Preface: My apologies, but a loyal geeker just pointed out that comments on Legal Geekery have been closed for quite a while. We’re not sure why this happened, but rest assured that those responsible have been sacked. Please take advantage of our newly reopened comments.
—–
How many ways can a proposed bill say “Google” without saying “Google?” Plenty, it turns out. Take a look at this excerpt from the California measure dubbed AB 255 introduced by Republican California Assemblyman Joel Anderson:
This bill would prohibit an operator, as defined, of a commercial Internet Web site or online service that makes a virtual globe browser available to members of the public from providing aerial or satellite photographs or imagery of places in this state that have been identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship, or government or medical building or facility unless those photographs or images have been blurred.
Additionally,
The bill would also prohibit that operator from providing street view photographs or imagery of those buildings and facilities. An operator that violates these provisions would be guilty of a crime and subject to a fine of not less than $250,000 for each day the operator is in violation of these provisions. In addition, an operator who is an executive officer or member of a board of directors who knowingly violates these provisions would also be subject to imprisonment in the state prison for one, 2, or 3 years.
God forbid schools, medical buildings, or places of worship show up on a map. I’m sure terrorists using Google Earth for reconnaissance is a super-serious problem nowadays, but can we maybe consider that pesky thing called the First Amendment for a moment? Is this really an instance of my needing protection so badly that I need to give up a few more rights?
Hopefully this is just another quack bill and won’t be seriously considered. Although Google is now blurring faces in Streetview, so who knows?
No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m not saying I agree with requiring Google to censor Google Earth, as I hold the opposite opinion, but here are a few considerations for devil’s advocate purposes:
1. Police Powers > 1st Amend. Here? The government’s police powers trump all sorts of other constitutional considerations under the right circumstances. I’d have to look up all the tests and such since it’s been two years since con law, but the general idea is true from a legal standpoint. Also, from a 1st Amend. perspective, your rights to access this information are not as significant a consideration as Google’s right to put the information out there. Legally, it doesn’t really matter what rights YOU are giving up here.
2. Law and Econ Cost/Benefit: A law and econ type or even public policy aficionado might say this is a classic cost/benefit or expected value issue. What utility do Google Earth users derive from having these buildings clearly visible? What utility would society potentially derive from having these locations blurred? Is there any way to know these values to any useful extent, and if not, is the imperfect information problem the lack of knowledge creates enough to negate the efficiency/societal utility argument if it’s actually in the government’s favor here?
3. This is commercial speech as far as I know, regardless of whether Google makes money DIRECTLY from Google Earth. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. Any law student who’s taken con law, and some who haven’t, knows that commercial speech gets its own type of treatment under constitutional law. This special treatment usually cuts against free speech. We could talk policy on this point all day; however, the special commercial speech classification is a legal fact for now.
Again, please remember my opening to this comment :)
All valid points. Thanks for your input.