Internet, Law & Politics 2007 - User contributions [en]

Targeting the Youth Vote

2007-05-11T17:39:41Z

Cameri:

==Event==

'''Targeting the Youth Vote''' 
Presented by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/index.php] 
Students wishing to attend should email Prof. Palfrey. There is a $50 registration fee that may be waived. 
More information at Institute of Politics website[http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_idi_registration.php].

'''Conference''' 
Friday, March 9, 2007 
9:00 AM â 4:45 PM 
Sheraton Commander Hotel 
16 Garden Street 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
The George Washington Ballroom

==Notes==
A new generation has arrived. 18-29 year-olds are turning out in record numbers. Voting is a habit, which they are acquiring early. Within 9 years they will be 1/3 of the electorate. Partisanship develops during these years, and requires 2-3 election cycles to cement. Connecting with these voters requires both traditional campaign methods and new, innovative methods.

National Journal article dissecting the rise in youth voters: http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm

I was only able to attend the afternoon sessions; if anyone attended the morning and can fill in the notes that would be fantastic. 
-jon bashford

===Welcome===
(10:00 â 10:15)
*Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Director, Institute of Politics

===IDI Project Findings===
(10:15 â 11:15)
*Moderated by: John Della Volpe, Polling Director, Institute of Politics
*David King, Lecturer in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Research Director, Institute of Politics
*Max Anderson, student, Kennedy School of Government
*Nicole Yakatan, Principal, Y Research and Marketing

===Case Study: Michigan Gubernatorial Race===
(11:30 â 12:30)
*Moderated by: Kathy Barks Hoffman, Michigan AP Lansing Correspondent
*Howard Edelson, Campaign Manager, Granholm for Governor
*Greg McNeilly, Campaign Manager, DeVos for Governor

===Lunch and Keynote: Youth Vote and Technology in 2008===
(12:30 â 2:00)
Moderated by: Governor Jeanne Shaheen

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Mike Murphy''', Republican Strategist
**Youth vote is critical
***Has become increasingly democratic: close to 60%
***John Kerry's best demographic group
***Technology is critical, but fundamentally messaging is the most important
****Micro-targeting "fetishism" among Republicans
****Especially important to find your supporters among "independents"
**What is the internet?
***When describing it to older pols, he calls it "free stamps"
***There was a time when a major campaign issue was paying for more stamps than your opponent; the technology changes that balance
*'''Joe Trippi''', Democratic Strategist
**McCain to Dean
***McCain: most significant use of technology up to 2000
****40,000 people signed up after New Hampshire, raised million$
****Lacking some important tools:
*****Meetup.com
*****Broadband
***Dean: took it to a new, unforeseen level
****650,000 people
**Next?
***Trippi thinks the next big tech-candidate will get half a billion dollars from the internet
***New tools:
****Facebook
****YouTube
***Like TV to radio, there is a change of medium
****The JFK-Nixon parallel: Nixon was well-suited for radio but not TV
****Phoniness of 30-second spot to cell-camera authenticity: harder to control message, young people become more engaged because (1) it is their technology, (2) it shows authenticity, which appeals to the young

====Moderated Discussion====
*Shaheen: Q about MySpace: Major Dem candidates have 80,000 friends; Republican candidates have about 2500 friends.
**Murphy: America is more aligned by culture than by class, resulting in a social agenda gap with the under-30s. If Republicans don't start operating there, they're finished. He's noticed the ridiculously early start to 2008, but thinks that as voters and candidates evolve the field could change. Obama is the only candidate who has actually connected with people so far. In 6 months, check back on Facebook to see the growth in the demographic; if the Republicans are still so far behind, he would be concerned.
***Prediction: Hillary will lose in the primary. For Republicans, the new primary calendar may favor Guilliani from Iowa and New Hampshire bump going into California's early primary. Romney and McCain are the others to watch.
**Trippi:
***There are 4 campaigns who are already far ahead of the $400,000 Dean online fundraising for first quarter 2003. Hillary has $1M; Obama; Edwards; Richarson is also ahead of where Dean was at this time (which may be somewhat surprising, and be an early indication of his connection).
***It is not yet clear where the comfortable online place is for normal people; if you went to DailyKos to express appreciation for Hillary's latest speech you'd be flamed. As the election gets closer, some online space will mature for a more moderate forum.
***Text-messaging: Dean was the largest text-messaging network in America in 2004 with 5,000 people. It will be more powerful in '08, it is useful, but it will not be the end-all of American politics (this cycle, at least). Dean used it along with email to increase TV ratings for shows on which Dean appeared, "tricking" the media into extra coverage.
****Shaheen: Hamas used text msgs to get the vote out last year.
***Prediction: it's still anyone's game. With the new calendar: Gephart would have been the nominee in 84 if he had run on this calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire will be MORE important than in the past, because NH vote will be a huge factor in the CA vote.

====Questions from audience====
*Q: which candidates will energize young people?
**Murphy: Romney, McCain, and Guilliani all have a good chance of doing so. Karl Rove will run but lose. Brownback or Huckabee may have a run at it.
**Trippi: Obama definitely appeals to young people. Hillary inspires young women. Edwards also inspires young people. The problem is, the early states are some of the oldest states in the country--the Dean internet organization was not very heavy in Iowa.
*Q from student from Students for Obama: the org began as an internet group, and has been building towards the ground (which is different from ground->net). Power of Facebook seems untapped.
**Trippi: The tools are still evolving. As Dean saw: how do you get the online activity to come offline? The tools are better than they were 4 years ago. It takes resources to build the code, but today you can know where each of your people is and coordinate their actions. Small groups like this that are independent from the campaign and national party are exciting part of the mess of democracy.
**Murphy: All technology eventually becomes push technology. It begins as opt-in, but when it becomes push-tech it is less fun, you have to deal with rejection (see knocking on doors). Internet has turned mailing lists alive, made it possible to converse with them.
*Q: What challenges do peer-to-peer networks face when trying to make them sustainable?
**Trippi: A lot of this is trying to put to much on one thing, like a single Facebook group. How is Obama even going to know that 300,000 would take interest in a group? What the campaign has to figure out is how to empower those group members to take action--perhaps for a start by visiting the campaign website, then maybe even to knock on doors. Trippi sees a field full of Goliaths (the parties, the candidates, the issues) and lots of powerless Davids. The question is not "how do we stay the Goliath" but "how can I give these people slingshots?" Help them slay an opposing candidate, or an issue like global warming.
***My thought: what happens when they train the slingshot on you?
*Q from former Harvard College Dems president: To what extent does the Iowa boost control the momentum in New Hampshire and determine the primary?
**Trippi: New Hampshire can slap down the arrogant or those who don't have "that thing." But those 2 states have everything. In 04, everyone was broke after IO and NH. The surpise in 04 was that Kerry won NH when Dean was expected to take it. If the received wisdom is that Hillary wins in Iowa and someone else takes it, all the money in the world doesn't change the fact that the upstart will win.
**Murphy: The biggest mechanical mistake made in McCain 2000, was trying to move the South Carolina primary back. Picking fight by taking NH, then needed some time to recharge the bank after that. They succeeded in moving the primary, but it turned out that it was Bush who needed the time to recoup, and he was able to come back to win SC--under the previous, or the current calendar McCain would have won. He thinks if someone can be top 2 in Iowa and win NH, they will dry up the money for every other candidate and take it.
**Trippi: on the topic of unintended consequences, in '88 the Dems moved a bunch of Southern states to Super Tuesday in hopes of getting a Southern candidate--the result was Dukakis. ????
*Q: what strategy for candidates to engage (or not engage) the blogosphere?
**Trippi: is "flabbergasted" that the candidates are doing so little. Dean was a terrible blogger; he made his blogging debut on Lessig's blog and made some fairly innane comments ("This is terrific, it's terrific to be blogging here today") resulting in some scrambling by the campaing manager (Trippi), but it resulted in a truly authentic moment. The campaign made a fair amount of hay out of the candidate being his authentic, awkward self--it built a lot of credibility that it wasn't ghost-written.
**Murphy: Internet based on a model that the best stuff will bubble to the top. But: all campaigns have press hacks who spend a lot of time researching bad stuff on the opponents. The hacks send out information (or mis-information) to blogs, and some small blogs pick up on it without checking; the mainstream press can be led around by this when the then report based on those couple of blogs that this is what "the blogosphere" thinks.
*Q: What does it mean that the youth vote favors "authenticity"?
**Murphy: Watching Obama (who he likes), he thinks his campaign could become too cute. Some candidates might try to pre-package authenticity, creating a phony, self-parodying authenticity (see the Hillary announcement video, in which she doesn't come across as human but rather as a poll robot.)
**Trippi: We are already seeing phony authenticity. Thinking back to DeanTV, they were able to keep 24-hour news feed based on videos made by volunteers. One video showed the beginning of a rally, where a student organizer gushed that he was skipping a final to be there, and Dean went from puffed-up presidential material to an authentic worried-father type. Those kinds of authentic moments will come out in this election cycle.
**Murphy: voters are interested in authenticity, but not to the point of offensiveness.
*Q: (1) What is the best message for Republicans with youth voters? (2) How can it be implemented? (3) What use are robo-calls?
**Murphy:
***(1) Best message is freedom & authenticity;
***(2) Republicans need to flood the communication channels, including by putting young voters front-and-center;
***(3) Robo-calls are used by everyone but the public hates them. The only times he thinks they should be used are when there is an especially compelling speaker (i.e. Schwartzeneggar) and they are programmed to leave messages but not to talk to a live person.
*Q: What can parties do to retain younger people as committed members of a party, or are those days over?
**Trippi: Those days are over. Either party can put up attractive, personality-based candidates. See Reagan, who spurred a cohort to sign up as Republican and continue that way. When one of those rare people comes into power, they make long-term changes. While the parties should make every effort to organize and empower youth voters, a single candidate can change the image of the entire party for the long term. We may well see that with the Republicans this cycle. We are also getting close to the point where a 3rd-party candidate could take it, in part because of the technology, and in part because the 2 major parties have ground the public to the point of apathy.
**Murphy: All the trends are towards independent voters. Many always vote one party or the other, but don't want to be beholden or labelled.

