Politics and Law

The U.S. Supreme Court's sweeping ruling on Thursday that invalidated large chunks of campaign finance law arose in part from an unlikely source: the emergence of Facebook, YouTube, and blogs, and the decline of traditional media outlets.

A 5-4 majority concluded that technological changes have chipped away at the justification for a law that allows individuals to create a blog with opinions about a political candidate--but threatens the ACLU, the National Rifle Association, a labor union, or a corporation with felony charges if they do the same.

The now-invalidated law "would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech."

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, called it the "first appearance" of the word "blog" in a Supreme Court opinion. And Google's video-sharing site is singled out in the conclusion, with Kennedy writing that "skits on YouTube.com" that cast politicians in an unflattering light could give rise to "felony" charges if a corporation dared to post them.

Kennedy added: "Rapid changes in technology--and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression--counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social-networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues."

Federal law generally prohibits for-profit and nonprofit corporations and unions from paying to advocate the election of or defeat of a political candidate. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law expanded that prohibition to include so-called electioneering communications, defined as any "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that even "refers to" a candidate for federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Thursday's ruling invalidates many of those requirements, meaning that nonprofit and for-profit corporations and labor unions will be able to spend money on political films, advertisements, YouTube videos, and so on. But the decision comes with two important caveats: first, none of that money will be permitted to go directly to political candidates. Second, an 8-1 majority of the court upheld a disclosure requirement applying to those groups spending money on the political ads or other materials.

The court pointed out that the now-invalidated laws are more sweeping than the term "campaign finance" might imply--and amount to simple censorship. It listed these acts of political speech that previously would have been criminalized: the Sierra Club running an ad (close to the time of an election) disapproving of a congressman who favors logging in national forests; the NRA publishing a book urging a vote against an incumbent U.S. senator who supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creating a Web site telling the public to vote for a presidential candidate because of that candidate's defense of free speech.

The front of the U.S. Supreme Court

(Credit: Supremecourtus.gov)

The case in front of the Supreme Court arose when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group, sought a legal opinion recognizing their right to air a documentary film sharply critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United worried that the film and ads for the film, to be shown on a video-on-demand service before the 2008 Democratic primaries, would subject them to civil and criminal penalties.

The New York Times endorses political candidates (in 2008, it endorsed Barack Obama). So does the New York Post (it chose John McCain).

Those endorsements on the eve of a presidential election were permitted under U.S. election laws--even though both newspapers are owned by corporations with market capitalizations in the billions of dollars. But the tiny nonprofit called Citizens United, funded mostly by individual donations, was barred from sharing its own political views.

Joel Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and ACLU lawyer who argued a landmark 1976 Supreme Court case, wrote at The New York Times' Web site today that the justices "dismantled the First Amendment 'caste system' in election speech. Before today, the right to speak depended on who was doing the speaking: business corporations, no, unless they were media corporations; nonprofit corporations, maybe, depending on where they got their funding; labor unions, no."

This legal equivalent of a caste system was assembled by legislators and judges during an era when the only national television broadcasters were the major networks, when only Hollywood produced documentaries, and when only large publishers owned printing presses.

Deciding who was a media company must have been easier then, and in fact a 1986 Supreme Court case yielded the verdict that a pro-life advocacy group's newspaper did not qualify for the press exemption.

But then blogs, digital cameras, and social-networking sites arrived. When anyone with an iPhone can edit and upload a video to YouTube within seconds, who qualifies as media? Does a daily radio show hosted by the NRA? How about a Web site run by Microsoft that includes essays from political types including an Obama campaign advisor on energy and environmental issues who was also a surrogate for Obama at public events and a member of Obama's transition team?

That's what led Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, to say: "With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media...the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred."

The dissenting justices, on the other hand, downplayed the effect of the McCain-Feingold and other laws on the Internet. Justice John Paul Stevens (who may be retiring this year) wrote that the law "does not apply to printed material" so it's unreasonable to worry about a ban on "books, pamphlets, and blogs."

Stevens also wrote: "We highly doubt that (the law) could be interpreted to apply to a Web site or book that happens to be transmitted at some stage over airwaves or cable lines, or that the (Federal Election Commission) would ever try to do so." (In 2006, amidst warnings that this was the beginning of a new regulatory structure, the FEC adopted a generally liberal view of Internet politicking.)

While Thursday's ruling left supporters of stricter regulation of political speech outraged, their next steps are not obvious. President Obama said his administration will "talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision," although any revised legislation could be struck down by the Supreme Court again. In a conference call with reporters, the Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG advocacy groups said they had started a petition drive and would even seek to amend the U.S. Constitution--marking the first time that the First Amendment would be explicitly altered.

The White House's new iPhone app

(Credit: The White House)

If you can't catch the president's next speech on TV, no problem--you can watch it on your iPhone.

The White House has hit the iTunes market with its very own app designed to keep all good U.S. citizens updated on the latest goings-on of government. In addition to offering news, blogs, photos, and videos, the app can tap into a live news feed, letting you watch such events as the president's annual State of the Union speech set for next Wednesday.

Washington is also promising more for the portable market. A mobile version of the WhiteHouse.gov Web site will soon be launched for other phones and devices.

Compatible with both the iPhone and iPod Touch 2G, the new White House app seems to be a hit with the American voters, so far winning 73 five-star ratings from the App Store, only 15 one-star reviews, and about a dozen split down the middle.

And unlike most things in Washington, this one won't cost you any money.

Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Larry Downes' bio below.

I'm finally recovering from the case of information overload I caught at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this month. A great deal of policy was discussed at gadget central, thanks to the hard work of Tech Policy Central, which, for the first time at CES, put on a partner conference focused on information law and policy.

Boiling down my notes from the entire week, it's clear that the White House is developing an ambitious new plan to support information technology that previous administrations simply didn't have. The emerging emphasis on IT could lead to very positive developments, particularly for Internet companies and users.

Over the next few months, the details of this policy will become clearer. But for now, the federal government is trying hard to communicate its belief that IT has become a key driver of economic performance. Expect more announcements and initiatives aimed at stimulating efforts to accelerate IT adoption by businesses, consumers, and the government itself.

The push for universal broadband
The new policy is centered around a National Broadband Plan currently being drafted by the Federal Communications Commission. (The original delivery date of February 17 has been delayed a month.) Although the plan was mandated by Congress as part of the 2009 stimulus bill, the commission and the White House have taken the opportunity to rethink many old assumptions about technology policy.

Although there are some grumblings, notably by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, about a lack of transparency in the preparation of the document, the Obama administration and FCC speakers at CES were all enthusiastic about the so-far undisclosed contents. Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski praised the FCC staff and outside experts who have been working on the plan over the past year, noting that the scope of the project was "unprecedented" in the history of the agency.

There's no doubt that the plan will make universal broadband access for all Americans a national priority. Universal access will be defined as affordable, high-speed Internet availability throughout the United States and will rely on a combination of fiber, cable, satellite, copper, and high-speed wireless. (I heard no mention of broadband over power lines, a technology that has shown promise but has so far been held back by regulatory inertia.) Set-top box technologies that will make televisions act more like computers are also critical, particularly to lower-income Americans.

The administration believes that an aggressive rollout of higher speeds and full coverage will translate to faster economic recovery and increased competitiveness for U.S. businesses. Although broadband Internet access is currently available in 90 percent of the United States and installed in roughly 73 million homes, as a percentage of population, the U.S. currently ranks eighth in overall broadband penetration.

The big question is how to fund the investments needed to achieve this ambitious goal. Leading companies in the communications industry have made multibillion-dollar investments in broadband infrastructure throughout the dot-com crash and the current recession, but it's clear that a great deal more money is needed to fill the gaps in coverage and increase transmission speeds overall. The U.S. faces geographic, economic, and sociocultural challenges to universal adoption that smaller and more urban countries don't.

