Posted on 12/11/2006 3:44:19 PM PST by Clint Williams
What is it about the internet (Sidebar: Why all of a sudden are people calling it the “internets?”) that makes politicians’ brains go all numb and mushy? Consider this from CNET News for this past Friday:
Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.
The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.
ISPs are already required to notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children if they discover any child pornography or “obscenity” on their sites. Now, I’m actually not happy about that because the NCMEC is a private organzation, not a law enforcement agency, and I frankly do not like the idea of such information being handed over to an agency whose use of it is subject to no legal restrictions. But to the immediate point here, the proposal by McCain (R-YesIamRunningforPresident) would dramatically expand that existing responsibility by laying
the same regulatory scheme - and even stiffer penalties - on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites. …
According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.
McCain also wants to create a federal registry of “any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier” used by convicted sex offenders, with punishments of up to 10 years in prison if they fail to supply it.
Then, any social-networking site must take “effective measures” to remove any Web page that’s “associated” with a sex offender.
But “social-networking” is not defined in the proposal, leading to fears it could be applied not just to places like MySpace but to any website that allows for personal profiles. Any such site could be required to keep track of all such profiles, compare each of them to a federal registry, and file reports on any matches found. And if you think that’s an extreme fear, consider just how bizarre the reasoning becomes when the phrase “child pornography” is invoked:
[T]he definitions of child pornography have become relatively broad.
The U.S. Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man named Jeff Pierson last week on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents’ consent. The images were overly “provocative,” a prosecutor claimed.
Where did that “broad” definition come from? The statute involved in the Pierson case calls child pornography the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person” under 18. That was taken to mean nudity or portrayals of minors having sex.
But in 1994, the Third Circuit Appeals Court upheld a conviction on child pornography charges based on videotape of girls in leotards on the grounds that close-ups of the girls meant their genitals were “on display” even though they were concealed by opaque clothing.
“Applying the plain meaning of the term ‘lascivious exhibition’ leads to the conclusion that nudity or discernibility are not prerequisites for the occurrence of an exhibition within the meaning of the federal child pornography statute,” the 3rd Circuit wrote.
That is, the Court was ruling that something - genitalia, in this case - could be hidden and on exhibition at the same time. It’s hard to imagine any other topic (save the equally emotional, equally logic-destroying, “national security”) where such reasoning would be advanced and accepted.
And this is where that slipperly slope has brought us: a “constitutionally dubious proposal … being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts” in the words of Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who decried the “irrational hysteria surrounding these social-networking sites.”
And just in case you’re inclined to dismiss that, perhaps you should consider that such hysteria is neither a new nor a passé feature of our culture.
And if you’re still inclined to say “Well, this is child pornography, this is different,” just what makes you think it’s going to stop there?
Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she’s planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes.
Face it: For the fear-mongers, child pornography is not the reason. It’s the excuse.
Footnote: For another view on what is prompting McCain’s effort, here are his own words:
In a speech on the Senate floor this week, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that “technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography.”
Yes! Of course! I see it all now! The internet emits some kind of special, high-frequency gamma-neutron radiation or something that makes you want child pornography! It has the power to control your sexual fantasies!
Mushy numbness.
Another Footnote: And just in case you think this sort of pandering to paranoia is a GOPper undertaking, besides Rep. DeGette there’s Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who intends to introduce legislation similar to McCain’s when Congress reconvenes in January.
I wonder when our Government is going to start blocking sites like Iran and North Korea do... /sarcasm off
McCain is not a Compassionate Conservative, or even a Conservative for that matter.
He has moved very far to the left and is not firmly in the Socialist Camp.
Any politician who votes for this shitty unconstitutional law deserves to be impeached for refusing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, for THEY would be the domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I don't care who you are, Democrat or Republican...you don't f*ck with my First Amendment rights.
Will the Internet evolve to circumvent and otherwise nullify this? It's hard to believe that the Net would willingly be suffocated in such a manner.
They already have. It was passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. And that's only the beginning. Now, with the recent election, they can really go to work on doing away with that pesky First Amendment.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain saw how the Internet helped ruin Kerry's 04 run. They want a gatekeeper ASAP to keep the same from happening to themselves.
McCain already tried once to impose controls, but the FEC (IIRC) ruled against him. He vowed to try other methods.
Look for attempts to pass more restrictive legislation in the dead of night.
has the smell od Stalin about it
Won't affect FR that much. We've already got a moderator deleting that stuff.
Enjoy conservative talk radio while you can because it will be gone within a year. Democrats want it gone; RINOS hate it and do too. The President will sign it. It's way too "divisive" and they think it gives us ideas.
