Introduction
Though neither the United States nor Canada
practices widespread technical Internet filtering
at the state level, the Internet is far from “unregulated” in either state. 1 Internet content restrictions
take the form of extensive legal regulation, as well
as technical regulation of content in specific contexts, such as libraries and schools in the United
States. The pressure to regulate specific content
online has been expressed in concerns related to
four problems: child-protection and morality,
national security, intellectual property, and computer security. In the name of “protecting the children,” the United States has moved to step up
enforcement of child pornography legislation and
to pass new legislation that would restrict children’s access to material deemed “harmful.”
Legislators invoke national security in calls to
make Internet connections more traceable and
easier to tap. Copyright holders have had the
most success in this regard by pressing their
claims that Internet intermediaries should bear
more responsibility—and more liability—than
they have in the past. Those concerned about
computer security issues, such as badware and
spam, have also prompted certain regulations of
the flow of Internet content. In addition, in
Canada, although not in the United States, publishing of hate speech is restricted.
Debate on each of these restrictions is heated. Public dialogue, legislative debate, and judicial review have resulted in different filtering
strategies in the United States and Canada than
those described elsewhere in this volume. In the
United States, many government-mandated
attempts to regulate content have been barred
on First Amendment grounds. In the wake of
these restrictions, though, fertile ground has
been left for private-sector initiatives. The government has been able to exert pressure indirectly
where it cannot directly censor. In Canada, the
focus has been on government-facilitated industry self-regulation. With the exception of child
pornography, Canadian and U.S. content restrictions tend to rely more on the removal of content
than blocking; most often these controls rely
upon the involvement of private parties, backed
by state encouragement or the threat of legal
Internet Filtering in
Internet Filtering in the
United States and Canada
Though neither the United States nor Canada
practices widespread technical Internet filtering
at the state level, the Internet is far from “unregulated” in either state. 1 Internet content restrictions
take the form of extensive legal regulation, as well
as technical regulation of content in specific contexts, such as libraries and schools in the United
States. The pressure to regulate specific content
online has been expressed in concerns related to
four problems: child-protection and morality,
national security, intellectual property, and computer security. In the name of “protecting the children,” the United States has moved to step up
enforcement of child pornography legislation and
to pass new legislation that would restrict children’s access to material deemed “harmful.”
Legislators invoke national security in calls to
make Internet connections more traceable and
easier to tap. Copyright holders have had the
most success in this regard by pressing their
claims that Internet intermediaries should bear
more responsibility—and more liability—than
they have in the past. Those concerned about
computer security issues, such as badware and
spam, have also prompted certain regulations of
the flow of Internet content. In addition, in
Canada, although not in the United States, publishing of hate speech is restricted.
Debate on each of these restrictions is heated. Public dialogue, legislative debate, and judicial review have resulted in different filtering
strategies in the United States and Canada than
those described elsewhere in this volume. In the
United States, many government-mandated
attempts to regulate content have been barred
on First Amendment grounds. In the wake of
these restrictions, though, fertile ground has
been left for private-sector initiatives. The government has been able to exert pressure indirectly
where it cannot directly censor. In Canada, the
focus has been on government-facilitated industry self-regulation. With the exception of child
pornography, Canadian and U.S. content restrictions tend to rely more on the removal of content
than blocking; most often these controls rely
upon the involvement of private parties, backed
by state encouragement or the threat of legal
Internet Filtering in
Internet Filtering in the
United States and Canada