Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not Child's Play [McCain/Schumer bill could affect FR?]
the Core4 ^ | Dec. 11 | Larry E

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: censorship; fairnessdoctrine; firstamendment; govwatch; internet; johnmccain; mccain; myspace; newmedia; privacy; sexoffender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 12/11/2006 3:44:24 PM PST by Clint Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

I wonder when our Government is going to start blocking sites like Iran and North Korea do... /sarcasm off


2 posted on 12/11/2006 3:47:41 PM PST by fhlh (Liberal (noun): A person so open minded, their brains have fallen out of their head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

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.


3 posted on 12/11/2006 3:47:54 PM PST by stockpirate (John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

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.


4 posted on 12/11/2006 3:49:36 PM PST by bigdcaldavis (Xandros : In a world without fences, who needs Gates?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
"McCain"

There's that name again -- McCain. This guy's name seems to come up a lot when some bill is in the works that is designed restrict our rights.

We need better options for 2008. Otherwise, we are going to lose.
5 posted on 12/11/2006 3:49:44 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
Folks it just beginning. Wait until they start in on the fairness Doctrine. Here is an explanation of the Fairness Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
6 posted on 12/11/2006 3:50:20 PM PST by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Clint Williams
Since you mentioned McKeating...er, McCain....

The McCain-Feingold Indian Giving Loophole

8 posted on 12/11/2006 3:53:34 PM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdcaldavis
"I don't care who you are, Democrat or Republican...you don't f*ck with my First Amendment rights."

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.

9 posted on 12/11/2006 3:56:23 PM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

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.


10 posted on 12/11/2006 3:57:15 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

has the smell od Stalin about it


11 posted on 12/11/2006 3:58:22 PM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams

Won't affect FR that much. We've already got a moderator deleting that stuff.


12 posted on 12/11/2006 3:58:36 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Hal
"Wait until they start in on the fairness Doctrine."

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.

13 posted on 12/11/2006 4:00:40 PM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Neither McCain, nor Schumer should be allowed anywhere the crafting of legislation. They are both about as dangerous as they come...


14 posted on 12/11/2006 4:03:42 PM PST by Hegemony Cricket (Attn. CBS Evening News chief: "Be a Hero - Save the World From this Cheerleader")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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?


15 posted on 12/11/2006 4:05:07 PM PST by sionnsar (?trad-anglican.faithweb.com?|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

I guess the biggest change is that they'll have to report.


16 posted on 12/11/2006 4:07:57 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

With stiff penalties for failure.


17 posted on 12/11/2006 4:10:13 PM PST by sionnsar (?trad-anglican.faithweb.com?|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

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.


18 posted on 12/11/2006 4:10:54 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

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...


19 posted on 12/11/2006 4:11:41 PM PST by sionnsar (?trad-anglican.faithweb.com?|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

That's the dangerous part. But that doesn't seem to be the aim of the law.


20 posted on 12/11/2006 4:13:59 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson