Slashdot Mirror
Ashcroft Pledges To Fight Online Obscenity
sil points to an article at Wired which says that Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress (specifically, the House Judiciary Committee) this week that "Justice Department prosecutors would help state officials imprison sex-site operators that feature obscene images." "I wonder how one would be affected on the international level. So much for freedom of speech, and expression." says sil. Full article on Wired.
There's a site that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations
There have been a lot of them. In each of the cases I'm familiar with, someone got someone's name or address dead wrong in the database, and it amounted to a torte offense. They weren't sued because they were posting a list of pedophiles, they were calling someone a pedophile in print who clearly wasn't.
One local case, a fellow decided to post a list of rapists and child molesters in the area, obtained from the State Police, on a website and on printed flyers stuck on telephone poles in the vicinity of the supposed convicted. He got it wrong in at least one case, an upstanding father of three who had been accused of (not charged with, not convicted of) criminal sexual conduct back in the sixties. Well, the well-meaning loud mouth lists him as a twice convicted felon, convicted of abusing his own children. You know how well that goes over in court, doncha?
And when the spanking was over in civil court, the township fined his ass to the fullest extent for the illegal posting of fliers without a proper permit, and he was prosecuted for criminal trespass. You can't go walking up on just anyones property as you please to staple fliers to their trees, especially when you choose to tell the world lies.
If Ashcroft really wants to make a difference, he should go after political graft and corruption in a city such as Chicago (and the non-Chicago parts of Illinois are begging for an honest prosecutor from the Feds to clean Chicago up).
The only thing that this latest effort is going to result in is some smaller pornsites having to shell out big bucks for legal bills. After much money is spent, 3-5 people will have some smears on their records, and the Feds will have spent millions. Perhaps 2-3 people will actually spend time in jail.
--
--
It's a shame that the government would use Child pornography as a scapegoat to promote taking away someone's right to view pornography. Let me make some facts clear, first off my wife is the Euro Director of EHAP (Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia) so I have no problems seeing pedophiles go to jail or being killed (sorry I have no tolerance for those who hurt kids.) But using the kids is an excuse by the government to minimize the rights of people one step at a time.
There's a site that ha(s/d) an online database of pedophiles recently, their names, pictures, etc., and it was quickly dragged into the legal muck to halt its operations. Why doesn't governments all over allow these kinds of sites to run if they were so concerned with the children?
The failure of the (Clinton) administration to enforce those laws has led to a proliferation of obscenity, both online and off," Goodlatte said. "And I am particularly concerned about the safety of our children on the Internet, where they're subjected to child pornography and solicitation in a massive way."
Asked Goodlatte: "I'd like to know to what extent the Justice Department will use its resources to assist state and local enforcement in combating this cyberattack on our nation's children."
Getting back to privacy, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what should or should not be seen on the Internet or other due to the impartiality of it all. For instance I find Rotten, Defacation Vacation, offensive as all hell, yet why shouldn't they have the same liberty to post their expressions? I also find the Catholic religion offensive so why shouldn't I have the same right to have those leaders arrested since it's not my cup of tea.
You cannot have fair laws which state The cow can't jump over the moon but the pigs can, because its not fair. Government was put in place by the people, all of the people, and to bend over to try and appease a select amount of people is hypocritical as all hell.
Aside from this all, how is this going to affect the future outcomes of privacy? First they say they're doing this for the people, then they'll say implanting your brain with whatever product they choose is in your best interest as well. Its extremely disturbing, and I hope groups like the EFF, ACLU, and others get involved to halt the government from overstepping their bounds.
Want Root?
Besides most animal are probably underage.
if you take a strict constructionist approach to the US Constitution because the 9th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned by the US Constitution or not listed but directly connected to one (such as the creation of new branches of the military) doesn't exist for the federal government. In other words the federal government can make an air force, a space force or whatever because the US Constitution says that it can build a military (by saying it can raise armies and navies, for those that don't know the USAF was once a part of the US Army), but cannot regulate pornography because no where in the US Constitution does it say that there is power to establish a national code of morality.
The only exception to that rule is for-profit pornography because that is interstate or international commerce. However if no money is made by the site owner (intentionally, not the result of bad business planning) then it isn't commerce and thus cannot be regulated. And for the morality police among us I would say.... most porn I agree is disgusting and unethical, if not all of it, but I like to think of myself as a man of principle and thus I won't make an exception here.
The other one is it is for your safety. They have metal detectors and x-ray machines at federal buildings because of the Oklahoma bombing. If they had metal detectors then, McVeigh would have been prevented from driving a bomb up to the side of the building.
Fight Spammers!
which has a very specific and well-defined legal meaning (at least here in Canada -- and I would suspect also in the U.S.) and includes such things as depiction of rape and child pornography. I highly doubt they are going to run around censoring `typical' adult sites -- especially since many Americans hold freedom of expression to be essentially inviolable. So, don't worry, your porn will still be available!
Ummm... since when does an ultraconservative think he somehow "represents" us ALL? Where does he GET OFF acting like he's God? What will he do about the Hun and other offshore porn sites not within U.S. jurisdiction? Putting operators of "obscene" sites IN JAIL?! W. T. F.?! "Obscene" is now an offense punishable by IMPRISONMENT? Umm...
;-)
"We're sorry citizen, but wearing that shirt critising your government is Obscene. You are under arrest."
"We're sorry citizen, but those George Orwell books have been determined to be Obscene by the Party. You'll have to come with me."
"We're sorry citizen, but YOU have been deemed obscene. Your skin is not white, your eyes are not blue, and your hair is not blonde. Please follow me to the vaporization chamber."
Where the HELL are we going with this? When will america wake up to the power hungry, wannabe-DICTATORS in charge?
-Kasreyn
P.S. Yes, this is a very alarmist and off the wall post. Check your browser - you're at Slashdot! Whoops! Looks like you don't need to flame me for it.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger