White House opposition likely dooms anti-China Internet bill

Earlier this week we told you about the Bush administration opposing a bill that would slap extensive regulations on technology companies doing business in China and other nations deemed to be unreasonably "Internet-restricting."

That is likely to doom the legislation, which was written by Republican Rep. Chris Smith and enjoys the support of journalist and human rights groups.

We've now posted a copy of the U.S. Department of Justice's letter to Capitol Hill opposing the so-called Global Online Freedom Act. One key section of the proposed law limits the ability of U.S. companies to place servers with customer data in "restricting" nations.

(My colleague Charles Cooper and I also talked about the bill on our podcast, if you're interested.)

Some of the points that the Justice Department makes in its letter to Rep. Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, include:

• The bill talks about nations restricting Internet posting of "the "peaceful political, religious or ideological opinion or belief"--which would apply to much of western Europe, where making peaceful, political statements about the Holocaust that the government deems untrue can be a crime. (This is what ensnared Ernst Zundel, the neo-Nazi sympathizer who is serving a five-year prison term in Germany.)

• Foreign nations could retaliate against the United States by ceasing to cooperate with law enforcement requests for information. "This could have the unintended effect of creating 'cyberhavens' through which terrorists and other criminals can route their communications, knowing that the data will not be turned over to the United States," the letter says.

• American businesses could face retaliation directed against them as well by countries "sensitive to being perceived as 'second-class'" nations.

• In addition, American businesses could be squeezed into the impossible position of trying to comply with two contradictory laws at once. "Even low-level data handlers...would be forced to choose between following the law of their own country and U.S. law."

The U.S. State Department also opposes it; here's an excerpt from its letter:

The Administration shares the view reflected in H.R. 275, the Global Online Freedom Act, that freedom of expression on the Internet must be protected globally. However, the bill's key provisions--calling for labeling Internet-restricting countries and penalizing certain affected U.S. firms in such countries--are likely to undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts and to interfere unjustifiably with such U.S. firms' commercial engagement in those countries. For these reasons, the Administration would oppose the bill, as reported to the House.

Taken together, these points raised by the pair of letters are not minor ones. They're carefully aimed at the heart of the bill. They appear to make it impossible to salvage its current approach, which tries to force U.S. Internet companies to accomplish what even the State Department has been unable to do.

No wonder that Berman told us through a spokesman that he wants to "carefully study" the "ramifications" of this bill--a response that glossed over the fact that his committee painstakingly assembled a formal report and voted to approve it months ago. Still, better late than never.

This legislative exercise shows that it's easy to throw around insults, as the late Tom Lantos liked to do when executives visited from Silicon Valley. It's easy to speechify about morality. But actually writing legislation that makes sense--and complies with the demands of the U.S. Constitution, which does not seem to give Congress the authority to legislation in this area--is far more difficult.

[wiredog]

The reply letter makes sense only if you place greenbacks above you and your nations values. It's this shift in priorities that places us in the tough situation we're currently in with China. They hold all the cards and we bend over backwards to appease them. Just my two cents.

[Lerianis]

Unfortunately, most people in this country DO put greenbacks above their 'morality' when it comes down to it. I wish that wasn't the case, and I wish it wasn't the case that people's morality can be swayed by money to be more...... stringent than it otherwise would be.

[Lerianis]

Unfortunately, most people in this country DO put greenbacks above their 'morality' when it comes down to it. I wish that wasn't the case, and I wish it wasn't the case that people's morality can be swayed by money to be more...... stringent than it otherwise would be.

[Kainchild]

Big business (who we elected into office time and time again) doesn't want to lose China and all that cheap labor, so they WILL bend over backwards for them. I wonder what is going to be the look on their faces when China starts buying out all of their companies. I guess as long as it doesn't effect the current person making the money, they don't care if the China ends up owning this country. Let's see if Jim Cramer over at CNBC has a crying session over THAT.

[Greenbeanx]

Seems like alot of people are anti-Chinese which is never good...We need the Chinese and the Chinese need us. We buy their products. Thats a fact of life. Welcome to gobalization people. People say we bend backwards to the Chinese but we also bend backwards to countries with OIL.

[fuzzyCWD]

interSTATE commerce is part of the job of OUR government, so why isn't interNATIONAL commerce part of the job of the UN?

[itchief]

The Administration is merely covering the corporate rears of many loyal campaign contributors. The UN doesn't regulate trade. Trade sanctions have always been a way the US attempts to modify behavior of a country it thinks is out of line. China is our friend. Without China there would be a shortage of lead in kids' toys and toxic pet food throughout America!

[wiredog]

I don't hate the Chinese, I'm pro American. What's wrong with wanting your country to be a world leader calling the shots and not taking them. I'm sure the Chinese feel the same way about their country and I don't blame them. I think it's healthy. I understand we do the same for countries with OIL and other commodities that are necessary for the success of our economy. All I'm asking is that our leaders ask themselves what is best for "all of America" before they pull the trigger on some of these policies that make us a quick dollar but sell us out in the long run.