===Emerging Election Tactics===
(2:00 â 3:15)
Moderated by: Heather Smith, Director, Young Voter Strategies

====Opening Remarks====
*'''Allison Dale''', University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D. student (Text messaging)
**Interested in empirical methods of testing campaign strategies. She worked in the NH Dean campaign in '04, leading to a desire to field experiment with text messaging in the '08 election.
**1/4 of Americans under 25 are mobile-phone only; soon 1/3 of the entire electorate will be mobile-only.
**Experiment:
***This requires getting their numbers. Working Assets, Student PIRG, Mobile Voter and others supplied them with a sample of 14,300 cell numbers.
***Half were control group.
***Other half received reminder
***Some received msg: "Polling information at" phone # for People for the American Way, giving polling place addresses.
***Some received "Please vote" message
***Some received "Close election" message
***Results not yet in
**Follow-up survey:
***Asked about how people feel about receiving text messages
***Results:
****Overall, 43% of people thought positively about receiving the messages
****People most prefered to be contacted by text messages, over email, phone, or in-person contact
****A distict minority were bothered by receiving the messages
*'''Professor John Palfrey''', Harvard Law School Berkman Center (Online Video)
**Gap between digital natives and digital immigrants:
**Use of internet in politics and strengthening democracy
***Increased use of video: natives like image accompanied by text, while immigrants think in terms of text accompanied by an image
***Campaigns and tactics:
****Most common use is another form of TV: Clinton and videos feel very much like a campaign video--it may be effective, but is not transformative
****You can think of creating a channel or RSS feed
***Videos by those outside the campaign:
****Candidates are always on, always in a "public" space
***Is it possible to use read/write technologies to engage young voters?
****"Generation Web" video
****It is not clear whether any candidacy will give up control to use this power
*'''Lowell Feld''', Founder of the Raising Kaine blog, former Netroots Coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign
**Goaded Webb to run
***Through email, he pushed Jim Webb to run. Webb was concerned about fundraising, and about the reception he would get
***Created DraftJimWebb.com, getting 1000 signatures and $40,000 in pledges in 1 month.
***Was eventually hired by the campaign
**Lessons:
***Netroots played a huge role.
***Many candidates think they can jump-start web presence by starting a website, but the process is organic and bottom-up. The model of raising small money from big crowds was successful and led to a perception of "authenticity". It may prove difficult to replicate the model because it is not just a formula.
***Messaging was important, but not micro-targeted in this campaign. It was one message for everyone.
***The "macaca moment" was not an accident. It was a "forced error" in the sense that he was under pressure. He was forced out of Iowa and into Virginia, where he was followed around with a camera.
*'''Ron Bell''', Deval Patrick's Director of Public Liason Department; Founder and Executive Director of Dunk the Vote (Grassroots Organizing)
**Tailoring old-style campaign methods to the new world
***Trust the grassroots: allow people to become their own campaign managers
**Dunk the Vote:
***Voter registration drives at basketball tournament; the first year they registered 1500 participants and viewers during the 3-day tournament
***2006: they registered 40,000 people
***This was a lot of work. Youth voters aren't apathetic, but they need to be approached in a way that engages them, and talk about issues that matter to them.
***Young people ARE voting in Massachusetts, and this is a spreading trend.
*'''Chris Kelly''', CIPP, Facebook (Social Networking)
**What Facebook is:
***Founded at Harvard 3 years ago
***Goals:
****Short term, to track the user's actual social network, not create online social network from scratch.
****Long-term, to grow the networks over time.
***Today, largest photo site on the web
***1

==Insights==

Andrew O'Connor -- a couple insights from the Youth Vote Conference

In light of our discussion about presidential candidates' use of web video, I thought it was interesting that the Republican Michigan Gubernatorial candidate made such good use of "unscripted" video diaries. Each week, the candidate recorded some thoughts, usually while in the car between stops, and a staffer interspersed some B-roll and threw it on the web. Apparently, his "VLOGs" were the must heavily used feature on his site. This suggests that people are looking for the unscripted interaction that the presidential candidates were not willing to provide. Yet, even this was not completely "unscripted"; the candidate was still making the points he wanted to make, and if he had said anything too off message, it could easily be edited out. Nonetheless, the web may provide an excellent opportunity for candidates to present themselves in a more casual light, and at least give the impression that they are being spontaneous. Although this use of the web is more strategic than democracy enhancing, it may still serve to give voters a better sense of a candidate's personality, which is sometimes hard to grasp from brief TV spots.

30% of the youth market in that race lacked a land line phone--that in combination with the statistics regarding preferred method of contact (32% said they wanted to be reminded to vote by text messages, 29% by email) suggests that as this market expands, there is a tremendous potential for cost savings. Although in-person calls may be slightly more effective, text messages are cheap and don't require nearly the same amount of labor as phone banks. Relying on cell phones also helps relieve the perennial problem of updating databases when land line numbers change. As the campaign managers mentioned, the cost effectiveness of email and text messages also allows candidates to stay in contact with voters even between elections.

In response to Trippi's comments about figuring out how to give people "slingshots" to stand up to Goliath (the other party, etc.), aside from getting them to donate money or volunteer, my first thought was to have them put links on their blog or website. But given the power law phenomenon, that doesn't seem like it would be very effective--you'd probably only have a handful of people visit your page. Yet, a handful is better than none, and if lots of people put links up, that would be helpful. But to tie in another reading, Sunstein would suggest that the people who visit your site (probably your friends) are already likely to agree with you. Even if you're not changing people's minds, though, you might still encourage them to become more active or remember to donate money. In the end, I'm guessing that might add a lot of value.

==Final Moderated Panel==
I had occasion to attend the final panel, moderated by former New Hampshire Governor Jeane Shaheen, of the Institute of Politicsâ symposium on targeting the youth vote. The panel featured Chris Battle (campaign manager for the Hutchinsonâs bid for Governor of Arkansas); Jim Ross (campaign manager for the Kulongoskiâs bid for Governor of Oregon); John Walsh (Deval Patrickâs campaign manager); Vince Galko (Former Senator Santorumâs campaign manager); and Ellyne Bannon (National Director of the Student Public Intererst Groups).

Right from the get-go Deval Patrickâs campaign manager, made a startling admission; while the Patrick campaign made âextensiveâ (vague/ambiguous much?) use of technology, he, as campaign manager, was by all accounts, a techno-neophyte. As such, he would refrain from commenting on the technological tactics used. Instead, he launched into a long-winded narrative on the âphilosophyâ of the campaign. As he waxed nostalgic on the successes of the campaign, it struck me as more on attempt to massage his own ego, as opposed to an earnest effort at a conveying the importance of the youth vote. Indeed, his reluctance to comment on any technological aspect of the campaign makes me wonder whether it merely represented an individual orientation, or was indicative of campaign-wide indifference to the opportunities afforded. Based solely on Mr. Ross's testimony, I'd venture to say that the Patrick campaigns online efforts were disjointed and haphazard.

Mr. Ross' admission was all the more striking when held in comparison to Rick Santorum's wide-sweeping online efforts. For instance, Mr. Santorum's campaign manager repeatedly stressed the importance of integrating their online efforts with other, more traditional facets of their campaign. In addition, he also called attention to the importance of connecting with and empowering youth audiences using a variety of mediums, including, but not limited to, social networking sites. Indeed, he noted how he ceded a significant amount of control to his 24 year old new media manager who was able to raise millions and recruit thousands online. Moreover, the campaigns also used text messaging and blogs to help spread their message. In short, irrespective of your political leanings, I'd argue that Santorum's campaign came to embrace the new political realities of our now more interconnected, electronic society and will hopefully set an example for future campaigns.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-03T15:36:33Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

=Summary -- Arguments against=
*Our argument against the resolution can be summarized as follows
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights" are subjective terms, both historically and currently.
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights," even on an objective scale, have fluctuated both worldwide and within the United States
*Isn't the United States even currently an "oppressive regime" on some scale, and doesn't it also allow "human rights" violations on its own soil?
*Free markets and consumer education should address political elitism; government regulation has no place here
*Advancements in human rights are not the preordained outcome of a scenario where US companies stay out of "oppressive regimes"

=PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?=

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

=PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)=

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Political expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

=PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES=

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-03T15:36:04Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

=Arguments against=
*Our argument against the resolution can be summarized as follows
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights" are subjective terms, both historically and currently.
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights," even on an objective scale, have fluctuated both worldwide and within the United States
*Isn't the United States even currently an "oppressive regime" on some scale, and doesn't it also allow "human rights" violations on its own soil?
*Free markets and consumer education should address political elitism; government regulation has no place here
*Advancements in human rights are not the preordained outcome of a scenario where US companies stay out of "oppressive regimes"

=PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?=

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

=PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)=

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Political expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

=PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES=

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-03T15:35:21Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

==Arguments against==: our argument against the resolution can be summarized as follows
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights" are subjective terms, both historically and currently.
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights," even on an objective scale, have fluctuated both worldwide and within the United States
*Isn't the United States even currently an "oppressive regime" on some scale, and doesn't it also allow "human rights" violations on its own soil?
*Free markets and consumer education should address political elitism; government regulation has no place here
*Advancements in human rights are not the preordained outcome of a scenario where US companies stay out of "oppressive regimes"

=PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS= (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Political expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-03T15:34:59Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

==Arguments against==: our argument against the resolution can be summarized as follows
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights" are subjective terms, both historically and currently.
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights," even on an objective scale, have fluctuated both worldwide and within the United States
*Isn't the United States even currently an "oppressive regime" on some scale, and doesn't it also allow "human rights" violations on its own soil?
*Free markets and consumer education should address political elitism; government regulation has no place here
*Advancements in human rights are not the preordained outcome of a scenario where US companies stay out of "oppressive regimes"

==PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS== (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Political expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-03T15:34:10Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against: our argument against the resolution can be summarized as follows
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights" are subjective terms, both historically and currently.
*"oppressive regimes" and "human rights," even on an objective scale, have fluctuated both worldwide and within the United States
*Isn't the United States even currently an "oppressive regime" on some scale, and doesn't it also allow "human rights" violations on its own soil?
*Free markets and consumer education should address political elitism; government regulation has no place here
*Advancements in human rights are not the preordained outcome of a scenario where US companies stay out of "oppressive regimes"

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Political expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-02T22:47:58Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, thusdebate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign entity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-02T22:46:43Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, these debate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign immunity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-02T22:45:52Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA & Library filters
*****- Limitations of filtering technology results in extensive over-blocking of legitimate material.
******Patrons seeking legitimate filtered material are forced to ask to have content unblocked. Patrons may be reluctant to ask, however, out of fear of being stigmatized.
******Library terminals may be the only source of internet access for community members of limited means. As such, by deploying filtered internet terminals, these individuals may be denied the opportunity to fully engage the medium.
******Pending legislation (Deleting Online Predators Act) would extend CIPA's reach to social networking sites.
******Nevertheless, we've balanced the aforementioned shortcomings against a desire to shield children from offensive, âinappropriateâ material.
*******Courts have found internet filters to be a suitable compromise. Indeed, CIPA was found to be constitutional, and continues to tie federal funding to deployment of filters on library terminals.
******In essence, these debate turns on what sovereign entities, using cultural norms, values, and government objectives as a guide, deem to be âappropriate.â
*******Private entities (Google et al.) are forced to comply with our limitations and restrictions. Why donât we accord the norms, values, and objectives of another sovereign immunity the same level of deference/respect?
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

PART III: EVEN IF UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES STAY OUT OF THE REGIMES IN QUESTION, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOING SO WILL IMPROVE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THESE COUNTRIES

