Who Polices the Net?

What should be done about Internet content that is considered harmful, odious or illegal? Can self-regulation handle the job? This was the thorny topic being tackled at the Internet Content Summit, a meeting that concluded here Saturday. Attendees ranged from high-level politicians interested in showing the voting public they_re doing something about offensive Web sites, to staunch free-speech advocates, and Internet service providers, who want to ensure they aren_t held to blame for content stored on their servers. And everyone had something to say on a self-regulatory system. In a report called "Self-regulation of Internet Content," the meeting_s sponsor, Germany_s Bertelsmann Foundation, made recommendations for self-rating and filtering of Web content. Sparking debate, the report was lauded by some but worried others. Written by professors from Yale Law School, Oxford University, St. Gallen in Switzerland, and the University of Wurzburg in Germany, the report was based on feedback from 25 "network experts," according to the foundation. Yet, several of those experts -- including Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union -- made it clear that they do not endorse large parts of the proposals. The Bertelsmann proposal envisions a self-regulating system for rating and filtering Internet content, with content providers voluntarily rating their own Web sites. The proposal also calls for codes of conduct which would be developed for ISPs in order to deal with illegal Net content; easy-to-use, voluntary filtering tools which groups or companies would sell; and networks of hotlines that would allow Internet users to register their complaints about Internet content, and deal with ISPs who do not stick to the codes of conduct. The report calls for law enforcement authorities to support the self-regulatory efforts, fight illegal content and cooperate with the country hotlines. The Global Internet Liberty Campaign, a coalition of free speech groups, said Friday in a statement that they feared proposals could ultimately "create a homogenized Internet dominated by large commercial interests." Summit attendee Esther Dyson, director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU_s Strossen were among those concerned about the role of governments in the rating and filtering process. Some attendees at the summit did speak out in favor of government involvement. "We should be under no illusion that the cyberspace is exempt from legitimate laws," says Gareth Grainger, deputy chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, during the course of a panel discussion. Risaburo Nezu, director for Science, Technology & Industry at the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, disagrees with those participants who say that the Internet is large and chaotic to govern. "I_m not sure we should say we need no mechanism for enforcement," Nezu says. "Self-regulation cannot occur in a vacuum. It has to have some bite in it."