There are a lot of disturbing things out there on the Internet. I don't think I need to provide an inventory. Occasionally, some of the more despicable sites (think pro-suicide sites or bomb-making sites) capture the attention of public policymakers and bans are proposed. It was only a matter of time, therefore, before "pro-ana" sites made the regulatory radar screen as they did this week when lawmakers in France proposed a measure, "aimed at fighting incitement to extreme thinness or anorexia."

The pro-ana movement, which refers to people and websites that justify or glorify anorexia or an excessively "thin look" or lifestyle, came to my attention last year when an academic was interviewing me for a new book he was writing about online responsibility. He was asking me what I thought about the idea of liability being imposed on website developers who glorify potentially harmful lifestyles or activities. In other words, an "aiding and abetting" standard for hateful or "harmful" online speech. I expected our discussion to focus on the truly sick or stupid stuff out there---like the bomb-recipe nutjobs or the suicide fans---but, instead, the academic mentioned pro-ana sites, like House of Thin (which no longer seems to be around) and others. The danger of these sites is that they offer young girls, which seems to be the primary audience, very unhealthy advice about how they can use various techniques (fasting, vomiting, laxatives, etc) to become super-thin. Needless to say, that can lead to extreme weight loss and serious health disorders for these girls.

Should sites be banned, or held liable in some fashion, for the harm they cause? We could nitpick about whether of not pro-ana sites cause serious harm to girls, but let's assume that they do cause some harm. Does that mean the site administrators should be held responsible for the actions of others who read those sites? The French law says "yes." It would, according to Reuters:

impose penalties of two years plus a fine of 30,000 euros ($47,450) for "incitement to excessive thinness by publicizing of any kind." The penalties would rise to three years in jail plus 45,000 euros fine in cases where a death was caused by anorexia. The bill was adopted by the lower house of parliament on Tuesday and must go before the Senate before it becomes law.

[Note: You might want to first read my review of Jonathan Zittrain’s book to give this essay some context.]

Jonathan Zittrain must have been smiling as he read Leander Kahney’s excellent Wired cover story this month, “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong.” In a sense, the article vindicates Zittrain’s thesis in The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It.

Again, in his provocative book, Zittrain argues that, for a variety of reasons, the glorious days of the generative, open Internet and general-purpose PCs are supposedly giving way to closed networks and a world of what he contemptuously calls “sterile, tethered devices.” And Apple products such as the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes serve as prime examples of the troubling world that await us. And Kahney’s article confirms that Apple is every bit as closed and insular as Zittrain suggests. Kahney nicely contrasts Apple with Google, a company that “embraces openness,” trusts “the wisdom of crowds,” and has its famous “Don’t be evil” philosophy:

It's ironic, then, that one of the Valley's most successful companies ignored all of these tenets. Google and Apple may have a friendly relationship — Google CEO Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's board, after all — but by Google's definition, Apple is irredeemably evil, behaving more like an old-fashioned industrial titan than a different-thinking business of the future. Apple operates with a level of secrecy that makes Thomas Pynchon look like Paris Hilton. It locks consumers into a proprietary ecosystem. And as for treating employees like gods? Yeah, Apple doesn't do that either.

I previously mentioned the excellent new book, "Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering," which is edited by Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain. It is a comprehensive survey of the methods governments are using to stifle online expression. The contributors provide a regional and country-by-country overview of the global state of online speech controls and discuss the long-term ramifications of increasing government filtering of online networks.

Business Week has just posted an interview with one of the editors of the book, John Palfrey, executive director of the Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. John provides a nice overview of the major themes and issues covered in the book. But make sure you pick up the entire volume. It's an important resource to have on your bookshelf.

I have long been intrigued with the effort to regulate online gaming activities because it represents the most sophisticated effort by our government yet to eradicate a specific class of online speech or commerce. (My TLF colleague Tom Bell has done seminal work in this field). In her weekly "The Regulators" column, The Washington Post's outstanding regulatory columnist Cindy Skrzycki writes about the enforcement challenges at work here:

It's not easy making rules for a U.S. law intended to deter illegal Internet gambling by choking off the flow of funds to offshore sites. That's because no one seems to agree on what the law covers. Officials at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve found that out after sifting through more than 200 comments from banks, gamblers, church groups and members of Congress on recommendations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The basic sentiment was that their Oct. 4 proposal, which depends on financial institution enforcement, won't work.

