Essay, Research Paper
Propaganda in the Online Free Speech Campaign
Propaganda and Mass Communication
July 1, 1996
In February 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first revision of our country’s
communications laws in 62 years. This historic event has been greeted with
primarily positive responses by most people and companies. Most of the
Telecommunications act sets out to transform the television, telephone, and
related industries by lowering regulatory barriers, and creating law that
corresponds with the current technology of today and tomorrow. One part of the
Telecommunications act, however, is designed to create regulatory barriers
within computer networks, and this has not been greeted with admirable
commentary. This one part is called the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and
it has been challenged in court from the moment it was passed into law. Many of
the opponents of the CDA have taken their messages to the Internet in order to
gain support for their cause, and a small number of these organizations claim
this fight as their only cause. Some of these
organizations are broad based civil liberties groups, some fight for freedom of
speech based on the first amendment, and other groups favor the lowering of laws
involving the use of encrypted data on computers. All of these groups, however,
speak out for free speech on the Internet, and all of these groups have utilized
the Internet to spread propaganda to further this common cause of online free
speech and opposition to the CDA.
Context in which the propaganda occurs
Five years ago, most people had never heard of the Internet, but today the
Internet is a term familiar to most people even if they are not exactly sure
about what the Internet is. Along with the concept of the Internet, it is
widely known that pornography and other adult related materials seem to be
readily available on the Internet, and this seems to be a problem with most
people. Indeed, it does not take long for even a novice Internet user to search
out adult materials such as photographs, short movies, text based stories and
live discussions, chat rooms, sexual aide advertisements, sound files, and even
live nude video. The completely novel and sudden appearance of the widely
accessible Internet combined with the previously existing issues associated with
adult materials has caused a great debate around the world about what should be
done. The major concern is that children will gain access to materials that
should be reserved only for adults. Additionally, there is concern that the
Internet is being used for illegal activities such as child pornography. In
response to the concerns of many people, the government enacted the
Communications Decency Act which attempts to curtail these problems by defining
what speech is unacceptable online and setting guidelines for fines and
prosecution of people or businesses found guilty of breaking this law. While
the goal of keeping children from gaining access to pornography is a noble one
that few would challenge, the problem is that the CDA has opened a can of worms
for the computer world. Proponents of the CDA claim that the CDA is necessary
because the Internet is so huge that the government is needed to help curb the
interaction of adult materials and children. Opponents of the CDA claim that
the wording of the CDA is so vague that, for example, an online discussion of
abortion would be illegal under the new law, and our first amendment rights
would therefore be pulled out from under us. Opponents also argue that Internet
censorship should be done at home by parents, not by the government, and that
things such as child pornography are illegal anyway, so there is no need to re-
state this in a new law. At this point, the battle lines have been drawn and
like everything else in society, everyone is headed into the courtroom to debate
it out. While this happens, the propagandists have set up shop on the Internet.
In terms of a debate about the first amendment and the restriction of free
speech, this current battle is nothing new. The debate over free speech has
been going on for as long as people have been around, and in America many great
court cases have been fought over free speech. The Internet’s new and
adolescent status does not exclude it from problems. Just as all other forms of
mass communication have been tested in the realms of free speech and propaganda,
so will the Internet.
Identity of the propagandists
There are scores of online groups that work to promote free speech on the
Internet, but there are a few who stand out because of the scope of their
activities, their large presence on the Internet, and their apparently large
numbers of supporters. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is today one of
the most visual online players in the fight against the CDA, but was established
only in 1990 as a non-profit organization before the Internet started to gain
its status as a daily part of our lives. Mitchell D. Kapor, founder of Lotus
Development Corporation, along with his colleague John Perry Barlow, established
the EFF to “address social and legal issues arising from the impact on society
of the increasingly pervasive use of computers as a means of communication and
information distribution.” In addition, the EFF also notes that it “will
support litigation in the public interest to preserve, protect and extend First
Amendment rights within the realm of computing and telecommunications technology
.” Also in the press release that announced the formation of the EFF, Kapor
said, “It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of technology
advancement in communications is far outpacing the establishment of appropriate
cultural, legal and political frameworks to handle the issues that are arising.”
