Anti-DOPA Campaign Gears Up

Opponents of the Deleting Online Predators Act say bill is vague and ineffective

By Joan Oleck -- School Library Journal, 9/1/2006

I am going to hold my nose and vote for this legislation,” Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) said on the U.S. House floor on July 26, of the Deleting Online Predators Act.

DOPA, as it’s unfortunately known—considering opponents’ gleeful misuse of the acronym—passed the House by a wide, 410–15, margin that day. But opponents blamed that swiftness on political expediency rather than wisdom. In an election year, what politician wants to get caught in a sound bite seemingly opposed to a legislative halt to online predators?

Accordingly, DOPA passed easily and was sent to the Senate Commerce Committee, in search of a sponsor. If passed into law, DOPA will require schools and libraries receiving e-rate funding to block access to social networking sites like MySpace and Friendster, chat rooms, and perhaps blogs. Opponents, who include much of the library community, support the legislation’s overall intent to protect children from online predators, of course, but criticize the bill as overbroad, vague, and ineffective.

Opponents hope the Senate shares that view. “I believe that now, since the Senate has gone on [August] recess, they don’t look at this with the same type of priority as the House does,” says Melanie Anderson, assistant director of the American Library Association’s (ALA) Office of Government Relations. “The Senate is a lot slower in moving forward; they put a little more thought into their legislation.”

Opponents like ALA and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which promotes civil liberties in the digital media, plus educational groups such as the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), believe there’s breathing space, as Anderson puts it, to “educate members of the Senate about social networking sites.” Says Mark Uncapher, ITAA’s senior vice president, “Part of the calculus was that this bill would go over to the Senate, and there would be a 'statement’ made [by the House passage]; but there was little or no expectation that that language specifically would end up getting into law.”

That doesn’t assure a dead bill, cautions Leslie Harris, CDT’s executive director. “If we don’t get the message out clearly, given that this is an election year, that legislation could break loose.”

What will CDT and other opponents tell senators? First, DOPA raises a constitutional issue because it interferes with people’s ability to speak in the first place. Second, social conversation is a category of speech no court has allowed government to censor or regulate, Harris points out. Third, DOPA won’t alter the bulk of MySpace–type communications, which occur at home, or in libraries that don’t receive e-rate funds.

Further, DOPA would widen the gap between those families that can and can’t afford Internet and broadband access. And it would bar minors from perfectly healthy communications—like posting photos or linking to music. The bill’s need for major regulatory clarification also seems to be an early problem even among potential supporters.

Not that DOPA lacks proponents. Braden Lay, director of government affairs for i-SAFE Inc., an Internet-education safety organization, points out that the government has the right to place restrictions on computers that it funds—and emphasizes the potential liability for schools whose computers lead to an online predator-type tragedy. “No one’s really talked about that issue.”

“When filtering appeared on the scene, it raised the same reaction” as DOPA, Lay adds. But librarians can cope, he says. If students need MySpace, “schools won’t be the only place for [social networking] to happen… they do have computers in the home or at friends’ homes or other places.”