RWB stated that the US had "undermined confidence in the Internet and its own standards of security" and that "US surveillance practices and decryption activities are a direct threat to investigative journalists, especially those who work with sensitive sources for whom confidentiality is paramount and who are already under pressure".
[16] With limited exceptions, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bar federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet.
Provisions of the CFAA effectively make it a federal crime to violate the terms of service of Internet sites, allowing companies to forbid legitimate activities such as research, or limit or remove protections found elsewhere in law.
[19] Aggressive prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has fueled growing criticism of the law's scope and application.
[20] In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.
[22] Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that "the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech".
Had the law passed, it would have effectively made it an illegal act to post anything commercial on the internet that is knowingly harmful to children without some sort of vetting program to confirm user ages.
CIPA requires K-12 schools and libraries receiving federal Universal Service Fund (E-rate) discounts or LSTA grants for Internet access or internal connections to:[37] CIPA does not:[37] In March 2008, the New York Times reported that a blocklist published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency established under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1917 and other federal legislation, included websites, so that US companies are prohibited from doing business with those websites and must freeze their assets.
[47] In 2016, complainants from Gallaudet University brought a lawsuit against UC Berkeley for not adding closed captioning to the recorded lectures it made free to the public.
[51] The bills were criticized as a "disguised internet censorship bill" that weakened Section 230 safe harbors, placed unnecessary burdens on internet companies and intermediaries that handle user-generated content or communications with service providers required to proactively take action against sex trafficking activities, and required a "team of lawyers" to evaluate all possible scenarios.
[56][57] The Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 would have required schools, some businesses, and libraries to block minors' access to social networking websites.
[61] generated controversy for what critics perceived as its authorization for the US president to apply a full block of the Internet in the US[62] The Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2011[63] took a different approach.
[65][68] The 2011, 2013, and 2015 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) attempted to give the government additional options and resources to ensure network security.
[71][72] Reporters Without Borders expressed concern that in the name of fighting cybercrime, it would allow the government and private companies to monitor, even censor, the Web.
In this scenario, after a review by the Secretary and other relevant departments found "security risks" then the government can restrict a company, service, or product.
The states that require schools and libraries to adopt policies to protect minors include: California, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
[78] The states that require Internet filtering in schools and libraries to protect minors are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.
[80] In September the legislature replaced the controversial provision with a requirement that local school districts develop their own policies on the use of electronic communication between employees and students.
[84] In April 2022, District Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued a site blocking order against three piracy websites, which were cited in lawsuits brought upon by a group of Israeli media companies, but whose operators failed to appear in court.
[3] Corporations may be encouraged by government pressure or required by law or court order to remove or limit access to content that is judged to be obscene (including child pornography), harmful to children, defamatory, pose a threat to national security, promote illegal activities such as gambling, prostitution, theft of intellectual property, hate speech, and inciting violence.
[92] In 2007, Verizon attempted to block the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America from using their text messaging services to speak to their supporters.
[96] The Monterey Herald reported on June 27, 2013, that the United States Army barred its personnel from accessing parts of The Guardian's website after whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about the PRISM global surveillance program and the NSA were published there.
[109] US corporations including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and MySpace practice greater levels of self-censorship in some international versions of their online services to comply with local laws/regulations.
In October 2011 US-based Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, California acknowledged that Syria was using its devices to censor Web activity, a possible violation of US trade embargoes.
[112] A January 4, 2007 restraining order issued by US District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links to ostensibly leaked documents that purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa.
[5][6][7][8] In January 2015 details from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack revealed the Motion Picture Association of America's lobbying of the United States International Trade Commission to mandate that US ISPs, either at the internet transit or internet service provider level, implement IP address blocking of unauthorized file sharing as well as linking websites.
[115] On July 3, 2011, two officers of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police shot and killed Charles Hill at Civic Center Station in San Francisco.
For a general interruption of communication service that affects a large number of people or a large geographic area, judicial approval also requires that the action (iv) is necessary to avoid a serious threat of violence that is both imminent and likely to occur or (v) that the effect on expression is incidental to some other valid government purpose, and (vi) is reasonable, (vii) is content-neutral, (viii) would impair no more speech than is necessary, and (ix) leaves open other ample means of communication.
Prior judicial approval is not required in extreme emergencies involving immediate danger of death or great bodily injury where there is insufficient time to obtain a court order.
Such orders to private providers must come from the National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as designated by the EWP.