The outcome will affect 23 million online gamblers, some 2,500 Internet sites and the growth of an industry with an estimated $15 billion in annual global revenue. The law bars financial institutions from processing payments involving Internet gambling -- with the notable exceptions of Indian gaming, state gaming and horse racing. "If the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the law, what hope is there that banks can resolve these confounding legal issues?" the American Bankers Association said in commenting on a conflict between the Treasury and Justice departments on the legality of betting on horses. The Washington trade group said the suggested rules are more likely to catch its members in a compliance trap than stop profits from illegal gambling from escaping offshore.

I was on vacation last week when ICANN handed down its latest rejection of the ".xxx" top-level domain (TLD). I just wanted to make two quick points about why I find this decision quite troubling.

First, it's obvious that some critics of the .xxx TLD oppose the proposal because they think it somehow legitimizes online pornography or will lead to the proliferation of even more cyber-porn. I find this argument bizarre and naive. As John Dvorak makes abundantly clear in his recent PC Magazine column, Internet pornography is not going away and it is almost impossible to imagine how the .xxx TLD could have done anything to make it more accessible. Dvorak rightly asks: "How hard is it to find porn on the Net? Go to any search engine and type porn. Open your e-mail box. Who are these people kidding with this argument?"

The Department of Commerce has (finally) given its stamp of approval to the renewal of VeriSign's contract to provide .com registry services. This is a good thing. However, the language accompanying the renewal seems quite regulatory. For example, there is now explicit public interest language in the criteria for renewal of the contract. Such standards are quite common for regulated industries, but obviously not for competitive industries where competition takes care of the "public interest". We have consistently cautioned against adopting a regulatory model for domain name registry services and urged ICANN to adopt pro-competitive policies, most recently in a paper by PFF Adjunct Fellow Bruce Kobayashi and testimony I delivered on ICANN Internet Governance. The most important contract should be the one between VeriSign and its customers, who should have sufficient choices to discipline the market. If that is the case, detailed contracts between a registry and its "regulators" - whether the Department of Commerce or ICANN - are at best superfluous and more likely harmful.

The Economist had editorialized about how America's recent Internet gambling ban, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, would actually do little to deter online betting. This week, Business Week picks this silly law apart. As Business Week's Catherine Holahan reports:

Indeed, the new law will do little to stop online gambling, say gamblers, betting companies, and industry analysts alike. Instead, the law will drive out regulated, publicly traded companies like PartyGaming, the Gibraltar-based parent of PartyPoker, and make way for private gambling companies and banks based in nations where such industries are loosely policed at best. As a result, the new law could ultimately make billions of dollars in U.S. online gambling transactions more difficult to trace, and increase the likelihood that funds end up in criminal hands. "It leaves an opening for some of the more unscrupulous companies coming in from unregulated places," says Frank Catania, past director of New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement and president of Catania Consulting Group.

The exodus is under way--and the companies that are on the way out are those with the most financial transparency. PartyGaming, 888Holdings, and SportingBet, all of which are traded on the London Stock Exchange, have said they're exiting the U.S. market. Roughly 70% of PartyGaming's $319 million in second-quarter sales and 50% of 888 Holdings' revenue came from the U.S.

Private online gambling companies, on the other hand, have been defiant in the face of the new law, arguing it does not apply to them and cannot be enforced. Bodog Entertainment Group, which operates a Costa Rican online gambling site, has no plans to bar U.S. customers. "We've structured our business in such a way that we'll have no problems adapting to any changes in the online gaming environment," says Bodog founder Calvin Ayre. Similarly, PokerStars released a statement saying its lawyers had "concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to our offering of online poker games.

For these reasons among many others, my friend (and former Cato Institute mentor) Tom Bell labels the measure "The UnInGEn-ious Act." Read his excellent analysis here and here.

The U.K.'s Guardian newspaper reports that Iran has just banned high-speed Internet connections in an effort to restrict access to foreign culture:

"In a blow to the country's estimated 5 million internet users, service providers have been told to restrict online speeds to 128 kilobytes a second and been forbidden from offering fast broadband packages. The move by Iran's telecommunications regulator will make it more difficult to download foreign music, films and television programmes, which the authorities blame for undermining Islamic culture among the younger generation. It will also impede efforts by political opposition groups to organise by uploading information on to the net. The order follows a purge on illegal satellite dishes, which millions of Iranians use to clandestinely watch western television. Police have seized thousands of dishes in recent months."