Clearly, the EFF is very up-front and open about its belief that the American
legal system is currently not equipped to handle the daily reliance and use of
computers in society, and that the EFF will facilitate in handling problems in
the area of litigation and computers. Initial funding of the EFF was provided in
part by a private contribution from Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple
Computer, and since then contributions have come from industry giants such as
AT&T, Microsoft, Netscape Communications, Apple Computer, IBM, Ziff-Davis
Publishing, Sun Microsystems, and the Newspaper Association of America. It is
likely that these companies see the need for assistance when the computer world
collides with the world of law, and also see the EFF as one way for the rights
of the computer industry and its customers to be upheld. A second player in the
area of online free speech protection is the Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT). The CDT, founded in 1994, is less up-front about their history and
funding, but states that its mission is to, “develop public policies that
preserve and advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties on the
Internet and other interactive communications media.” Like the EFF, the CDT is
located in Washington, DC, and is a non-profit group funded by, according to the
1996 annual report, “individuals, foundations, and a broad cross section of the
computer and communications industry.” A third major player in the online free
speech movement is The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC, pronounced
“seek”). This is the group who filed the original lawsuit against the US
Department of Justice and Attorney General Janet Reno to overturn the CDA based
on, in part, the use of the word “indecent”. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are
a very diverse group, and include many who are also cited as contributors to the
EFF. Some of these plaintiffs include the American Booksellers Association, the
Freedom to Read Foundation, Apple Computer, Microsoft, America Online, the
Society of Professional Journalists, and Wired magazine. In their appeal to
gain new members, CIEC states that they are, “a coalition of Internet users,
businesses, non-profit organizations and civil liberties advocates formed to
challenge the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act because they
believe it violates their free speech rights and condemns the Internet to a
future of burdensome censorship and government intrusion.” Like the CDT, CIEC
does not directly state what organizations support their cause or how much money
is changing hands, but based on the companies supporting the lawsuit filed by
the CIEC, it is almost certain that the same computer and publishing related
companies are paying for CIEC’s existence. Finally, unlike other groups which
are activists for several causes, CIEC has the one and only mission of
challenging the CDA and does not claim to have any other purpose.
Ideology and purpose behind the campaign
There are several interrelated reasons motivating the online free speech
movement. The most visual, and therefore one of the most obvious, reasons for
the online presence of the free speech movement is to sign up new supporters.
Current technology of the Internet is ideal for gathering information from
people without inconveniencing them. While exploring the Internet in the privacy
of one’s own home, it takes only seconds to type in your name, address, and
other information so that it can be sent to the headquarters of an organization.
When compared to the traditional process of walking into a traditional
storefront, talking with a human, and then writing out your membership
information on paper, this new electronic method is superior. A person can
become an online free speech supporter at 2am while sitting in his or her
underwear and eating leftovers while sitting at home without having to worry
about talking to a pushy recruiter. Because of this ease of gathering
information, it is possible for
an organization to quickly recruit large numbers of members. Also, in terms of
the demographics of the members, the mere fact that they are signing up online
generates a certain, desirable demographic group of people. Even though
computers are becoming easier to use every day, the majority of Internet users
are educated and tend to have higher incomes than the average. At the head of
CIEC’s page where new members are encouraged to sign up, there is a large banner
proclaiming, “Over 47,000 Individual Internet Users Have Joined as of June 17,
1996!”. This particular technique of announcing the number of new recruits is
popular among various online organizations who recruit new members because it
lets the user know that he is not alone. The user will see the large number and
know that he or she will be part of a large group of supporters and therefore
feel safe about signing up with the cause. Once an individual gets “in the door”
of an online free speech website, he or she is encouraged to become a member or
supporter, but why are the supporters needed? I believe that when presented in
a legal setting, these large membership lists can be used to demonstrate that
numerous people do exist who are in favor of the online free speech campaign.