*There are two different ways that those in favor of the resolution can frame the issue.
**On the one hand, the "civil liberties" (I will assume for the time being that it is clear what this concept means) can be the focus. If it is, the argument would go something like this: American technology companies should distance themselves from countries A through Z because doing so would protect the civil liberties of the cititzens of those countries.
***This would be a very powerful argument if it was true. However, this argument is fatally flawed for at least two reasons:
****There is no reason to believe that if American technology companies pulled out of countries A through Z that foreign interests would not step in and fill the gap. Indeed, economic theory suggests that this is exactly what would happen. If this happens, civil liberties would be the same as they were before (or worse depending on who fills the gap) AND these US technology companies would be responsible for decreasing GDP (or GNP depending on what is being sold) since they have reduced USA's share of global technology business. In short, civil liberties are unaffected and we are economically worse off. (The economic impact is likely to be minor, but it nonethelessis worth noting).
****Let us assume for a second that the United States is the only country in the world that can meet the demand for internet related technology and services in these countries. If this is true, and American companies pull out, those in favor of the resolution would have to argue one of two things. On the one hand they could argue that the governments of these countries will consider an "internetless" society to not be an option and accordingly will give into America's demands and provide unrestricted (or much less restricted) access. Given how important filitering is to most of these countries, this is almost laughable. On the other hand, those in favor of the resolution could argue that these countries will resist the United States and--if these American companies stick to their guns--have no internet for a while. The argument continues by advancing that the citizens of these countries (and perhaps foreign interests) will apply enough pressure to make these governments give in. Today foreign interests encourage many of these countries to provide less restricted access and it does not seem to be having much of an affect. Moreover, given the sheer strength of these governments, it is not at all clear to me that the citizens would win this battle any time in the foreseeable future. To the extent that this is accurate, restricted internet access is much better than no internet at all.
*****We also cannot forget that if American technology companies do not pull out of these countries, they can use their expertise, competitive advantage, and market dominance to slowly encourage the leaders of countries A through Z to loosen internet based restrictions. This challenges the argument that things will stay the same indefinately if American companies stay in these countries (more on this later).
**On the other hand, the focus can be on the collective conscience of the American people. In other words, the argument might be: The civil liberties of the citizens of countries A through Z are heavily constrained and, aside from ousting the current governent (and it is not clear that this would work for certain), there is little that the American people can do to change that. However, at the very least, we can take pride in the fact that we are not at all responsible for the curent situation.
***If the focus is on "us" rather than "them", and it seems to me that if we really consider the resolution this is the case, albeit selfish, the argument is more difficult to rebut. That is to say, we were focused on our feelings and at the end of the day, we feel better...mission accomplished! However, shouldn't the focus be on how they feel and what they get, not on how we feel and what we get?
****Knowing that American companies are not "profiting off of the misfortune of citizens of other countries" may make Americans feel better no matter what happens. However, it is almost certainly the case that pulling out of these countries does nothing to improve the position of the people who really matter in this instance: those whose "civil liberties" have been deprived.
*****If foreign interests fill the void that is left by American companies pulling out, we might feel better about ourselves, but the rights of the citizens of these countries remain unchanged (and could become even more restricted if they wrong people pick up the slack that American companies have left behind). In this case, how Americans feel should not be the focus. American technology companies should be focused on using their expertise, competitive advantage and market power to expand the number of people in the world who have near unfettered access to the internet in a manner that is quick yet respectful of the fact that the American way of thinking is not the only way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with using influence to get others to come around to one's way of thinking. Yet, there is something wrong with simply saying my way or the highway. Just walking away because Americans are of the opinion that things are not perfect in these countries may make us feel better but it does nothing to improve the position of those less fortunate.
*****If American companies pull out of countries A through Z, and foreign interests do not fill the void left by American companies, chances are that the citizens of these countries will be left with no internet at all. It is possible that this might produce an environment that is so volitile that the citizens revolt and eventually get unrestricted internet. However, it is not at all clear to me that the United States should be the body determining under what conditions the people of Thailand, for example, get internet access just because exercising that power allows us to distance ourselves from the problem and concomitantly feel better. To make matters worse, American companies would be pulling out in hopes that doing so creates political unrest in a foreign country which almost always seems like a dubious objective if for no other reason than it assumes that our belief system is superior to that of the countries in question.
*At the end of the day, if American technology companies pull out of the countries in question, the American people may feel better about themselves. However, the citizens of the countries in question are either going to be the same as they were before or even worse off. It is selfish and elitist for American companies to pull out of these countries in hopes of making Americans feel better when they can stay and slowly implement change in a way that respects the legitimacy of foreign governments.

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-01T08:17:12Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA
****Library filters
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-01T08:10:11Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA
****Library filters
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure
[[Media:Example.ogg]]

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-01T08:06:29Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures (Cite: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1694294,00.html)
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing (Cite: Ibid)
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â (Cite: http://savegooglefreechina.org/)
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA
****Library filters
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

Debate 3-Argument Against the Resolution

2007-04-01T07:04:23Z

Cameri:

"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Arguments against:

PART I: UNITED STATES CIVIL LIBERTIES HISTORYâHOW CAN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER NATIONS (particularly developing or third-world nations)?

*What are âcivil libertiesâ and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?
**There is no debate that free speech and political associationâincorporated in the 1st Amendment, are near and dear to the United States
**Yet these and other liberties have changed with time even inside the United States
***This is not necessarily a Act
***Compare the US to Germany
****US: filtering free speech âyes;â banning ânoâ
****But are we outraged at a ban on Nazi propaganda in FRA and DEU? (Apparently only to âdie-hard civil libertariansâ per Zittrain and Palfrey)
**Education, segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education were not significantly addressed for 100 years after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
***Even then, Brown and its progeny were handed down when the United States was the laughing stock of the Western world
***Our post-Brown society is hardly non-discriminatory; should the EU ban private countries from trading or supplying services to us?
**Textualist and originalist interpretations of âfundamental rights,â focused on the Bill of Rights, only gave way to broader âsubstantive due processâ rights in times of stability.
***Contrast the fall of economic substantive due process in the post-Lochner New Deal era with the rise of individual rights substantive due process in the Warren Court
***Speech, association, sexual orientation, and abortion have all become protected only in the aftermath of the economic juggernaut that is the post-1960âs United States\
**Like many other rights, the right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information, is not absolute. It can be reasonably restricted on the grounds of public order, health, morality, or the rights of others. For this reason, even corporations that are providing Internet services have to facilitate the freedom of speech, or of press, within such applicable limitations. For example, a corporation does not ignore its website being used for inciting terrorism, promoting genocide, spreading social hatred, selling slaves, or facilitating music piracy for that matter.
**Even what the United States defines as morally enlightened would be deemed somewhat stunted by past and present civilizations and nations
***Natural law?
***If coexisting in time, the United States could justifiably bar certain works from ancient Greece that celebrated pedophilia
***Is it not justifiable that countries desiring to balance individual rights vs. central governmental power in a different way than ours to do the same thing?
**Freedom not only involves the freedom âto doâ something, but the freedom âfromâ something
***Property law and exclusion
***Uniformity v. assault of ideas
***Socialism v. democracy
****âAn everyday act of law enforcement in an authoritarian market looks like a human rights violation to a more liberal oneâ
****Socialism offers less protection of free expression, but more protection of economic parity. If citizens balance in a different way than ours, is that wrong?
****It is odd that we rile against socialist states performing the very functions of protecting the needs of the many over the needs of the few while we protect membership in such political parties here in the United States
****Is it thus âOKâ to hold such viewpoints only if the threat to United States policy and politics is small?
**The United States has no problem, by GATT or otherwise, doing business with China and other countries on an economic basis
***The GATT is relatively bankrupt of human rights requirements
***Although GATS offers theoretically more, it is a voluntary and country-specific treaty
****Both of those conditions were pressed by the United States before it signed on to GATS
***If a country wants to utilize those conditions to avoid what it sees as a threat to political or societal stability, how can we complain?
**Google and other private industries are just thatâ¦private.
***Mission statements are not a basis for regulation and punitive measures
***Making all possible information available to anyone with a computer or mobile phone
***Is that really applicable even in the United States?
***Perhaps we should focus on possible and leave it at that
****There are technical precedents. In Germany, Google follows government orders by restricting references to sites that deny the Holocaust.
****In France, it obeys local rules prohibiting sites that stir up racial hatred.
****In the US, it assists the authoritiesâ crackdown on copyright infringements
***The âenlightenmentâ of the United States regarding civil liberties is founded on and continues to focus on state action. The fear is generally of the state, not private actors
****Brown v. Board of Education
****Loving v. Virginia
****Croson and Adarand contracts cases
****1st Amendment cases
****Romer v. Evans
***The Supreme Court finds that our Constitution reaches private parties usually only via the Commerce Clause; otherwise we utilize state police power
****Heart of Atlanta Motel
****Katzenbach v. McClung
****Racism, sexism, and homophobia by the citizenry remain not only rampant but protected for the most part in the United States
****How is the ambiguity and broad applicability of âpublic safety and welfareâ (state police power in the United States) different than acts that âmay jeopardize state security and disrupt social stabilityâ (China)?
**From both an historical and economic standpoint, the United States tolerates private trade with other nations despite their political or human rights agenda
***Business is what allows the âfatâ of philosophical discourse
***Trade wars over universal norms (~ natural law) should be a real concern
***Let private citizens fix the market if they perceive a deficit
****Divestment from South Africa in the apartheid era was due mostly to political action and awareness campaigns by private citizens, not by the government (formal policies were not introduced until 1986ââpiling onâ to extant unrest and an AIDS epidemic)
****If we want to stop Google, each citizen is free to stop buying Google stock, stop using Google or stop purchasing from its advertisers
**Even a limited internet is better than no internet at all
***China and other countries are simply outsourcing
***Google.com, if available, may be blocked or filtered by the governmentâs own devices
***Googleâs filtered site still increases speed
****Albeit not complete information
*****Notice is still given re: filter
*****Gaming, chatting, making friends, and business transactions are still possibleâthese are the high volume uses of the internet
*****Is it the blockade of elite diatribe that bothers us?
****But a degraded search experience is almost as bad if not worse than an incomplete one
****Who here surfed at 14.4?
****Would we have the content if that standard were still in place?
***Chinese bloggers, etc. are still receiving money from advertising
****â[By] paying ad sense money to bloggers and other web folk in China, Google is getting independent financial resources to the most progressive members of Chinese society.â
***Even the United States monitors its citizens
****Are we truly âfreeâ on the internet?
****Are we even truly âfreeâ on the telephone?
***If we can define a baseline level of information, such as national and local news, recreation, availability of services necessary to exist, then anything above that is just frosting on the cake
***The effect of restrictions may be minimal in countries that can ill afford internet infrastructure

