed Chair of the American Bar Association Student Lawyer Section The White House Fellow United States of America Department of Justice Intern Legal Writing Lawyering Extensive American Publications Electronic Evidences jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF
THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of
Pennsylvania have been principal participants in many of the important Internet
censorship and neutrality cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past
two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies
providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of
regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Pennsylvania was
co-counsel in two of the leading Internet decisions, Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU.
Last year, the ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained relief in the Ashcroft litigation that
permanently enjoined the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”).5
We applaud the Commission for holding today’s hearing on broadband and the
digital future. We also commend Chairman Martin for encouraging the Commission to
take enforcement action against Comcast for violating open access rules by unlawfully
blocking file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. We join the Chairman in urging the
Commission to impose penalties on Comcast for censoring its own customers. The
Commission’s proposed action will ensure that the rule of law is followed in keeping the
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the
government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which
imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The
ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s
amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
2
exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. In the
process, it will reaffirm the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005
policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice”
and running “applications and services of their choice.”
Today, we are at a crossroads where the fate of broadband and the digital future
hangs in the balance. The Internet has grown into one of the most important methods of
communication in human history because of neutrality rules. Corporate gatekeepers,
such as Comcast, threaten the existence of the Internet as a forum for speech, making it
essential to restore neutrality to the Net immediately. At the same time, the Commission
must avoid engaging in censorship itself, including the imposition of unconstitutional
license conditions such as mandatory and automatic filtering. Likewise, the increasing
use of intrusive deep packet inspections, which track and share private information about
consumers without their knowledge or consent, chill speech and associational activities.
Perhaps most importantly at a basic level, despite the Internet’s explosive growth,
millions of Americans have been left behind. The Commission must take steps to bridge
the digital divide by encouraging applicants to provide low-cost or no-cost Internet
services in exchange for licenses to use the dormant bandwidths of the wireless
broadband spectrum. The Commission’s actions going forward will play a significant
role in what the future of broadband will hold.
1. The Importance of the Internet as a Marketplace of Ideas
The Internet binds its users together in a virtual world that transcends geography.
An Internet user in the farthest reaches of the world is just a few keystrokes away from
searching the greatest libraries for the wealth of human knowledge. A soldier in
3
Afghanistan can post a picture of herself online, letting her loved ones back home know
that she is safe. Political activists previously confined to passing out a handful of leaflets
in a local park can now communicate their messages to millions online. The Internet
“enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and
efficiency” in a way that “is rapidly revolutionizing how people share and receive
information.”6 These qualities make the Internet a shining example of a modern day
marketplace of ideas.7
The Internet’s marketplace has thrived because of its decentralized, neutral,
nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination
without interference. Neutrality promotes open discourse. Consumers decide what sites
to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from sites rather than
having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other
media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster. The Internet’s structure
facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. Accessibility to a
mass audience at little or no cost makes the Internet a particularly unique forum for
speech. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or
distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books,
the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a
6 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 (D.D.C. 1998).
7 See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., joined by Brandeis, J., dissenting).
The marketplace of ideas metaphor aptly applies to an Internet free of corporate or government censors of
lawful content. See generally Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 885 (rejecting government censorship of content
in “the new marketplace of ideas,” the Internet).
4
worldwide audience at little cost.”8 “Any person with a phone line can become a town
crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”9
The Internet differs from other forms of mass communication because it “is really
more idea than entity. It is an agreement we have made to hook our computers together
and communicate by way of binary impulses and digitized signals.”10 No one “owns” the
Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these
distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to
address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”11
Never before has it been so easy to circulate speech among so many
people. John Doe can now communicate with millions of people from the
comfort, safety and privacy of his own home. His communication
requires minimal investment and minimal time – once the word is written,
it is disseminated to a mass audience literally with the touch of a button.
Moreover, Internet speakers are not restricted by the ordinary trappings of
polite conversation; they tend to speak more freely online.12
“It is ‘no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is as diverse as human
thought.’”13 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence
thought and opinion on a grand scale.”14 The Internet truly has become one of the leading
marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech,
association, and content.
8 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other
grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
9 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870.
10 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Bruce W. Sanford & Michael J. Lorenger, Teaching An
Old Dog New Tricks; The First Amendment In An Online World, 28 CONN. L. REV. 1137, 1139-43 (1996)).
11 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
12 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Sanford & Lorenger, supra note 9).
13 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 852 (quoting ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 842 (E.D. Pa. 1996)).
14 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
2. Corporate Gatekeepers Threaten the Future of the Internet’s Marketplace
Chairman Martin’s recommendation that Comcast be sanctioned for its censorship
recognizes the growing threat corporate gatekeepers pose to the Internet. Content
discrimination is real and it is happening every day. Comcast applied hacking technology
to block its own customers from using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent,
eDonkey, and Gnutella,15 violating its policy of respecting customer privacy.16 Similarly,
Verizon Wireless suspended NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging
program for grassroots lobbying by citing a company policy of terminating service to any
group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be
seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”17 In both cases, the service
providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity and
in the face of possible FCC sanctions. The reversal of these intentionally discriminatory
policies and the Commission’s proposed Comcast ruling are positive developments and
bolster the need to restore enforceable neutrality principles immediately.
That conclusion is inescapable in light of the growing list of other examples of
corporate censorship in the aftermath of Brand X. In 2006, Time Warner/AOL blocked a
grassroots e-mail campaign by the DearAOL.com Coalition to inform and mobilize
customers against AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail tax scheme.18 In 2007, AT&T censored a
15 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet
users.
16 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
18 Rob Malda, Pay-per-e-mail and the "Market Myth,” Slashdot, March 29, 2006, available at
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/1411221.
6
portion of Eddie Vedder’s musical critique of President Bush19 and threatened to use its
terms of service contract to terminate a customer’s DSL service for any activity that it
considered “damaging” to its reputation.20 In 2006, BellSouth blocked its customers in
Florida and Tennessee from using MySpace and YouTube.21 Cingular Wireless has
blocked the ability of its customers to use PayPal, a popular billing service used to pay
for many online purchases, such as those from eBay.22 Every major service provider has
engaged in censorship since 2005. The list of examples of corporate censorship doubtless
would be much longer if the Commission had not required many service providers to
temporarily comply with neutrality rules in the recent wave of mergers.
Comcast’s censorship of BitTorrent is just the tip of the iceberg. The recent
agreement between Comcast and BitTorrent that ended Comcast’s content-based
restrictions on BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file sharing provides no guarantee that other
application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation
with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that innovators will be able to
communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more
powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to
BitTorrent – in a garage, perhaps – will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on
19 Reuters, AT&T Calls Censorship of Pearl Jam Lyrics an Error, Aug. 9, 2007,
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN091821320070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=tr
ue
20 Ken Fisher, AT&T Relents on Controversial Terms of Service, Announces Changes, ArsTechnica, Oct.
10, 2007, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071010-att-relents-on-controversial-terms-of-serviceannounces-
changes.html?rel
21 Steve Rosenbush, The MySpace Ecosystem, BUSINESS WEEK, July 25, 2006,
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060721_833338.htm.
22 Scott Smith, Cingular Playing Tough on Content Payments, The Mobile Weblog, July 7, 2006,
http://www.mobile-weblog.com/50226711/cingular_playing_tough_on_content_payment.php.
7
the value of their product alone, or will they be hamstrung unless and until they can
swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they
possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a
powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is
speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally
despises? Might the next Comcast-BitTorrent deal require Comcast to keep such
innovators offline?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use
of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with
network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a
genuine network neutrality policy would avert. In addition, providers have strong
business incentives to interfere with content and the technical ability to do so. Internet
access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of providing a First
Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and selfexpression
of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution
to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in
assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the censorship of
corporate gatekeepers.
Restoration of meaningful rules protecting Internet users from corporate
censorship is essential to the future of free speech on the Internet. Neutrality rules would
simply restore the status quo in effect before the Brand X decision in 2005, when ISPs
were prohibited from picking and choosing which users could access what lawful content
through the gateways they provided to their paying customers. With a single order, the
8
Commission could restore net neutrality to all Americans who use broadband services, as
the Supreme Court made clear in Brand X. Such an action would merely be a formal
codification of the “Four Freedoms” established by the FCC in its 2005 policy statement,
which assured users “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running
“applications and services of their choice.”23 In the process, FCC’s action would afford
consumers the peace of mind to know that they, not corporate gatekeepers, hold the
power to decide the lawful content that they could access and exchange. It would provide
greater certainty by applying a uniform set of rules to all providers, under the
Commission’s oversight. And equally important, it would do so while still allowing
service providers to engage in reasonable network management, as long as they did not
cross the line into unlawful censorship of online activities and speech.
The future of the Internet as we know it is at stake. Now is the time for the
Commission to act by restoring net neutrality rules to all providers.
3. Mandatory Online Filters are Unconstitutional and Censor Lawful Speech
Recently, the Commission proposed rules that for the first time would impose a
requirement that licensees use mandatory filters to block certain websites and content.
Under the proposed rules for broadband wireless licenses in certain bandwidths,24 any
content deemed to be pornographic or harmful to adolescents or minors would have to be
automatically blocked by the licensee. Adult users could unblock the filter, but only after
affirmatively opting-out by identifying themselves and providing corroborating personal
23 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
24 The broadband wireless bandwidths affected by the proposed rules are in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2175 MHz, and 2175 MHz-2180 MHz bands.
9
information demonstrating they are eighteen years or older.25 The Commission’s
proposed rules are ill-conceived efforts to impose unconstitutional conditions on
licensees. The rules would censor the exchange of lawful content and violate the privacy
rights of users seeking to disable the filter to access that content.
The Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in COPA26 and
the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”).27 In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made
it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to
content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.28 “Sexual expression
which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 29 Therefore,
strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based regulation of speech, requiring the
Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.30 We can assume, without further comment, that the government
has a compelling interest in protecting minors. But “even where speech is indecent and
enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket
ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”31 And even if
the speech is merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny
25 See Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Dkt. Nos. 04-356 & 07-195.
26 Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681.
27 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103
28 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny
that should be applied” to the Internet).
29 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
30 Id.
31 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10
review.32 The proposed mandatory filters fail strict scrutiny because they are not the least
restrictive means and are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.33
The proposed rules offer no guidance regarding the content being censored, as
required by Miller v. California.34 They likewise do not identify who will make the
determination of what must be censored, or how that will be accomplished consistent
with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005.35 Contrary to Miller’s
mandate, the Commission has not identified the contemporary community standards that
are to be applied. The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the
CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way.36 Even if it were
possible to resolve the problems with the proposed rules under Miller, the Commission
has failed to explain how users could continue to access all material protected by the First
Amendment. Of course, no explanation exists – it is impossible to craft a mandatory
filter that would not block some constitutionally protected material and speech. In the
process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the
First Amendment. The application of the proposed rules is unworkable and as such, is
facially unconstitutional.37
32 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of
degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its contentbased
bans.”).
33 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion
– operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
34 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
35 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to
the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
36 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
37 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68
(1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and
11
Furthermore, requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority”
does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court rejected
a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user
to provide a credit card number, and found that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail
a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”38 Reno concluded that
“there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing
material” online.39 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting
enforcement of COPA,40 in part because the adult identification requirements it included
– like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrow tailoring’ that will save
an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”41 Moreover, requiring credit
card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it severely burdens the
expression of users and content providers who wish to maintain their privacy.42 It also
would violate the rights of those users to engage in constitutionally protected anonymous
where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too
imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the
statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
38 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877.
39 Id. at 855.
40 See 542 U.S. at 656.
41 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
42 See ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users
of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online
shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
12
speech.43 Federal courts have struck down similarly flawed identity requirements for
other communications media regulated by the Commission.44
Finally, the proposed mandatory filters are unconstitutional because there are less
restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected
Internet content. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an
alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of
restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”45 The Court recognized that
the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the
use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting
protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter
mandatory.46 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view
rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
We strongly urge the Commission to abandon its proposed rules to censor lawful
content and activity on the Internet. We respectfully submit that the Commission should
focus on enforcing neutrality rules to stop censorship by service providers, instead of
pursuing its own unconstitutional course of policing morality on the Internet.
43 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political
speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify
themselves).
44 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 754 (1996); Fabulous Assocs.,
Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990); ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F.
Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999).
45 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
46 Id. at 670 (emphasis added).
13
4. Deep Packet Inspections (DPI) Violate Privacy and Chill Speech
We also urge the Commission to scrutinize the growing practice of intrusive Deep
Packet Inspections (DPI), which service providers use to scrutinize data packets as they
traverse the Internet. Under the agreements and standards that established the Internet
and by which it continues to operate and thrive, network participants forward data
according to the “envelope” of each packet. Each envelope contains a destination and
return address and a few other basic pieces of information, which are separate from the
actual content of the packet. DPI involves scrutinizing the content itself. DPI is
intrinsically a highly suspect activity, because it threatens privacy and threatens the
neutrality of the Internet as a forum for speech. It has already been implicated in
numerous abusive online practices.
As a mechanism for examining the content of Internet traffic, DPI opens up a vast
realm of potential for privacy invasion. Americans expect that when they use an ISP or
broadband provider, their communications will be processed neutrally and privately just
as when they use a telephone or mail or package delivery service. They do not expect
their service provider to scrutinize the contents of their transmission, whether to collect
information about them, improve marketing efficiency, serve ads, or make technical
decisions over how the communication is delivered. Indeed, that is precisely why so
many Internet users install spyware applications on their computers. Unfortunately, those
applications do nothing to stop DPI, giving many Internet users a false sense of security
and privacy that no longer exists.
Services such as NebuAd and Phorm that scrutinize or alter the Internet traffic of
ISP customers represent merely the extreme of predictable attempts to exploit this
14
technology. Ultimately, this kind of behavior threatens to leave Americans’ online lives,
including their Web surfing, online reading, blog posting, Web searches, e-mails, and all
other activities vulnerable to snooping and manipulation. There is no end to the
“innovation” that could follow in using and abusing personal information. It could lead
to embarrassment and annoyance through “targeted marketing,” to adverse decisions
from insurance companies and financial institutions – and to a general chilling of the
Internet’s potential as a communications medium and forum for free speech.
Moreover, DPI undermines the neutrality principles in the Commission’s “Four
Freedoms” statement. Under the guise of applying differential pricing based on the
speed, volume, application preferences, or even the substance of content, service
providers would snoop on every facet of user activity. Such flagrant flouting of open
Internet rules on the pretext of monitoring the level of user activity is precisely what led
to Comcast’s unlawful actions against BitTorrent. DPI is incompatible with user freedom
and choice that are the foundation of the Internet as we know it.