Neil Fried, minority counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, repeated a much-cited figure that making 100Mbps broadband available to every American home will cost an additional $350 billion in infrastructure upgrades. By comparison, the stimulus bill allocated only $7 billion for broadband projects. The proposal process contained so many restrictions on how the funds could be spent that none of the major players even applied.

So the vast majority of this investment is going to have to come from the private sector, which spent an estimated $60 billion just in 2008. Indeed, private-sector investment became a major theme of the conference. Genachowski, by my count, used the phrase "private investment" seven times in his comments at CES.

The fate of Net neutrality
One casualty of the National Broadband Plan, it seems, will be Net neutrality regulations. In October, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as promised by Genachowski the month before, that would codify existing FCC policy and extend it, notably to wireless Internet providers.

The proposed rules, if adopted later this year, would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or "fast lane," service to content providers over the parts of the network they control (that is, the last mile to the consumer). The deadline for initial public comments on the proposed rules expired last week.

Although most of the major ISPs have written publicly and in their comments to the commission that they support the principles of Net neutrality, there is strong opposition to at least some of the rules the FCC has proposed and to the idea that it should fall to the FCC to implement and enforce these principles. Many key features of the proposal remain undefined, including which exceptions to neutrality will be permitted in the interest of "reasonable network management." On enforcement, the proposal eschews specifics in favor of operating on a "case by case" basis.

In a piece I wrote for CNET during CES, I argued that the push to make the National Broadband Plan a reality was leading the administration to back away from its proposed Net Neutrality rules--or at least from the militant language that accompanied their introduction. (Genachowski, for example, initially called for an FCC that would act as a "smart cop on the Internet.") The proposed rules were seen by investors as limiting their ability to make back the billions of dollars they were putting into Internet infrastructure, I wrote, and that, in turn, was making the White House nervous about the prospects for its ambitious broadband goals.

This is not to say that the FCC is abandoning the proposed rulemaking. But the tone of the rhetoric has changed markedly, both in comments made at CES by White House, FCC, and Department of Commerce speakers, and in recent filings by, in particular, the Justice Department and the Commerce Department as part of the National Broadband Plan. How that change translates in a final decision on the proposed rules and their enforcement, if they--or some more moderate version of them--are ultimately approved by the FCC, remains to be seen.

Also in play
The fate of Net neutrality may also depend on the outcome of an important development that took place during CES--but on the other side of the country. On January 8, hours before Genachowski took the stage at CES, the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in an appeal by Comcast over sanctions the FCC issued against the company in 2008 for throttling customer speeds when using certain peer-to-peer applications, notably BitTorrent.

As was widely reported, the three-judge panel considering the appeal questioned government lawyers severely, leading many media sources to predict that the sanctions would be reversed. Such questioning, however, may signal nothing more than concern about the legal footing on which the FCC based its authority to issue the sanction. And the court's decision and opinion could be months away.

But if the court rules broadly that the FCC has no authority to regulate ISPs under current law, the focus of the Net neutrality debate will shift from the FCC's rule-making back to Congress. Since 2007, several bills have been floating around committees that would give the commission explicit authority and a mandate to enforce some version of Net neutrality. There are also bills, notably one introduced in October by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would prohibit the agency from proceeding.

Given the other priorities in Congress, no one would place bets right now on which bills may move forward, or when. How Congress responds to the National Broadband Plan and the White House's increased emphasis on the Internet as the engine of economic recovery are the more interesting developments to watch.

WASHINGTON--Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled on Thursday a new U.S. policy that encourages the world's governments to ensure their citizens have open access to the Internet.

The speech comes a little more than a week after Google's blunt declaration about Chinese censorship and illegal electronic intrusions, and the company's assertion that it will pull out of China if it can't reach a reasonable understanding with the Beijing government.

