ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, January 11, 1996 TAG: 9601110107
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: B-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Boston Globe
THE PROPOSAL'S AIM is to bar racism and bigotry. A better way, say some, is to let such hateful ideas compete freely, and lose.
An effort to drive ``racism, antisemitism, mayhem and violence'' from the Internet is receiving a mixed reception from on-line service providers and civil libertarians.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles has urged an Internet ``code of ethics'' that would prevent extremists from publishing their ideas on-line.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the center, said his proposal would not require Internet providers to screen material. Instead, the aim is to limit access to the Internet's most popular service, the World Wide Web.
A World Wide Web site is made up of computer files containing text, pictures or sounds. These files are loaded onto a computer called a ``server'' that is connected to the Internet. Many groups buy storage space on servers that are owned by Internet access providers.
The Wiesenthal Center is asking those providers to refuse to carry extremist material.
Cooper admits the plan won't drive extremists off the Internet, but argues that if major Internet providers go along with the plan, it will undermine the extremists' legitimacy.
Barry Shein, president of The World, an Internet service based in Brookline, said he'd be reluctant to bar any kind of materials. ``I would really tend to accommodate them.''
Shein noted that his contract with business customers does give him the right to refuse materials that ``drag down the general quality of the site.'' Under that principle, Shein said, he might refuse to sell server access for a Web site that features hateful materials or explicit sexual content. ``It'd really depend on what it was.''
Mike Goodwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Internet access providers that go along with the Wiesenthal Center plan are asking for trouble.
He cited a recent court ruling that found the on-line service Prodigy could be sued for libelous material posted by a customer, because Prodigy exercised editorial control over some of the material on its service.
Goodwin said an Internet provider who refused to carry certain materials would be acting as an editor, and as such could be held responsible for any libelous material posted by any of its customers. ``If they put themselves in an editorial role, they diminish the legal protections for themselves.''
Goodwin said he opposes the Wiesenthal Center plan mainly because he supports unrestricted access to the Internet. ``Rabbi Cooper misunderstands the fundamental premise of an open society, which is you don't breed social progress by shutting people up,'' Goodwin said.
LENGTH: Medium: 56 linesby CNB