DPI also threatens to blur the boundary between the forum in which speech and
communication takes place, and the content of that speech and communication. Some
examples illustrate this point. We do not allow the postal service to route mail according
to the content of letters. We do not allow the telephone companies to provide better
connections to those whose conversations the companies deem to be more important. We
do not allow governments to grant parade permits only to those protesters it thinks are
reasonable. We do not allow the chair of a hearing to alter Robert’s Rules of Order
according to the sagacity and eloquence of the speaker. Once the operator of a forum
begins to scrutinize the content of the communications that take place within it, it opens
15
up the potential for abuse, especially where there is money to be made. The Commission
must ask some very sharp questions about the reasons for that scrutiny, or, better yet, put
an end to it.
DPI has already been associated with a great deal of abuse. The presence of DPI
equipment (a Narus STA 6400) is part of what alerted whistleblower Mark Klein to the
existence of an apparent NSA warrantless wiretapping facility in a San Francisco AT&T
facility.47 DPI is what broadband provider Comcast used in its program of interfering
with peer-to-peer application traffic. DPI is what NebuAd and Phorm are using to
eavesdrop upon Internet users’ Web surfing for the purpose of serving ads. Additional
government surveillance will certainly follow the adoption of widespread DPI usage.
Defenders of DPI argue that restricting its use will curb innovation, but much of
the “innovation” that is taking place appears to be intrusive and dangerous to the health
of the Internet as a free and neutral forum for the exchange of information, speech and
expression. We do not allow the telephone company to “innovate” in how it can make
use of transcripts of our telephone calls – something that is now completely feasible –
because the benefits of such innovation would be far outweighed by its disadvantages. In
addition, credible network experts have argued that continuing growth in bandwidth is a
far better solution to any network congestion than interfering with the foundational
agreements that have brought the Internet to where it is today. We urge the Commission
to examine the increasing danger DPI poses, and to take appropriate action to ensure that
consumers are informed of the practice and their privacy is protected.
47 Wired, “Whistle-Blower’s Evidence, Uncut, May 22, 2006, available at
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944.
16
5. Unused Portions of the Broadband Spectrum must be developed to make the
Internet More Accessible
The Commission is charged to “make available, so far as possible, to all the
people of the United States” a communications system “with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges.”48 Changes in communications technology now provide the
Commission with an excellent opportunity to expand the availability of broadband access
to the American public, and promote the maximum possible range of content available to
the public.
Only a relatively small portion of the vast radio spectrum has been opened up for
unlicensed public use. On these tiny slices there has been an explosion of innovation,
from WiFi to cordless telephones to baby monitors to many other wireless devices, which
all share those small swaths of spectrum. As vacant frequencies become available due to
the evolution of technology, including the so-called white space between television
channels, the Commission should take advantage of the opportunities that technology
offers. The use of this public spectrum has tremendous implications for freedom of
speech because it makes the Internet more accessible and affordable for everyone. As
greater equality of access to the Internet is provided, our nation will benefit from the
vibrant marketplace of ideas that the online world has become. We urge the Commission
to facilitate the development of the untapped portions of the radio spectrum to the
maximum extent possible.
There are many options to expand spectrum use. New technologies such as
“spectrum sensing” as well as alternatives proposed by Google, Motorola and other
48 47 U.S.C. 151 § 1.
17
companies maximize spectrum use, without the risk of interference to existing television
channels. In any case, the Internet has been an astonishing engine for economic,
technological, political, and cultural innovation in recent years; the dramatic expansion of
affordable Internet access (as well as the potential explosion of innovation in devices)
that proper use of this unlicensed spectrum could generate far dwarfs the risk to the
public of interference on one or two television channels. In evaluating the technological
possibilities of such proposals, we ask the Commission to keep in perspective its larger
mission. The small risks of occasional interference and the pecuniary interests of
incumbent occupants of portions of the public airwaves must not be permitted to stand in
the way of this dramatic advance in the public interest. More broadly, we urge the
Commission, within the limits of its discretion provided by Congress, to take a greater
leadership role by embracing technologies that promise to eliminate or reduce the
technological scarcity of the airwaves.
We also urge the Commission to take greater steps to help bridge the digital
divide that leaves millions of socio-economically disadvantaged and geographically
isolated Americans without access to the Internet. Increasing use of new technologies to
expand the use of the broadband wireless spectrum will help narrow that divide. Other
proposals that would expand opportunities for service providers offering low cost or nocost
Internet access also are encouraging. But as the M2Z proposal illustrates, the
Commission must actively avoid unconstitutional conditions such as mandatory and
automatic filtering that would deny lawful content to economically disadvantaged users.
Online free speech must not be available only to those who can pay a fee.
18
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of
Pennsylvania applaud the FCC’s public hearings on the Internet. But the Commission
must do more. Today, the status of broadband and the digital future and the role of the
online marketplace of ideas are uncertain. The Commission can eliminate much of that
uncertainty immediately by reinstating neutrality principles, supported by the
Commission’s existing “Four Freedoms” policy. The future of the Internet must remain
robust, open, and free of censorship by both corporate gatekeepers and the Commission
itself. The regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and
content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text
messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality,
non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those
services. We urge the Commission to act consistently with these principles to ensure that
speech and association on the Internet has a future.
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services In the 2155-2175 MHz
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 2155-2175 MHz Band
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-195
WT Docket No. 04-356
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
Michael Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel
James Thomas Tucker, Policy Counsel
Christian Milan, United States of America Department of Justice Intern White House Fellow
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington Legislative Office
915 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1313
(202) 544-1681
July 25, 2008
SUMMARY
The ACLU supports making broadband services more accessible to the public through universal access and expansion of the broadcast spectrum, including efforts to develop the vast unused portions of the wireless spectrum. The Commission should ensure that any licenses granted to utilize that spectrum, including the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the proposed rules in these matters, guarantee users access to the lawful Internet content of their choice, using applications and services of their choice. At the same time, the Commission should decline to impose unconstitutional conditions on license applications, such as a requirement for so-called “family friendly” filters that would censor lawful content.
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 We also have provided comments on several of the recent petitions filed with the Commission that implicate neutrality principles.
The ACLU agrees with many of the concerns raised by Free Press, the Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge about the troubling conditions that the Petition and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would impose on a free and open Internet. However, we will limit our own comments to the Commission’s proposed requirement for “family-friendly” filters as a condition of granting a license for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands.
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
1
Commissioner Tate previously cautioned the Commission to “balance the needs of families in protecting their children with constitutional and statutory requirements.” WT Dkt. No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 86. Concerns about whether the proposed rule is unconstitutional are well-founded. In ACLU v. Ashcroft and ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”), P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103. Like the proposed “family friendly” filter, COPA and CDA were unconstitutional attempts by the government to impose mandatory regulations on the Internet to protect children. In this context, it does not matter that the censorship would be by a private licensee, if it is included by the Commission as a condition for issuing the license.
I. THE PROPOSED RULE IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW.
The proposed rule would impose content-based restrictions on speech by requiring automatic filters that block access to pornographic, obscene, indecent material, as well as “any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents.” In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.5 “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 6 Therefore, strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based
5 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied” to the Internet).
6 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
2
regulation of speech, requiring the Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.7
We can assume, without further comment, that the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors.8 But “even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”9 And even if the speech is not completely banned but merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny review.10 The Commission therefore bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulation is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government interest.11 The Commission cannot meet this burden because the proposed rule’s content-based restriction deprives adults of access to protected speech.
II. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD PROHIBIT ADULT ACCESS TO MATERIALS AND CONTENT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
The Commission’s proposed rule would automatically block access to “pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material that is unsuitable for minors. However, the rule offers no guidance of what would meet those definitions.
7 Id.
8 Of course, the Commission would have the burden of establishing that protecting minors is a compelling interest. The proposed rule treats all minors the same way. For example, an image from a health textbook depicting the male and female bodies might be suitable for a 16 year old, but inappropriate for a five year old. By classifying all such images as unsuitable for minors, regardless of the child’s age or the circumstances of the material or image, the rule raises serious questions whether the Commission will be able to meet its burden.
9 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.”).
11 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of non-persuasion – operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
3
Determination of what constitutes unprotected “obscene” material must comply with the standard set out by the Court in Miller v. California:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.12
The absence of guidance on how the proposed rule could meet the Miller standard raises a host of questions. Who is going to make that determination? Will the Commission do so? Will it be the service provider? How will it be accomplished consistent with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005?13 Additionally, what contemporary community standards are to be applied? Is the relevant community the worldwide community of Internet users, the local community in which the user resides, or some other community? Furthermore, what would be subject to being blocked? Would it be a single visible screen on which the material appears (which may be significantly less than a single Web page)? Would it include links to the Web site as a whole? Does it also include linked Web sites? Moreover, what state law prohibiting “patently offensive” materials would apply? Would it be the state in which the service provider is located? The location of whoever is responsible for creating or maintaining the Web page or site? Or would it be where the user is located? The same questions arise with respect to the proposed rule’s regulation of pornographic and indecent materials and materials unsuitable for minors.
12 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
13 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf. 4
The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way:
The general, undefined terms “indecent” and “patently offensive” cover large amounts of non-pornographic material with serious educational or other value. Moreover, the “community standards” criterion as applied to the Internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.14
The Court described several examples of constitutionally protected speech that would be barred by such a blanket prohibition: “discussions about prison rape or safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude subjects, and arguably the card catalog of the Carnegie Library.”15 Similarly, it could apply to a link that a parent e-mailed to his seventeen year old college freshman on birth control even though “neither he, his child, nor anyone in their home community found the material ‘indecent’ or ‘patently offensive,’ if the college town’s community thought otherwise.”16 By doing so, it would give a heckler’s veto to communities with the most restrictive standards, even if the vast majority of other communities, including the user’s own community, disagree.