PART II: EVEN TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS FILTERING AND CENSORING; THE DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY INDICATES CONTROVERSY, SO PUSHING OUR VIEWS ON OTHERS IS ARROGANT AND ELITIST (Palfrey and Zittrain Articles)

*What are we âenforcing?â
**Again, what makes the United States the authority on morals, norms, utility, etc.?
***International law and norms?
***Natural law?
***It seems legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
**Sex, commerce, culture, politics
***The US regulates the first three
**Political matter of âembryonicâ growth gradually and inevitably into âenlightened,â but oftentimes varies or even explodes depending on factors such as economic or social distress, war, etc.
***Civil liberties such as free speech and even mobility were restricted in our own past, particularly in times of war or political instability
****See Schenk v. United States âclear and present dangerâ
****See Korematsu v. United States âpressing public necessityâ
****"At the end of this war, Japanese will only be spoken in hell."
***PATRIOT expression should thus be the real focus re: international debate
***It is not as reprehensible to bargain away political expression
***Our internal moral regulation of business is generally based on the free market
**Even the end-to-end principle of net neutrality was and is regulated
***At source: CDA, CAN-SPAM
***On receipt: child pornography or copyrighted works
***With rider: CAN-SPAM, COPPA
**Shift even in the United States to âmiddle of the networkâ
***Easier to identify and enforce; increased efficiency
***Similar to expanding US Interstate Commerce Power to federalize business
***Expansion of such regulation âin the name of public interestâ is just another justification for the use of police power
***Content-based filters and blocking +/- eavesdropping
****Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown provisions
****CIPA
****Library filters
**Enforcement on Private Corporations
***Is assistance with filtering and surveillance really the âtrickiest ethical problem?â
****Oppenheimer
****Hardware v. software
****Flexible filtering
****Alleged advantages of âfreeâ internet
*****Technical innovation and competition
******Bomb building?
******Why copyright or patent, then?
*****Democratic culture
******Really in the US?
******Is sex, commerce and culture really blocked in China?
******The focal point again becomes politics (elitist)
*****Prevent Oligarchy
******Copyright and patent place âenlightenmentâ in few hands
******Argument of âfree internetâ to prevent further distributional disparity smacks of wink-and-nod acceptance of piracy
**How are we, and how can we, enforce?
***Lessig: law, code, markets, and norms
***We believe enforcement should be by the free market and business principles
****Duty to shareholders
*****Growth of market volume or share
*****Transparency
****Transparency is owed to shareholders, not to Zittrain and Palfreyâs âend-userâ
*****My gasoline does not come with a body count
*****My shares of Exxon can, however, be voted or sold in protest
*****Codes of conduct are not really more accessible than a âGooglingâ American
*****Voluntary âinternalâ regulation
***Attempts at more formal enforcement
****General
*****Node Controlâthe First Wave (see end-to-end principle above)
******Ban on Transmission of Packets at Their Source
******Ban on Possession or Receipt of Packets
******Encumbrances on Flow of Information in Packets
**Transmission ControlâThe Second Wave
***State Encouragement of Private Action to Block Packets
****CDA
****DMCA
****CALEA âwiretapâ
***Direct State Intervention
****Injunction via DMCA
****State entity blockadeâlibraries
****CIPA
***Specific to our debate
****GOFA
****International law
**It seems hypocritical to cry about civil liberties and individual freedom but demand state regulatory action rather than relying on individuals and markets
**Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates create public discourse and are the proper means of creating transparency and market pressure

Debate 3

2007-02-13T15:59:32Z

Cameri: /* The Question */

Date: Class 8, April 3, 2007

Students presenting: (4-6 people)

Gwen Hochman

Arthur Chen

==The Question==
"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Russell Franklin

Jason McCammon

Cyrus Ameri

Steve Barnes