Courtesy of Dave Weinberger, I came across this item from First Amendment attorney John Mitchell that seems too bad to be true, but it is. Culver City, CA is offering its citizens free Wi-Fi service, but there’s one big hitch: users formally agree to give up their First Amendment rights before using the network.
Buried in the user agreement’s terms and conditions is language that very clearly says that Culver City’s Wi-Fi service is not “a free speech arena” and that the city has the right to block access to sites it chooses and that the user further “waives” First Amendment claims.
It is not the intent of the City or the Agency to allow unlimited access to the entire Internet. Nor is it the intent of the City or Agency to create a traditional or limited public forum ( i.e., a free speech arena). Therefore, in providing this free wireless network, the City and Agency may restrict access to certain sites and communication protocols found to be malicious and inappropriate or terminate your access to this service if you use it to access p*rn*graphic, adult-oriented, hate or spyware matter or websites. By using this free wireless network you are agreeing and acknowledging you have read and accepted these terms and conditions of use, and this wireless network provides only limited access to the Internet. Further, you are agreeing to waive any claims, including, but not limited to First Amendment claims, that may arise from the City and Agency’s decision to block access to p*rn*graphic, adult-oriented, hate or spyware matter and websites through this free wireless network and to this service for accessing p*rn*graphic, adult-oriented, hate or spyware matter or websites.
In the agreement, Culver City says that the Wi-Fi service provides only “limited” Internet access, and by that the city means limited not in terms of time or bandwidth or any other measure of usage, but limited in terms of the type of content that can be accessed. As Mitchell points out, “limited Internet” is an oxymoron.
He also has a few other choice words for this odd (and can it be legal?) set of restrictions.
From a legal standpoint, it is the same as if the Culver City public library were offering you free access to newspapers, but was first clipping out the articles it didn’t like and making you agree not to sue for censorship if you wanted to read what was left.
It’s starting to look like 1984. “Freedom” means freedom to give up your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you want to have free access to the government’s Internet - or “EnterNot,” as the Culver City leadership might call it. I’m a big fan of free, public Internet access, but without the Doublespeak.
Cynthia Brumfield at 11:34 AM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