9:54 a.m. EST Clinton took the stage here at the Newseum, a museum dedicated to the news industry, and appealed to the audience to think of the communications networks that have been destroyed in last week's massive earthquake in Haiti. She also noted how a mother and daughter in Haiti enabled their rescue by sending a text message. Clinton called communication networks a "new nervous system" for the world.

"In many respects, information has never been so free," Clinton said. She referred to the way that virtually anyone can broadcast information to the Internet at any time. But governments can also use Internet and communications technologies to repress their people, she said, "just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns."

"We stand for a single Internet, where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas," Clinton said.

"The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyberspace." -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking Thursday in a major policy statement.

(Credit: State Department photo)

10:01 a.m. EST As late as Wednesday morning, as CNET News reported at the time, it remained unclear whether Clinton would address the China-Google incident directly, or whether she will employ more circuitous diplomatic language.

The final version of the speech does single out "Chinese authorities" directly, while including other indirect references--"we must work to advance the freedom of worship online"--to the communist nation's sometimes brutal treatment of its citizens. For example, some reports have cited torture, persecution, or imprisonment of Chinese Christians, especially those who worship outside of a state-registered church.

10:05 a.m. EST Clinton compared the actions of some governments in censoring the Internet to the Berlin Wall, holding back the freedoms of their citizens. The U.S. believes the Internet requires some basic freedoms for its users, including the freedom of expression--the Internet as the equivalent of the modern-day town square.

Still, that doesn't mean the U.S. looks kindly on all forms of digital expression, such as al-Qaeda's use of the Internet to organize and promote violence against the U.S., Clinton said. Wrestling with the need to allow free expression while seeking out those who wish to take down a government is a challenge for countries around the world, and some may very well choose to err on the side of repression.

Like expression, freedom of religion is another basic right of Internet users. "Prayers will always travel on higher networks," Clinton joked. But governments that deny the expression of religious beliefs on the Internet are denying their citizens basic rights, she said.

The economic benefits of Internet freedom are well understood in the U.S., with venture capitalists hovering around clusters of 20-something techies in hopes they've created the next big thing. But such benefits are very much new in places like Africa, where access to things like mobile phones and micro-loans is having a big impact on economic growth, Clinton said. "A connection to information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity," she said.

10:06 a.m. EST In what some wags are already calling the Clinton Doctrine, the secretary of state has positioned her speech as a 21st-century upgrade to ideas that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined in January 1941. FDR's address to Congress at the time--the audio is online--outlined what he described as freedom of speech and expression; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear. (FDR's freedom from fear seems almost quaint nearly 70 years later amidst U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq: he called for a "worldwide reduction of armaments" so "that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.")

Clinton's upgrade to Roosevelt's list is a fifth freedom: the freedom to connect. "The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyberspace," she said. "It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate in the name of progress."

10:19 a.m. EST It's time for "21st century statecraft," Clinton said. This includes funds for programs that ensure access to the Internet and fight against government censorship, she said. The U.S. will establish a program in pursuit of this goal.

She gave the example of a mobile phone application that could evaluate governments and root out corruption. The hardware and software are basically out there already, she said, but mobile application developers have no real financial motivation to create such an application. That's going to change, Clinton said, although she didn't provide specifics.

Technology companies will have to help, Clinton said. Microsoft created a "digital doctor" application that is a good example of what she is trying to promote.

Clinton has assembled a team to work on this notion of 21st century statecraft, she said. They are working on items such as mobile banking and social networks in Pakistan.

10:25 a.m. EST Clinton finally addressed the recent cyberattacks, widely believed in security circles to be the work of the Chinese government.

"We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the activities that led Google to make its announcements," she said.

The U.S. and China have different views on control of the Internet, she noted. The State Department will address those concerns in due course, she said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton outlines U.S. policy on Internet freedom on Thursday.

