regulation that can limit their citizens’ access and
view of the Internet. In addition, they have
empowered private individuals and companies to
press Internet intermediaries for content removal
or to carry out the filtering in the middle of the network. Although the laws are subject to legislative
and judicial debate, these private actions may be
less transparent. Governments in both countries,
however, have experienced significant resistance
to their content restriction policies and, as a
result, the extreme measures found in some of
the more repressive countries of the world have
not gained ground in North America.
Authors: Kevin O’Keefe, John Palfrey, Wendy Seltzer
NOTES
1. See Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, “How governments rule the Net,” chapter 5, pp. 65–84, in Who
Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
2. See John Palfrey and Robert Rogoyski, “The Move
to the Middle: The Enduring Threat of Harmful
Speech to the End-to-End Principle,” Washington
University Journal of Law and Policy 21: 31–65,
(2006).
3. Internet World Stats, “Internet usage statistics for the
Americas,” http://www.internetworldstats.com/
stats2.htm.
4. International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2006.
5. This approach was first recommended in a 1997
study commissioned by Industry Canada. See
Internet Content-Related Liability Study,
“Conclusion,” http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/
insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf03316e.html.
6. Passed as Bill C-15a, 1st Session, 37th Parl., 2001.
7. R.S. 1985, c. C-46, §§163.1(3), 163.1(4.1), 172.1.
8. Project Cleanfeed Canada, Frequently Asked
Questions, http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_faq;
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, §IV, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/
showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V.
9. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, §164.1, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/
en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V.
10. Michael Geist, “Telus breaks ISPs’s cardinal rule,”
Toronto Star, August 1, 2005,
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=
content&task=view&id=919. OpenNet Initiative,
“Telus Blocks Consumer Access to Labour Union
Web Site and Filters an Additional 766 Unrelated
Sites” http://opennet.net/bulletins/010/.
11. Telecommunications Act, R.S.C., ch. 38, §§27(2), 36,
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/TELECOM.HTM;
see also Michael Geist, “Telus breaks ISPs’s
cardinal rule,” Toronto Star, August 1, 2005,
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=
content&task=view&id=919.
12. OpenNet Initiative, “Telus Blocks Consumer Access
to Labour Union Web Site and Filters an Additional
766 Unrelated Sites” http://opennet.net/bulletins/010/.
13. See “TELUS removes blocking from VFC website,”
July, 28, 2005, http://www.voices-forchange.ca/news/archive.asp?PagePosition=2.
14. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2006/8646/
p49_200610510.htm.
15. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Letters/2006/
lt060824.htm.
16. See “ISPs and tipline set up battle against Internet
child exploitation,” November 24, 2006,
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/
cleanfeed_canada.
17. See Project Cleanfeed Canada, Frequently Asked
Questions, http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_faq.
18. “Cleanfeed Canada: What would it accomplish?”
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/
1624215.
19. See Project Cleanfeed Canada, “Appeal process,”
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_appeal.
20. 47 U.S.C.A. §223(a), §223(d) (Supp. 1997).
21. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1996) at
854-865.
22. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1996) at 883.
23. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
24. Ibid. “The Government may not ‘reduce the adult
population . . . to . . . only what is fit for children.’
‘Regardless of the strength of the government’s
interest’ in protecting children, ‘the level of discourse
reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that
which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”
25. 47 U.S.C. §231.
26. ACLU v. Reno, No. 98-5551 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
Memorandum and Order granting preliminary injunction.
27. See Federal Communications Commission,
What CIPA Requires, http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/
consumerfacts/cipa.html.
28. United States v. American Library Association, 539
U.S. 194 (2003).
29. 20 U.S.C. §6777(c); 20 U.S.C. §9134(f)(3); 47 U.S.C.
§254(h)(6)(D).
30. For examples of how libraries and schools have
responded to CIPA, see Marjorie Heins, Christina
Cho, and Ariel Feldman, Internet Filters: A Public
Policy Report (2006), pp. 4–7, www.brennancenter.
org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_36644.pdf.
31. CDT v. Pappert, 337 F.Supp.2d 606 (E.D. Penn.
2004). For an extensive analysis, see Jonathan
Zittrain, “Internet points of control,” 44 B.C. L. Rev.
653 (2003).
Regional Overviews
233
view of the Internet. In addition, they have
empowered private individuals and companies to
press Internet intermediaries for content removal
or to carry out the filtering in the middle of the network. Although the laws are subject to legislative
and judicial debate, these private actions may be
less transparent. Governments in both countries,
however, have experienced significant resistance
to their content restriction policies and, as a
result, the extreme measures found in some of
the more repressive countries of the world have
not gained ground in North America.
Authors: Kevin O’Keefe, John Palfrey, Wendy Seltzer
NOTES
1. See Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, “How governments rule the Net,” chapter 5, pp. 65–84, in Who
Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
2. See John Palfrey and Robert Rogoyski, “The Move
to the Middle: The Enduring Threat of Harmful
Speech to the End-to-End Principle,” Washington
University Journal of Law and Policy 21: 31–65,
(2006).
3. Internet World Stats, “Internet usage statistics for the
Americas,” http://www.internetworldstats.com/
stats2.htm.
4. International Telecommunication Union, World
Telecommunication Indicators 2006.
5. This approach was first recommended in a 1997
study commissioned by Industry Canada. See
Internet Content-Related Liability Study,
“Conclusion,” http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/
insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf03316e.html.
6. Passed as Bill C-15a, 1st Session, 37th Parl., 2001.
7. R.S. 1985, c. C-46, §§163.1(3), 163.1(4.1), 172.1.
8. Project Cleanfeed Canada, Frequently Asked
Questions, http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_faq;
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, §IV, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/
showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V.
9. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, §164.1, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/
en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V.
10. Michael Geist, “Telus breaks ISPs’s cardinal rule,”
Toronto Star, August 1, 2005,
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=
content&task=view&id=919. OpenNet Initiative,
“Telus Blocks Consumer Access to Labour Union
Web Site and Filters an Additional 766 Unrelated
Sites” http://opennet.net/bulletins/010/.
11. Telecommunications Act, R.S.C., ch. 38, §§27(2), 36,
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/TELECOM.HTM;
see also Michael Geist, “Telus breaks ISPs’s
cardinal rule,” Toronto Star, August 1, 2005,
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=
content&task=view&id=919.
12. OpenNet Initiative, “Telus Blocks Consumer Access
to Labour Union Web Site and Filters an Additional
766 Unrelated Sites” http://opennet.net/bulletins/010/.
13. See “TELUS removes blocking from VFC website,”
July, 28, 2005, http://www.voices-forchange.ca/news/archive.asp?PagePosition=2.
14. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2006/8646/
p49_200610510.htm.
15. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Letters/2006/
lt060824.htm.
16. See “ISPs and tipline set up battle against Internet
child exploitation,” November 24, 2006,
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/
cleanfeed_canada.
17. See Project Cleanfeed Canada, Frequently Asked
Questions, http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_faq.
18. “Cleanfeed Canada: What would it accomplish?”
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/
1624215.
19. See Project Cleanfeed Canada, “Appeal process,”
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cf_appeal.
20. 47 U.S.C.A. §223(a), §223(d) (Supp. 1997).
21. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1996) at
854-865.
22. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1996) at 883.
23. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
24. Ibid. “The Government may not ‘reduce the adult
population . . . to . . . only what is fit for children.’
‘Regardless of the strength of the government’s
interest’ in protecting children, ‘the level of discourse
reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that
which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”
25. 47 U.S.C. §231.
26. ACLU v. Reno, No. 98-5551 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
Memorandum and Order granting preliminary injunction.
27. See Federal Communications Commission,
What CIPA Requires, http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/
consumerfacts/cipa.html.
28. United States v. American Library Association, 539
U.S. 194 (2003).
29. 20 U.S.C. §6777(c); 20 U.S.C. §9134(f)(3); 47 U.S.C.
§254(h)(6)(D).
30. For examples of how libraries and schools have
responded to CIPA, see Marjorie Heins, Christina
Cho, and Ariel Feldman, Internet Filters: A Public
Policy Report (2006), pp. 4–7, www.brennancenter.
org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_36644.pdf.
31. CDT v. Pappert, 337 F.Supp.2d 606 (E.D. Penn.
2004). For an extensive analysis, see Jonathan
Zittrain, “Internet points of control,” 44 B.C. L. Rev.
653 (2003).
Regional Overviews
233