[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FC: Where Bush and Gore stand on the Internet
- To: politech@politechbot.com
- Subject: FC: Where Bush and Gore stand on the Internet
- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:34:25 -0400
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Reply-To: declan@well.com
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
**********
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:13:41 -0400
To: declan@well.com
From: Doug Isenberg <disenberg@GigaLaw.com>
Subject: Where Bush and Gore Stand on Internet Issues
Declan:
For sharing with your Politech subscribers
Doug
-----
Where Bush and Gore Stand on Internet Issues
By Doug Isenberg, GigaLaw.com (http://www.GigaLaw.com)
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/isenberg-2000-10a-p1.html
You certainly can't vote in this year's presidential election online,
Internet coverage of the Democratic and Republic conventions was largely a
bust, and -- despite what you may have heard -- neither of the two major
party candidates (or any other politician, for that matter) invented the
Internet. So, why should you, the technologically savviest of all voters,
even bother to cast a ballot next month? And, if you do, for whom should
you vote?
The answer to the first question, of course, is simple: Every vote counts,
and this may turn out to be one of the closest presidential elections in
decades. Regardless of whether you care about the political issues of
technology, Generation "E" -- which has the best communication tools at its
disposal -- has an obligation to communicate its voice at the polls.
But the answer to the second question -- who to vote for -- is impossible
to know.
The answer is impossible for two reasons: First, like all politicians, this
year's presidential candidates are largely saying things that are intended
to appeal to the largest number of voters, so uncovering their real
position on any issue -- let alone nontraditional issues such as Internet
taxes, privacy, free speech in cyberspace and intellectual property -- is
difficult to do. Second, even when a candidate is clear on an Internet
issue, it is not necessarily clear whether that position makes him more or
less attractive to voters who care about the future of the Internet. Just
as it is wrong to categorize all people who belong to a particular gender,
religion or race as united on any issue, so, too, it is wrong to assume
that all netizens favor a particular tech-related position.
Then, there are those who say that the future of the Internet, and the
Internet economy, does not depend on whether its Al Gore or George W. Bush
who gets elected. These pundits argue that entrepreneurship, not the
government, has brought us to where we are today and that the man who sits
in the Oval Office will make little difference. While that may be true,
it's still important to know, before that man takes his seat, exactly where
he stands.
Taxes
Early in the primary election season, the one Internet political issue that
the candidates focused on was taxes, specifically, what to do about sales
taxes for goods purchased over the Internet. Sen. John McCain criticized
Bush early on for not joining him in calling for a permanent ban on
Internet taxes. Bush did endorse a five-year extension of the temporary
Internet Tax Freedom Act, but his tax talk has largely focused more on
cutting income taxes and the "marriage penalty" rather than how to treat
e-commerce taxes. Likewise, Gore has stopped short of endorsing a permanent
ban but favors the extension and has also called for a worldwide duty-free
zone in cyberspace for international e-commerce.
So, what's an Internet-intelligent voter to make of the tax issue? On the
one hand, limiting or eliminating online taxes could certainly increase
e-commerce sales, but doesn't the Internet offer enough advantages
(including convenience and selection) that e-commerce will prosper
regardless? And don't forget the true cost of crippling the sales tax base:
Those proceeds are used for many important purposes at the local level.
Privacy
On another issue, online privacy, Gore seized hold of this early, calling
for an "electronic bill of rights" in May 1998 that would protect the
disclosure of personal information, which admittedly is threatened by the
Internet. His running mate, Joe Lieberman, has been criticized for his
stance, following the Oklahoma City bombing, in favor of giving law
enforcement increased electronic surveillance tools -- supposedly a threat
to privacy. The Bush campaign has been quieter about this issue, and
although it's not entirely fair to criticize a governor for everything that
occurs in his state, it's worth noting that the well-established Privacy
Journal ranked Texas last in its most recent survey of how well states
protect personal privacy.
It's difficult to see how privacy, like any Internet issue, will influence
the election. If the choice is between increased protection from invasions
of privacy or increased protection from violent crime (assuming
"anti-privacy" laws would do so), surely even the most technologically
devoted will have a lot to think about before casting a vote.
Free Speech
On free speech and the Internet, both political camps have taken the
politically correct stance, speaking out against violence and pornography
and the effect on children who spend an increasing amount of time -- often
unsupervised -- online. The Democratic ticket has called for a "ceasefire"
in marketing adult material to children and vowed it would seek "tougher
measures to hold the industry accountable" if necessary, though it's hard
to imagine how such tougher measures could comply with the First Amendment.
Lieberman's role as the moral standard-bearer is well-known (and, according
to the polls, apparently well-received), and he was a co-sponsor of the
"v-chip" legislation for television controls in 1995. The Republican ticket
has criticized Gore as a hypocrite for his stance on Hollywood violence, in
light of contributions he has received from the entertainment industry.
The real issue when examining what type of content is permissible on the
Internet, though, is what effect a Gore or Bush administration would have
on the Supreme Court. The reason: Ultimately it's not new laws alone that
shape this issue but how (or whether) the courts square them with the First
Amendment. With two to four appointments likely on the Court in the next
four years, the future of the land's final arbiters of justice has been
called one of the most important (if not overlooked) issues in this year's
presidential election. It's unlikely that the landmark decision favoring
free speech on the Internet, Reno v. ACLU, is in trouble; after all, the
vote was 9-0. But any winds of change always start slowly.
It's likely, of course, that Bush would seek to appoint conservative
justices to the Court (who, theoretically, might favor laws that limit
speech on the Internet), while Gore would appoint liberal justices (who
might rule against such laws). But predicting how a particular Supreme
Court nominee might vote on a particular issue is both dangerous and, as we
have seen, sometimes a crapshoot.
Intellectual Property
On intellectual property laws -- including the well-publicized Napster case
-- it's hard to know where the candidates stand. Shortly after his
selection as Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney was asked on a Sunday morning
talk show what he thought of Napster's legal woes, and Cheney candidly
admitted that he had no idea. Gore has said he wants to "crack down on
foreign piracy of U.S. intellectual property" -- an admirable agenda item
-- but I suspect many of Napster's users 20 million users are here in the
United States.
Other Issues
While the Napster case has consequences that could affect the future of
many forms of digital distribution and thus the economy as a whole, it's
actually comforting to know that candidates for the highest elected offices
in the land aren't spending their time worrying about Metallica's MP3
files. Besides, U.S. intellectual property laws are well-established and
will be shaped most likely by the Congress and the courts, not the by the
White House.
On other issues, too, the candidates are united: Both favor efforts to
repair the digital divide, provide computers for students, increase the
number of visas available for high-tech workers and build up the role of
government services on the Internet. And each side has its fair share of
high-profile technology executives: Michael Dell and Jim Barksdale line up
with Bush; while Marc Andreesen and Reed Hundt line up with Gore.
The differences between the two major party candidates on Internet issues,
therefore, do not appear to be terribly significant. In my view, the future
of the Supreme Court is the most important Internet issue in this campaign,
but to others whose values and livelihoods may be different, the issues
will, of course, be different. Regardless, one thing is clear: The next
president of the United States could have a greater effect on shaping the
future governance of the Internet and the high-tech economy than anyone
else. So, pull yourself away from your broadband connection for a short
while on November 7 and cast your ballot -- even if it's on an outdated
punch card.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------