Home

Blog

How People Voted

33% For, 67% Against

Take Action

Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

H.R. 275, The Global Online Freedom Act of 2007

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

Comparing revision saved on January 11, 2008, 20:12:37 (webmaster), with revision saved on March 6, 2008, 20:18:22 (webmaster):

H.R. 275 would promote freedom of expression on the Internet and protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments.

== Detailed Summary ==

<summary>
Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 - Declares(Sec. 3) Defines, for this Act, &quot;United States business&quot; to mean: (1) a company with its principal place of business in the United States or that it is organized under the U.S. policy to: (1) promoteor state laws; (2) any issuer of a security registered under specified provisions of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart informationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and ideas through(3) any media; (2) use all appropriate instrumentsforeign subsidiary of U.S. influencesuch entities to support the free flowextent such entity controls the voting shares or other equities of information; and (3) deter U.S. businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countriesthe foreign subsidiary or authorizes, directs, controls, or participates in effecting online censorship.acts carried out by the foreign subsidiary that are prohibited by this Act.

Expresses the sense <b>Title I: Promotion of Congress that:Global Internet Freedom - </b>(Sec. 101) Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) promote the President should seek international agreementsright to protect Internet freedom;seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media; (2) someuse all appropriate instruments of U.S. businesses, in assisting foreign governmentsinfluence to restrict online access to U.S.-supported websitessupport the free flow of information; and government reports, are working contrary to(3) deter U.S. foreign policy interests.businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countries in effecting online censorship.

Amends(Sec. 102) Expresses the Foreign Assistance Actsense of 1961Congress that: (1) the President should seek international agreements to require assessments of electronic information freedomprotect Internet freedom; and (2) some U.S. businesses, in eachassisting foreign governments to restrict online access to U.S.-supported websites and government reports or to identify individual Internet users, are working contrary to U.S. foreign country.policy interests.

Establishes in(Sec. 103) Amends the DepartmentForeign Assistance Act of State the Office1961 to require annual assessments of Global Internet Freedom (OGIF).electronic information freedom in each foreign country.

Directs(Sec. 104) Establishes in the PresidentDepartment of State the Office of Global Internet Freedom (OGIF) to annually designate Internet-restricting countries. Prohibits U.S. businesses from locating, within such countries, anyperform various duties, including serving as the focal point for interagency efforts to protect and promote freedom of electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information. information abroad and developing and ensuring the implementation of a global strategy and programs to combat state-sponsored and state-directed Internet jamming by authoritarian foreign governments. Authorizes appropriations.

Prohibits U.S. businesses that collect or obtain personally identifiable information through(Sec. 105) Directs the Internet from providing that informationPresident to annually designate Internet-restricting countries, except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes. countries.

Requires<b>Title II: Minimum Corporate Standards for Online Freedom - </b>(Sec. 201) Prohibits U.S. businesses to report certain Internet censorship information involvingfrom locating, within a designated Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF.country, any electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information.

(Sec. 202) Prohibits U.S. businesses that maintaincollect or obtain personally identifiable information through the Internet content hosting services from jammingproviding that information to Internet-restricting countries, except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes as determined by the Department of U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported contentJustice. Establishes a private right of action for violations, allowing damages, including punitive damages, without regard to the amount in Internet-restricting countries.controversy and without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

Requires(Sec. 203) Requires any U.S. business that creates, provides, or hosts an Internet search engine to provide the OGIF with all terms and parameters used to filter or otherwise affect search results that are implemented because of any direct or indirect communication by any foreign official of an Internet-restricting country or to comply with a policy or practice of restrictions on Internet freedom in an Internet-restricting country.

(Sec. 204) Requires U.S. businesses that maintain an Internet content hosting service to report certain Internet censorship information involving Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF.

(Sec. 205) Prohibits U.S. businesses that maintain Internet content hosting services from jamming of U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported content in Internet-restricting countries.

(Sec. 206) Establishes civil and criminal penalties for companies and individuals for violations of various provisions of this Act.

(Sec. 207) Authorizes the President to waive the application of certain provisions of this title regarding a U.S. business or an Internet-restricting country. Directs the President to report waivers to Congress.

<b>Title III: Export Controls for Internet-Restricting Countries - </b>(Sec. 301) Directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct
a feasibility study regarding the development of export controls on exporting itemsand export licensing requirements relating to any item subject to regulations commonly known as the Export Administration Regulations to an end user in Internet-restricting countries for the purpose of facilitating substantial restrictions on Internet freedom reductionsfreedom. Requires a related report to Internet-restricting countries.appropriate congressional committees.
</summary>

<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->

== Status of the Legislation ==

<status>
Latest Major Action: 12/10/2007: House Committee2/22/2008: Placed on Energy and Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Jan. 16, 2008.the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 320.
</status>

<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->

== Points in Favor ==

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->

== Points Against ==

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->

« Return to Revision History.


Cost per :

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Ken Udas

December 26, 2007, 4:40am (report abuse)

I lead an organization that offers distance education to learners in a number of countries. Our principal mode of delivery is online. I am wondering if H.R. 275 would cover a situation in which a government actor of an “Internet-restricting country” requested the identity of a student or faculty member who produced content within an online course, even if it were legally acceptable to do so in a face-to-face/residential course? For example, materials posted to a discussion forum, published in a course blog or wiki, or a paper or other project stored in the learning management system were requested. If anybody has a thought about this, it would be great.

Ken Udas

December 26, 2007, 4:40am (report abuse)

I recently made a blog posting on Terra Incognita (http://blog.worldcampus.psu.edu) titled “The Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 and Open Education.” Terra Incognita is an education related blog that has focused on open source software (OSS), open educational resources (OER). In the posting I provided a bit of background and then posed the following questions:

1) Would this type of legislation (H.R. 275) be useful to educators?

2) Would it potentially serve as a means to free up OER for use in various countries?

3) Does it address fundamental access issues that are precursors for Open Education?

4) More pragmatically, does it potentially pose interesting questions for US universities who partner with universities in foreign countries that require “location of personally identifiable information” of students or faculty, wish to filter content, or block Internet sites?

Please feel free to visit if you are interested.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)