(Credit: Tom Krazit/CNET)

10:28 a.m. EST Thursday's speech ratcheted up the forcefulness of the language employed by the State Department regarding the cyberattacks on Google and other tech companies. Earlier this week, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters that the "Chinese are in the best position to explain this, and we are asking them for an explanation."

On Thursday, Clinton's remarks were more direct, stressing that Washington now expects Beijing to answer some questions about the unlawful intrusions.

"Chinese authorities need to provide an explanation for the cyberattacks originating on Chinese soil that led Google to this decision," she said.

10:32 a.m. EST Clinton fired a broadside against U.S. media companies that do business in China.

"Censorship should not be accepted by any company from anywhere. American companies need to make a principled stand," she said, alluding to Google's threat to pull out of China unless the company is allowed to offer an uncensored search engine.

Microsoft, for one, reiterated its commitment to operating in China following Google's announcement.

Clinton closed by reminding the audience of the girl in Haiti who was rescued via text message, saying that the U.S. should not allow anyone to be buried buried--under rubble or under censorship--in this day and age.

10:40 a.m. EST An audience member asked Clinton how she is supposed to manage employees in China who are subject to oversight and even detention at times. Without directly answering the question, Clinton referred to the talks the U.S. government has had with the Chinese government over these issues. There is a "foundation of understanding" between the two countries, but disagreements on several issues, she said.

10:47 a.m. EST That's it for the speech. Panel discussions will follow. Check back later for more coverage of the day's events.

The European Commission has officially approved the Oracle-Sun merger, paving the way for Oracle to take over Sun Microsystems in a deal valued at more than $7 billion.

"I am now satisfied that competition and innovation will be preserved on all the markets concerned. Oracle's acquisition of Sun has the potential to revitalize important assets and create new and innovative products," said Neelie Kroes, the European antitrust commissioner, in a statement Thursday.

The approval by the EC, which faced a late-January deadline, comes after months of limbo during which the Commission expressed skepticism about the antitrust aspects of the proposed deal, first announced in April 2009. Concerns that Oracle's ownership of the MySQL software would pose a competitive threat in the database market prompted the European regulators to launch an in-depth investigation in September. Specifically, the Commission feared that MySQL's role as a leading open-source database might be jeopardized if Oracle, a software powerhouse built on its proprietary database, took ownership.

Oracle has an event planned for next Wednesday, open to customers, partners, press, and analysts, in which CEO Larry Ellison and other executives from both Oracle and Sun will discuss their strategy and road map for integrating the two companies and their respective products.

In now okaying the deal, the EC cited several factors that seemed to ease its mind.

The Commission said it found that "although MySQL and Oracle compete in certain parts of the database market, they are not close competitors in others, such as the high-end segment."

The EC, which is the regulatory arm of the European Union, also felt that even if Oracle were to limit MySQL's position as an open-source product, other open-source databases could rise to fill the void. In its investigation, the European regulators named the open-source database PostgreSQL, considered by many to be a viable alternative to MySQL. Additionally, they found that other forks of the MySQL code could also sprout quickly enough to provide competition to Oracle if necessary.

In addition, the EC was reassured by a series of pledges made by Oracle in December, in which the company promised to support and develop MySQL under an open-source license. Oracle committed to spend more on R&D, maintain healthy relations with third-party developers, and launch advisory boards to help guide the product's future.

Oracle has already made good on some of its pledges, the EC noted, by offering third parties the option to amend their license contracts for MySQL, allowing them to continue to build storage engines that integrate with the product and enhance its capabilities.

Besides its focus on MySQL, the Commission also considered the impact of Oracle owning Sun's Java platform, an issue that concerned the U.S. Justice Department before it okayed the merger.

The EC looked at the possibility that Oracle might prevent access to Java's intellectual property rights, especially to its competitors. But the commission felt that Oracle would gain nothing from such an action as this would actually limit the growth of Java. The company would also be restricted in tampering with Java's intellectual property by the involvement from other tech companies in the Java Community Process (JCP), which helps build and update specifications for Java technology.