Just as people vote for laws or politicians, membership lists demonstrate that
people have “voted” for this cause. While a membership list is not quite as
powerful as an election, it does show that real “everyday” people support this
cause. When the online free speech campaign takes the CDA case to the Supreme
Court, it will be armed with long lists of people who support what these
organizations are trying to do, and the knowledge of all of the supporters could
be just enough to tilt the judges’ decision in the right direction. Another
purpose behind the online free speech campaigns is to attract more businesses to
the effort. When, for example, a software company who advertises on the Net
proclaims to be a supporter of the movement, then the movement gets free
advertising. When the names of computer companies such as Microsoft and Apple
are mentioned in the introductory and sign up information, other companies might
feel the urge to join because of the “me too” effect in which the smaller
companies look up to the bigger companies and might tend to adopt the policies
of the giants. For example, if YYZ Software knows that Microsoft is supporting
the free speech online movement, YYZ might feel important if it supports the
cause too. While the number company owners or managers browsing a site will be
much smaller than the number of individual people looking at the same site, this
idea of throwing around the name of famous companies is an attempt to attract at
least some supporters. Even though only a small number of supporters could be
gained through this channel, it is still a channel, and therefore important no
matter how small. Also, if this method happens to bring a large company into
the group, then the organization could gain great financial support. While it
is likely that all the Netscapes and IBMs of the world are already aware of the
online free speech movement, new companies and new fortunes are made frequently
in the fast moving world of the computer industry, so an unknown company today
could be a key player tomorrow. It is, therefore, important for the online free
speech movement to be constantly recruiting new companies, because the need for
large financial backers never ends, and you never know when a mom and pop
operation today will be the next Microsoft tomorrow.
Another motivation behind the campaign is the protection of businesses
and their interests. For example, a new online magazine for scientists in the
biomedical field is being formed, and the company behind the venture, Current
Science, is investing between $7.5 and $9 million in the project (Rothstein).
With money like this at risk, it is obvious that freedom of speech must be
secured in order for ventures like this to work. Finally, the ultimate goal for
all groups is the repeal of the CDA, but the deletion of the CDA does not mean
the end of free speech problems on the Internet, so these groups will always
exist in some form or another. Just as there is an ongoing debate about what
books are appropriate for who, there will always be a debate about what Internet
content is appropriate for who. Add to this the global aspect of the Internet,
and the scope and complexity of the issue can be envisioned.
Target audience
The clever, or perhaps just convenient aspect about online free speech
propaganda is that the propaganda is located at the very same spot that the
debate is about. In other words, if you want to promote free speech, go to
where the speech is taking place- the Internet. By promoting propaganda online
about online free speech, you are directly targeting the audience you want to
target. People who do not utilize the Internet will be less interested than
those who do, so it makes sense to locate your campaign on the Internet, where
the people there will naturally be more concerned about computer censorship
issues. An added bonus of the Internet is its relatively low cost compared to
traditional media outlets such as print or radio, so not only are these groups
promoting their causes almost directly to the people they want to reach, they
are doing it at a very low cost compared with more traditional methods. On the
other hand, these online free speech organizations have little, if any
propaganda outside of the Internet, so they are therefore not reaching the
maximum number of possible people. While they all maintain traditional offices,
phone numbers, postal mailing addresses, and fax numbers, they are virtually
unknown by the populace outside of the Internet. While purchasing print or
television advertisements might not be as direct and monetarily efficient as
utilizing the Internet to promote propaganda, those traditional methods would
help get the word out to the largest number of people.. Just as all other forms
of mass media have been utilized for the spread of propaganda, so will the
Internet.
Media utilization techniques
This section is by far the most interesting because it deals primarily
with the actual examples and techniques of propaganda used by the online free
speech movement. While the propaganda of these groups is primarily limited to
the electronic realm of the Internet, it is important to remember that the
Internet is itself a multimedia tool. Unlike newspaper, for example, the
Internet can convey words, pictures, sound, and moving video. As an added