Neither McCain, nor Schumer should be allowed anywhere the crafting of legislation. They are both about as dangerous as they come...
The deletion aspect won't change, but I wonder about the other things. I'm not even sure I still have the e-mail address from which I signed up. What if somebody else now has it?
I guess the biggest change is that they'll have to report.
With stiff penalties for failure.
I'm sure that if a pervert posted something worthy of prosecution, FR would not need a law to convince it to report it.
I wouldn't worry about someone else using your old screen name. They can tell which computer it came from.
With stiff penalties for failure -- and just wait until a Hillary Clinton comes into office and decides certain less-than-friendly sites need to Go Away...
That's the dangerous part. But that doesn't seem to be the aim of the law.
Can we still watch beheadings and torture from the mideast?
ping for later---I still have to respond to somebody who is stuck on Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party (which he lost) and several hills of e-documents to review.
Just don't sell your old computer to a pervert.
How reassuring...do away with conservative talk radio, and you end up with moonbat local radio...or even worse.
BTW, I wonder if the fairness doctrine would apply to shortwave.
Not surprised globalist McChurian wants more bureaucratic governmental control and a decrease in freedoms of the righteous hiding behind nice sounding brainless do-goodism.
Dear Lord, preserve us from another TRAITOR-IN-CHIEF in the White House.
He's still better than shrillery . . . merely because he stinks slightly less and would be somewhat slower in rushing us into the world government.
Hideous.
As with so many things, it's not the "aim" -- it's how it can be ab/mis/used. Over in Britain they're cracking down on all sorts of knives because criminals are using those knives in ways not intended by the manufacturers.
Of course those are criminals, not at all like our noble political class.
Anytime I see McCain and Schumer agreeing on anything, it just makes me more disgusted with McCain! Schmucky can't get any lower on my list, looks like McCain is trying to match him!
Just accept that Slavery is Freedom and you'll come to love big John.
BTW, did I mention that two local talk-show hosts are fighting a lawsuit leveled against them (by a local liberal judge) under McCain-Feingold, regarding "campaign contributions"? It pretty much kept them shut up the last election cycle...
He has moved very far to the left and is no(w) firmly in the Socialist Camp.
Pshaw! McCain is not a socialist. He's merely a rank opportunist.
He will run in whichever direction promises him press coverage (and/or votes).
We have given away more computers (to the indigent) than I can count, but have never sold one.
Okay, even though we wipe the hard drive and build the system up from scratch I realize a detailed forensic lab analysis could resurrect some of the deleted material -- but about the only "personal" data on my machines would be the encrypted backup of my PDA's password-retention utility.
Unless it's the source code for a project I haven't been able to touch for almost 4 years because if I do, the new company who bought us owns it. (OTOH, the CPU I wrote it for is probably out of production now.)
It would probably depend on whether the shortwave station was broadcasting from the US. Don't shortwave stations have to be licensed the same as AM and FM do? From the little bit that I've listened to shortwave back in the '90's, they thought the gov't. had no problem blocking programs they found "unsuitable" for consumption by the public, militia stuff, mostly.
I'm not so sure. Lots of threads have photos of Hillary and Madeline on them. It they don't count as obscene images - nothing does!
Explain, please. Deleting what stuff?
Obsenities, etc.
Lots of stuff that gets posted on FR now, would not be able to be posted. Censorship?
Can you weigh in on this yet?
Think of this: PERVERTS FOR HIRE!
Moveon.org pays convicted molesters to join conservative sites so they can be sued and shut down.
I don't think anybody can ever truly get over being tortured in a POW camp.
Bush is a closet neoliberal. He said he would sign a modified hate bill. See an earlier article about that (the article was from Ted Pike).
So in reality, if the fairness doctrine is reinstated, "huckster of gold" Ted Anderson would have to shut down that Genesis radio network. Alex Jones may be a nutcase, but he has First Amendment rights the same as everybody else.
Wouldn't surprise me to see Moveon.org pull such crap...after all, they're run by a globalist European scumbag.
LOL! That clause won't last.Google has about a billion dollars to pay politicians to protect it's porn customers.
The legislation does need to be much more limited (Google shouldn't be exempt though).
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO"
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO" Part II
U.S. Sen. John McCain is no War Hero
John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate
John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts...
McCain Is Booed by Labor Activists
McCain Rides to Kerry's Rescue: "John Kerry is Not Weak on Defense" (Today Show alert)
John McCain SCREAMS AT 9/11 FSA MEMBERS FOR OPPOSING HIS BILL TO GIVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS
A number of articles on McCain. (some the same as above)
McCain/Soros by Rabbi Areyh Spero
Soros' "Reform" (an article about Soros‘ instrumental hand in McCain/Feingold)
Great Collection!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.