Since Oracle revealed its intent to buy Sun last April, the deal has gone through a roller coaster ride of investigations, complaints, and concerns. After shareholders gave the merger the thumb's up in July, the U.S. Justice Department followed in August by granting regulatory approval.

Oracle seemed confident the deal would slide through until the European Commission stepped on the brakes in November by formally objecting to the merger, citing worries over an Oracle-controlled MySQL. Other prominent voices chimed in to raise similar fears, including MySQL co-founder Michael "Monty" Widenius, who urged Oracle to sell MySQL to move the deal forward.

In the meantime, Sun's future looked increasingly cloudy as the company lost money daily, and Sun customers were wooed by competitors IBM and Hewlett-Packard. But Oracle CEO Larry Ellison remained steadfast, vowing not to sell MySQL just to win approval and eventually placating the EC by issuing his list of pledges.

With the EC's nod, Oracle said it now expects unconditional approval from China and Russia and intends to close the deal shortly.

Updated at 7:31 a.m. PST with additional details from the European Commission's decision, and with background on Oracle's efforts to acquire Sun and at 10:20 a.m. PST to correct phrase Sun-controlled MySQL to Oracle-controlled MySQL.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is preparing to deliver a major speech on Thursday elevating the importance of Internet freedom and placing the influence of the United States' diplomacy behind efforts to protect it, according to multiple people who have been briefed on the speech's contents.

Clinton's speech at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., is intended to announce that support for online liberty and press freedom will become a State Department priority and will address the importance of cybersecurity, people who have been briefed said. For example, the U.S. could be prepared to require countries to declare support for basic principles around Internet freedom as part of the conditions for receiving foreign aid, sources told CNET News.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

(Credit: State Department)

The speech will come just nine days after Google's blunt declaration about Chinese censorship and illegal electronic intrusions, including allegations of theft of intellectual property. As many as 30 other companies may have been targeted, including Yahoo, Symantec, Juniper Networks, Dow Chemical, and Northrop Grumman.

One question left unanswered during the briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, which took place Wednesday morning, is whether the State Department would risk offending the Chinese government by addressing last week's charges lodged by Google. "We did not get the impression that there would be any particular reference to the Google China incident," said Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, one of the people briefed.

But a State Department official, speaking on background, told CNET later in the day that the Google-China incident will be included in the speech.

The speech comes at a precarious time in Washington-Beijing relations, which have been stressed by a dispute over carbon emissions at the Copenhagen summit and controversy over the valuation of China's currency, the yuan.

"If people are looking for a laying out of a 1-through-10 Internet agenda, they're going to be disappointed," said Leslie Harris, the president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who was also briefed. "But if they're looking for the United States to put the power of its diplomacy on the line for Internet freedom, it's going to be a very important speech."

Google's blunt admission that it believes the Chinese government is behind intrusions into its internal network, and perhaps theft of source code, has roiled political and technological circles since last week. It has led the State Department to indicate that it would lodge a protest in a formal letter--called a demarche--with Beijing.

In the last few days, State Department officials have had multiple meetings with their Chinese counterparts and say they plan to continue the discussions.

During a press briefing on Wednesday, however, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell declined to say whether the demarche has been sent.

"We take this matter very seriously and, as Secretary Clinton said last week, that the whole issue does raise serious concerns," Campbell told reporters. "Now, it is also clear that China has denied the allegations made by Google. But we also think that the Chinese are in the best position to explain this, and we are asking them for an explanation."

Expect to hear about more than China, however. Sources familiar with the development of the policy said it dates back to last summer, when violent protests in Iran were all over Twitter and YouTube despite attempts by the Iranian government to censor the communications. Even some countries like South Korea, home to widespread Internet usage, have enacted laws such as requiring those uploading videos to YouTube to use their real names instead of pseudonyms.