One wonders how long such a strategy can really work since communications and computing devices continue to get smaller and faster every day. Unless you shut down all the networks and tightly restrict access to all the potential digital devices out there, especially wireless devices, then this approach is not likely to work in the long run. For example, a recent story in the Washington Post noted how despite strict communications and media laws in Saudi Arabia (the country once sought to ban cell phone cameras), the youth of that country are finding ways around media restrictions:

"Cellphone technology is changing the way young people meet and date in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of the most insular, conservative and religiously strict societies in the world. Calls and texting -- and more recently, Bluetooth -- are breaking down age-old barriers and giving young men and women discreet new ways around the sentries of romance."

Nonetheless, the combination in Iran of a totalitarian religious state and a traditionally closed culture could mean that their restrictions will be fairly effective, at least in the short term, in preventing people from gaining access to culture and information outside their borders. But we'll see how long they can hold back the growing tide of digital information and the relentless march of technological progress.

The Aspen Summit kicked off last night with an address by FCC Commissioner Adelstein, who got 3 out of 4 issues right in his quite engaging speech. I say that teasingly, because the Commissioner's speech once again reaffirmed that digital issues do not necessarily break down along neat Democratic/Republican political lines. Commissioner Adelstein addressed four topics, urging less regulation on three. On multicast must-carry, cable a la carte mandates and indecency regulation, the Commissioner urged caution, restraint and reliance on markets rather than regulation. Despite these laudable positions, the Commissioner remains steadfast in his defense of media ownership regulation. Nonetheless, not a bad opening batting average where he and PFF fellows agree on 3 of 4 major FCC issues.

(I recently engaged my former Cato Institute colleague Jim Harper in a dialog about the effectiveness of U.S. engagement with China in terms of broadening human rights and speech rights in particular. I've been doing some soul-searching about this recently and asked Jim to help me think through the issue (and the "engagement is good" theory) again. What follows is the transcript of our e-mail exchange. A condensed version of this exchange also appaers on CNET today. - - Adam Thierer)

THIERER: Jim, I must admit, in recent months I have really been struggling with the issue of U.S. corporate engagement / investment in China. In particular, I have been wondering if my long-held assumption is correct: that greater engagement by U.S. companies in China will really help achieve meaningful reforms for its repressed citizenry. I have always argued that investment by U.S. companies - - and technology companies in particular - - could help break down some of the legal barriers to greater economic and social / cultural freedom.

In recent years, however, the reports from the front have not been good. It does not seem the U.S. corporate engagement / investment has really done much to effectuate positive reforms in the post-Tiananmen era. It seems that the Chinese are just as repressive as ever, especially on the political / cultural front. Worse yet, we know that many large American corporate technology leaders have actually assisted the efforts of Chinese officials when they sought to repress speech and dissent. (Microsoft, for example, has made news recently by shutting down a journalist's blog because of material that might be offensive to Chinese authorities. And Yahoo and Google are coming under fire for playing ball with Chinese officials too.)

Tell me my fellow libertarian friend, are you not also troubled by these developments? Are you still comfortable with our traditional position on the issue?

HARPER: I recall, a few years ago, being very concerned when I heard that Google had come to an agreement with the Chinese government so that their service would not be blocked there. I had a natural sense of revulsion at the thought that any company, much less one of the technology companies that are doing so much to improve life around the world, would get in bed with censors and despots. Google has never been as forthcoming about what exactly they do to appease the Chinese as I would like them to be, so I suppose I am still uncomfortable with it.

But I have come to believe that the best option for a company faced with this dilemma is to accept the ugly conditions some governments put on doing business in their countries. This is for a couple of reasons: There is strong evidence that refusing trade doesn't help anybody. The U.S. trade embargo toward Cuba has been a dismal failure. We've had some level of trade restrictions with Cuba for more than 40 years and, if anything, it has helped Castro by pauperizing the Cubans, demoralizing them, and shielding them from knowledge about the benefits of freedom. Heck, if we had had trade with Cuba the last 40 years, a steady diet of fast food probably would have killed off Fidel by now...

Just as importantly, if you give them the communications tools that these companies provide, the Chinese people will evade government controls and get done what we want them to get done, censorship or no censorship. You don't have to use words like "falun gong" or "Taiwan" or "free speech" to communicate about liberty and public issues. Before Vaclac Havel was the first President of a free Czechoslovakia, he was a playwright. His plays weren't political polemics that tweaked the nose of the government and invited censorship (though he got in plenty of trouble). They were subtle critiques of life under the regime. Everybody knew what he was talking about. Freedom had been in the hearts of the Czechs for years when the Velvet Revolution officially delivered it. Technology and communications are enabling this on a broader scale in China. It's working. You'll see.