Even if it were possible to resolve the problems with the proposal under Miller, the Commission has not explained how all material that is protected by the First Amendment would continue to be accessible. The reason is simple: some constitutionally protected material and speech would necessarily be blocked by the filtering requirement. In the process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The proposed rule’s application to
14 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
15 Id. at 878.
16 Id. 5
pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material unsuitable for minors is unworkable, and would inevitably deny adult users access to constitutionally protected materials and speech. As such, it is facially unconstitutional.17
III. THE PROPOSED RULE’S EXCEPTION FOR ADULT CUSTOMERS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS ADULTS EXACERBATES ITS VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Another unconstitutional aspect of the proposed rule would permit customers to disable the automatic filter after providing proof that they are adults. Without providing such proof, adult users would be denied their right to materials and information protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has struck down similar restrictions that attempt to “reduc[e] the adult population… to … only what is fit for children.”18 Specifically, in the context of the Internet, regardless of the stated interest in protecting children, “‘the level of discourse… cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”19
The Supreme Court already has found that requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority” does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court summarized the many problems of a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user to provide a credit card number:
[T]he imposition of such a requirement “would completely bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material”…. “There is evidence suggesting that
17 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68 (1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
18 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 759 (1996).
19 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 875 (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 74-75 (1983)).
6
adult users, particularly casual Web browsers, would be discouraged from retrieving information that required use of a credit card or password”…. An adult password requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and because the cost of creating and maintaining such screening systems would be “beyond their reach”….
“Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18.”20
The Court observed that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”21 As a result, Reno concluded that “there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material” online.22 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA,23 in part because the adult identification requirements it included – like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrowly tailoring’ that will save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”24
Moreover, requiring credit card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it would severely burden the expression of both users and content providers. In the COPA challenge, the district court found that “consumers on the Web do not like the invasion of privacy from entering personal information” and that any requirement they do so “would have a negative effect on users because it will reduce
20 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 856-57 (quoting the district court’s opinion).
21 Id. at 877.
22 Id. at 855.
23 See 542 U.S. at 656.
24 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
7
anonymity to obtain the speech… resulting in a loss of traffic to Web sites.”25 It also would force users to disclose personal information to a third party prior to being afforded access to constitutionally protected speech. In the process, it would place users in an untenable position: protect their privacy and forgo access to constitutionally protected speech and information, or exercise their First Amendment rights and forgo privacy.
Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment.26 Federal courts have struck down identity requirements for other communications media regulated by the Commission. For example, the Third Circuit struck down a law requiring adults to obtain access codes or other identification numbers in order to place a call to a telephone message service:
[T]he First Amendment protects against government inhibition as well as prohibition. An identification requirement exerts an inhibitory effect, and such deterrence raises First Amendment issues comparable to those raised by direct state-imposes burdens or restrictions…. [It is enough to invalidate a law where it is shown that] access codes will chill the exercise of some users’ right to hear protected communications.27
Another court struck down a similar requirement under New Mexico law “because it prevents people from communicating and accessing information anonymously.”28 As the Supreme Court explained in Denver, conditioning speech on identification requirements “will further restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the
25 ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
26 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify themselves).
27 Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990).
28 ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999). 8
‘patently offensive’ channel.”29 Any affirmative requirement for users to identify themselves and provide personal information as a condition for accessing material and information protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
IV. VOLUNTARY FILTERS ARE A LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ALLOWING ADULTS TO RESTRICT THE ACCESS OF THEIR CHILDREN TO CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
The proposed requirement for an automatic filter also is unconstitutional because there are less restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected indecent speech and materials on the Internet. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”30 As the Supreme Court explained in describing a voluntary filter in Ashcroft:
Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers.31
The Court recognized that the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter mandatory.32 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
29 518 U.S. at 754.
30 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
31 Id. at 667.
32 Id. at 670 (emphasis added). 9
The proposed rule would be unprecedented in the Commission’s broadband licensing system. Never before has the Commission conditioned a license for the broadband spectrum on a requirement that the licensee impose a mandatory block or filter of an entire class of protected speech. Never before has the Commission placed limitations on adults who can remove a mandatory filter by requiring that they first pay the licensee to access constitutionally protected material. As explained above, the reason is obvious: such a censorship model plainly violates the First Amendment and would be struck down when challenged. A paternalistic rule that authorizes the Commission to parent the parents through a mandatory filter that many adults – and perhaps the overwhelming majority of adults33 – will not be able to disable is unwarranted and facially unconstitutional. We urge the Commission to avoid setting a dangerous precedent of imposing unconstitutional conditions on licensees in the broadband spectrum.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU and Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU endorse efforts to exploit unused portions of the wireless broadband spectrum and to make the Internet more accessible for all Americans. However, even well-intentioned efforts to provide universal access or to make broadband services more affordable cannot come at the expense of the First Amendment. The Commission should reject all unconstitutional conditions on license applications for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the two
33 We believe that based upon the evidence developed in Ashcroft, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of adult subscribers to a “free” Internet service undoubtedly would find a requirement to pay to view blocked content or to provide personal information a barrier to exercising their First Amendment rights. 10
11
Petitions. In particular, the Commission should remove any requirements that licensees implement automatic “family friendly” filters that only can be removed by adult customers forced to forego their privacy and anonymity. The Commission is entrusted with the public airwaves and wireless broadband spectrum, and as part of that trust must enforce neutrality rules that guarantee Internet access free of government or service provider censorship. We urge the Commission to act in a manner consistent with those principles.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 2155-2175 MHz Band
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-195
WT Docket No. 04-356
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
Michael Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel
James Thomas Tucker, Policy Counsel
Christian Milan, United States of America Department of Justice Intern White House Fellow
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington Legislative Office
915 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1313
(202) 544-1681
July 25, 2008
SUMMARY
The ACLU supports making broadband services more accessible to the public through universal access and expansion of the broadcast spectrum, including efforts to develop the vast unused portions of the wireless spectrum. The Commission should ensure that any licenses granted to utilize that spectrum, including the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the proposed rules in these matters, guarantee users access to the lawful Internet content of their choice, using applications and services of their choice. At the same time, the Commission should decline to impose unconstitutional conditions on license applications, such as a requirement for so-called “family friendly” filters that would censor lawful content.
