Media Literacy: An Alternative to Censorship

Media literacy education has come a long way since the 1970s, when the first "critical thinking" courses were introduced in a few American schools. Most educators today understand that with the revolutionary changes in communication that have occurred in the last half-century, media literacy has become as essential a skill as the ability to read the printed word. Equally important, media literacy education can relieve the pressures for censorship that have, over the last decade, distorted the political process, threatened First Amendment values, and distracted policymakers from truly effective approaches to widely shared concerns about the mass media's influence on youth

Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control

"Fair use" is a crucial exception to "intellectual property" controls - it allows users to publish, distribute, or reproduce copyrighted or trademarked material without permission, for certain purposes. But extensive research, including statistical analysis and scores of firsthand stories from artists, writers, bloggers, and others, shows that many producers of creative works are wary of claiming fair use for fear of getting sued. The result is a serious chilling effect on creative expression and democratic discussion.Several factors must be considered in deciding whether a use of copyrighted material is "fair." Four factors identified in the copyright law are: 1) the purpose and character of the new work; 2) the nature of the original work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the original work that was used; and 4) the effect of the new work on the market for the original. Examples of fair use are criticism, commentary, news reporting, scholarship, and "multiple copies for classroom use." "Will Fair Use Survive?" suggests the need for strengthening fair use so that it can be an effective tool for anyone who contributes to culture and democratic discourse. The report finds: Artists, writers, historians, and filmmakers are burdened by a "clearance culture" that ignores fair use and forces them to seek permission (which may be denied) and pay high license fees in order to use even small amounts of copyrighted or trademarked material.The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA) is being used by copyright owners to pressure Internet service providers to take down material from their servers on the mere assertion that it is infringing, with no legal judgment and no consideration of fair use.An analysis of 320 letters on the Chilling Effects website, an online repository of threatening cease and desist and "take down" letters, showed that nearly 50% of the letters had the potential to stifle protected speech. Report Highlights:The giant Bank of America sent a threatening letter to a small ceramic piggy bank company called Piggy Bank of America, claiming its use of the name was a trademark violation.A "planetary enlightenment" group called Avatar consistently suppressed online discussion group postings critical of its program by using DMCA "take down" letters.MassMutual sent a cease and desist letter to the gripe site "MassMutualSuks.com," claiming trademark infringement.Mattel sued artist Tom Forsythe for his series of "Food Chain Barbies," acerbic commentaries on Mattel's role in perpetuating gender inequality. Only after a long, bruising court fight did Forsythe win the right to parody Barbie.The report recommends: creating a clearinghouse for information, including sample replies to cease and desist and "take down" letters; outreach to Internet service providers who are instructed by companies to take down sites with material they claim as copyright-protected; changes in the law to reduce the penalty for guessing wrong about fair use; and the creation of a national pro bono legal support network.On December 15, 2005, Representatives Rick Boucher, Zoe Lofgren, and John Doolittle circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter praising the report for explaining why fair use "is a crucial part of our copyright law," and why legislation is needed to secure fair use rights in the digital environment

On Protecting Children—From Censorship: A Reply to Amitai Etzioni

Etzioni\u27s argument for censorship of minors ignores the fundamental problem with Internet filters, misstates the results of media-effects research, and uses emotional terms like protection and harm to mask moral judgments about what is appropriate for youth. Given the size and constantly changing character of the Internet, filters necessarily rely on key words and phrases. As a result, thousands of valuable Web pages are mistakenly blocked by filters, even at their narrowest settings. The problem is inherent in the system. Most media-effects studies do not show a causal link between violent content and violent (or aggressive ) behavior. The studies that claim positive results often involve manipulation of the numbers or use dubious proxies for aggression (such as popping balloons). Media violence actually has a variety of effects. Scholars say that for many youths, it provides a harmless outlet for aggression. Etzioni evades the task of defining what he thinks should be censored. But this challenge cannot be avoided. Because of the difficulty of definition, restrictions are inevitably vague and overbroad. They also ignore minors\u27 free expression rights, which expand as they mature. Noncensorial approaches—media literacy, sexuality education, and funding of alternative, nonprofit media—are in any event more effective than censorship in addressing concerns about adverse media effects

On Protecting Children—From Censorship: A Reply to Amitai Etzioni

Etzioni\u27s argument for censorship of minors ignores the fundamental problem with Internet filters, misstates the results of media-effects research, and uses emotional terms like protection and harm to mask moral judgments about what is appropriate for youth. Given the size and constantly changing character of the Internet, filters necessarily rely on key words and phrases. As a result, thousands of valuable Web pages are mistakenly blocked by filters, even at their narrowest settings. The problem is inherent in the system. Most media-effects studies do not show a causal link between violent content and violent (or aggressive ) behavior. The studies that claim positive results often involve manipulation of the numbers or use dubious proxies for aggression (such as popping balloons). Media violence actually has a variety of effects. Scholars say that for many youths, it provides a harmless outlet for aggression. Etzioni evades the task of defining what he thinks should be censored. But this challenge cannot be avoided. Because of the difficulty of definition, restrictions are inevitably vague and overbroad. They also ignore minors\u27 free expression rights, which expand as they mature. Noncensorial approaches—media literacy, sexuality education, and funding of alternative, nonprofit media—are in any event more effective than censorship in addressing concerns about adverse media effects

The Progress of Science and Useful Arts: Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom

Copyright -- our system for protecting and encouraging creativity -- has been described as "the engine of free expression." But copyright can also interfere with free speech -- with the public's right to share, enjoy, criticize, parody, and build on the works of others. Resolving these sometimes conflicting claims requires policymakers, in the words of the Supreme Court, to strike a "difficult balance" between rewarding creativity through the copyright system and "society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce." Where should we draw the line between rewarding creativity through the copyright system and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas? These questions have become the subject of heated debate in Congress, academia, and the arts and entertainment industries. "The Progress of Science and Useful Arts": Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom demystifies such complex laws as the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and deconstructs the underlying conflicts over "fair use," parody, copying, and the public domain. The report concludes with eight recommendations for a better-balanced public policy on copyright and free expression