And there are dozens of countries in which citizens are just starting to access and appreciate the global Internet. Some of the governments in those countries are attempting to figure out how they will respond to these new freedoms, and could potentially be swayed one way or another by a carrot-and-stick approach from the U.S. government tied to foreign aid.

Human rights groups cautioned on Wednesday that a high-profile address by an administration official may be forgotten within a year or so. They said that happened in February 2006 when then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice created the Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFTF), convened a few meetings, and then let the effort languish.

"I would hope that it's not GIFTF 2, but a decided evolution from that," said Arvind Ganesan, director of Human Rights Watch's business and human rights program. "It'll be interesting to see if they're not only supporting openness online, but supporting it to a particular end."

Sharon Hom, executive director of the Human Rights in China advocacy group, also stressed a wait-and-see approach. "It's important to make a strong policy statement," Hom said. "More important is how it will become implemented."

Google's recent turmoil in China has prompted the company to halt the launch of two Android smartphones in the Chinese market.

The company told Dow Jones Newswire on Tuesday that it has indefinitely postponed the Chinese debut of two mobile phones manufactured by Samsung and Motorola. The phones, which were to be sold by provider China Unicom, were initially set to hit China on Wednesday.

An unnamed source told Dow Jones that Google felt it would be "irresponsible" to unveil the phones now, in light of the company's current situation in China. No details were given regarding when or if the launch would be rescheduled.

Since opening up shop in China in 2006, Google has self-censored the search results of its Chinese site to comply with the country's strict communications rules. But Google, whose company slogan is "don't be evil," announced last week that it would no longer censor results even if it meant closing down operations in that country.

This reversal was triggered in part by last year's cyberattacks against Google and other U.S. companies, which were designed to dig up information on Chinese human rights activists. Google didn't specifically point the finger at the Chinese government, but it did say that these attacks and China's attempts to limit free speech have forced it to reevaluate its business interests in that country.

The skirmish has even pulled in the U.S. government. The State Department announced Friday that it will issue a formal request to China for an explanation of the cyberattacks.

The U.S. government plans to ask China for a formal explanation regarding the cyberattacks against Google and other U.S. companies, according to a State Department spokesman.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already hinted at such a move in a statement she released when Google first revealed the attacks. "We will be issuing a formal demarche to the Chinese government in Beijing on this issue in the coming days, probably early this week," AFP quoted State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley as saying during a briefing Friday.

Google's disclosure of attacks that are thought to involve more than 30 U.S. companies set off a firestorm in the diplomatic and security communities this week, tapping into growing frustration over trade and China within the U.S. government, according to the report. Google is also considering leaving China altogether unless it is allowed to offer an uncensored search engine, which is not very likely.

Secretary Clinton is expected to deliver "a major policy address on Internet freedom" next Thursday in Washington, D.C., which could be the setting for the introduction of a more comprehensive government policy on cyberattacks and censorship.

The U.S. Department of Justice has closed its investigation of cell phone text message pricing without any action taken against wireless operators, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The Justice Department launched its investigation into text message pricing in September 2008, after Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked the agency to look into why wireless operators had doubled text-messaging rates from 10 cents per message to 20 cents per message sent and received. Kohl said he was concerned that the industry had colluded to increase rates at roughly the same time.

Wireless companies denied that they had colluded to set rates. And industry executives pointed out that consumers were actually paying less per text message because of plans that offered bundled packages or packages wit unlimited text messages.

But consumer groups such as Consumers Union say these plans, which cost anywhere from $5 to $20 a month, force customers to subscribe to more expensive plans. Consumer groups also argue that the cost charged for texting far outstrips the cost to network operators.

Even though the Justice Department has closed the books on this investigation, other government agencies are still investigating the wireless industry over other potential competitive issues. For example, the Federal Communications Commission is looking at competition in the wireless market, including exclusive handset deals and early-termination fees.