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 We also have provided comments on several of the recent petitions filed with the Commission that implicate neutrality principles.
The ACLU agrees with many of the concerns raised by Free Press, the Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge about the troubling conditions that the Petition and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would impose on a free and open Internet. However, we will limit our own comments to the Commission’s proposed requirement for “family-friendly” filters as a condition of granting a license for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands.
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
1
Commissioner Tate previously cautioned the Commission to “balance the needs of families in protecting their children with constitutional and statutory requirements.” WT Dkt. No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 86. Concerns about whether the proposed rule is unconstitutional are well-founded. In ACLU v. Ashcroft and ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”), P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103. Like the proposed “family friendly” filter, COPA and CDA were unconstitutional attempts by the government to impose mandatory regulations on the Internet to protect children. In this context, it does not matter that the censorship would be by a private licensee, if it is included by the Commission as a condition for issuing the license.
I. THE PROPOSED RULE IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW.
The proposed rule would impose content-based restrictions on speech by requiring automatic filters that block access to pornographic, obscene, indecent material, as well as “any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents.” In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.5 “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 6 Therefore, strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based
5 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied” to the Internet).
6 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
2
regulation of speech, requiring the Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.7
We can assume, without further comment, that the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors.8 But “even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”9 And even if the speech is not completely banned but merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny review.10 The Commission therefore bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulation is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government interest.11 The Commission cannot meet this burden because the proposed rule’s content-based restriction deprives adults of access to protected speech.
II. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD PROHIBIT ADULT ACCESS TO MATERIALS AND CONTENT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
The Commission’s proposed rule would automatically block access to “pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material that is unsuitable for minors. However, the rule offers no guidance of what would meet those definitions.
7 Id.
8 Of course, the Commission would have the burden of establishing that protecting minors is a compelling interest. The proposed rule treats all minors the same way. For example, an image from a health textbook depicting the male and female bodies might be suitable for a 16 year old, but inappropriate for a five year old. By classifying all such images as unsuitable for minors, regardless of the child’s age or the circumstances of the material or image, the rule raises serious questions whether the Commission will be able to meet its burden.
9 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.”).
11 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of non-persuasion – operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
3
Determination of what constitutes unprotected “obscene” material must comply with the standard set out by the Court in Miller v. California:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.12
The absence of guidance on how the proposed rule could meet the Miller standard raises a host of questions. Who is going to make that determination? Will the Commission do so? Will it be the service provider? How will it be accomplished consistent with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005?13 Additionally, what contemporary community standards are to be applied? Is the relevant community the worldwide community of Internet users, the local community in which the user resides, or some other community? Furthermore, what would be subject to being blocked? Would it be a single visible screen on which the material appears (which may be significantly less than a single Web page)? Would it include links to the Web site as a whole? Does it also include linked Web sites? Moreover, what state law prohibiting “patently offensive” materials would apply? Would it be the state in which the service provider is located? The location of whoever is responsible for creating or maintaining the Web page or site? Or would it be where the user is located? The same questions arise with respect to the proposed rule’s regulation of pornographic and indecent materials and materials unsuitable for minors.
12 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
13 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf. 4
The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way:
The general, undefined terms “indecent” and “patently offensive” cover large amounts of non-pornographic material with serious educational or other value. Moreover, the “community standards” criterion as applied to the Internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.14
The Court described several examples of constitutionally protected speech that would be barred by such a blanket prohibition: “discussions about prison rape or safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude subjects, and arguably the card catalog of the Carnegie Library.”15 Similarly, it could apply to a link that a parent e-mailed to his seventeen year old college freshman on birth control even though “neither he, his child, nor anyone in their home community found the material ‘indecent’ or ‘patently offensive,’ if the college town’s community thought otherwise.”16 By doing so, it would give a heckler’s veto to communities with the most restrictive standards, even if the vast majority of other communities, including the user’s own community, disagree.
Even if it were possible to resolve the problems with the proposal under Miller, the Commission has not explained how all material that is protected by the First Amendment would continue to be accessible. The reason is simple: some constitutionally protected material and speech would necessarily be blocked by the filtering requirement. In the process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The proposed rule’s application to
14 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
15 Id. at 878.
16 Id. 5
pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material unsuitable for minors is unworkable, and would inevitably deny adult users access to constitutionally protected materials and speech. As such, it is facially unconstitutional.17
III. THE PROPOSED RULE’S EXCEPTION FOR ADULT CUSTOMERS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS ADULTS EXACERBATES ITS VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Another unconstitutional aspect of the proposed rule would permit customers to disable the automatic filter after providing proof that they are adults. Without providing such proof, adult users would be denied their right to materials and information protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has struck down similar restrictions that attempt to “reduc[e] the adult population… to … only what is fit for children.”18 Specifically, in the context of the Internet, regardless of the stated interest in protecting children, “‘the level of discourse… cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”19
The Supreme Court already has found that requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority” does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court summarized the many problems of a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user to provide a credit card number:
[T]he imposition of such a requirement “would completely bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material”…. “There is evidence suggesting that
17 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68 (1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
18 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 759 (1996).
19 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 875 (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 74-75 (1983)).
6
adult users, particularly casual Web browsers, would be discouraged from retrieving information that required use of a credit card or password”…. An adult password requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and because the cost of creating and maintaining such screening systems would be “beyond their reach”….
“Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18.”20
The Court observed that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”21 As a result, Reno concluded that “there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material” online.22 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA,23 in part because the adult identification requirements it included – like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrowly tailoring’ that will save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”24
Moreover, requiring credit card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it would severely burden the expression of both users and content providers. In the COPA challenge, the district court found that “consumers on the Web do not like the invasion of privacy from entering personal information” and that any requirement they do so “would have a negative effect on users because it will reduce
20 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 856-57 (quoting the district court’s opinion).
21 Id. at 877.
22 Id. at 855.
23 See 542 U.S. at 656.
24 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
7
anonymity to obtain the speech… resulting in a loss of traffic to Web sites.”25 It also would force users to disclose personal information to a third party prior to being afforded access to constitutionally protected speech. In the process, it would place users in an untenable position: protect their privacy and forgo access to constitutionally protected speech and information, or exercise their First Amendment rights and forgo privacy.
Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment.26 Federal courts have struck down identity requirements for other communications media regulated by the Commission. For example, the Third Circuit struck down a law requiring adults to obtain access codes or other identification numbers in order to place a call to a telephone message service:
[T]he First Amendment protects against government inhibition as well as prohibition. An identification requirement exerts an inhibitory effect, and such deterrence raises First Amendment issues comparable to those raised by direct state-imposes burdens or restrictions…. [It is enough to invalidate a law where it is shown that] access codes will chill the exercise of some users’ right to hear protected communications.27
Another court struck down a similar requirement under New Mexico law “because it prevents people from communicating and accessing information anonymously.”28 As the Supreme Court explained in Denver, conditioning speech on identification requirements “will further restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the
25 ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
26 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify themselves).
27 Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990).
28 ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999). 8
‘patently offensive’ channel.”29 Any affirmative requirement for users to identify themselves and provide personal information as a condition for accessing material and information protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
IV. VOLUNTARY FILTERS ARE A LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ALLOWING ADULTS TO RESTRICT THE ACCESS OF THEIR CHILDREN TO CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
The proposed requirement for an automatic filter also is unconstitutional because there are less restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected indecent speech and materials on the Internet. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”30 As the Supreme Court explained in describing a voluntary filter in Ashcroft:
Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers.31
The Court recognized that the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter mandatory.32 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
29 518 U.S. at 754.
30 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
31 Id. at 667.
32 Id. at 670 (emphasis added). 9
The proposed rule would be unprecedented in the Commission’s broadband licensing system. Never before has the Commission conditioned a license for the broadband spectrum on a requirement that the licensee impose a mandatory block or filter of an entire class of protected speech. Never before has the Commission placed limitations on adults who can remove a mandatory filter by requiring that they first pay the licensee to access constitutionally protected material. As explained above, the reason is obvious: such a censorship model plainly violates the First Amendment and would be struck down when challenged. A paternalistic rule that authorizes the Commission to parent the parents through a mandatory filter that many adults – and perhaps the overwhelming majority of adults33 – will not be able to disable is unwarranted and facially unconstitutional. We urge the Commission to avoid setting a dangerous precedent of imposing unconstitutional conditions on licensees in the broadband spectrum.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU and Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU endorse efforts to exploit unused portions of the wireless broadband spectrum and to make the Internet more accessible for all Americans. However, even well-intentioned efforts to provide universal access or to make broadband services more affordable cannot come at the expense of the First Amendment. The Commission should reject all unconstitutional conditions on license applications for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the two
33 We believe that based upon the evidence developed in Ashcroft, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of adult subscribers to a “free” Internet service undoubtedly would find a requirement to pay to view blocked content or to provide personal information a barrier to exercising their First Amendment rights. 10
11
Petitions. In particular, the Commission should remove any requirements that licensees implement automatic “family friendly” filters that only can be removed by adult customers forced to forego their privacy and anonymity. The Commission is entrusted with the public airwaves and wireless broadband spectrum, and as part of that trust must enforce neutrality rules that guarantee Internet access free of government or service provider censorship. We urge the Commission to act in a manner consistent with those principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
