Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal
happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.
This is actually a fairly simple issue if people would take a step back and think about it.
Having a "place" where adult content is designated is not new concept. This happens in towns and countries all over the place. How many times have you heard of a town or city not wanting a "strip joint" next to the town hall, so they pass a law that says "sure you can have your strip joint, but only where we zone this kind of business". Just as you wouldn't want a department store located on a culda-sac, they make zoning laws that basically have "rules" so you don't have a "hell town" and property values drop...
Now that doesn't mean the street can't be someplace near a smelly dump, but you get the point.
There is NOTHING wrong with this. Jeez, you can't have a strip joint right next to a kids clothing store, its not right and its not appropriate, I don't care how your freedom of speech argument comes into it. Its just not right and if you think about it, its not fair to people to allow for this behavior.
The domain restrictions are a good idea. It prevents misrepresentation and strenghtens the whole notion that the Internet is not just the "wild west" anymore. I'm all for it. The bottom line: If your showing tits and ass on your site, thats adult stuff, and should be designated as such. If your showing art work with T&A, then you've got an issue. But I would also offer the notion that art can also be porn in some peoples minds -- but I think if you ask the artist, he wouldn't really want kids looking at his or her stuff (or if they do, they've got issues beyond freedom of speech). I'm all for shutting down sites that pull BS stuff like whitehouse.com, thats crap, and I think it sucks.
I think what will happen is that you'll see "clearing houses" where you can host your "adult stuff" and then link to it from your site. Almost like secure shopping cart services where you can "rent" an SSL certificate and shopping cart... Sure it costs more, but so doesn't the price of trying to explain to little johnny why that pretty young girl has a big penis in her mouth...
Two things:
.com and .gov are different then they will learn. It is as ludicrous as telling people not to paint their houses white for fear of someone wandering in and asking to see the president.
.adult, or do we demand that the NY-Times only run stories about Barney. Consider those ads as well, Victories Secret, Fruit of the Loom, etc. Do all of these companies have to hide too?
Firstly there is a problem with your notion of "trick" and "Misrepresent." Whitehouse.com is a business. Whitehouse.gov is a government agency. The two are in different TLD's for that reason. You cannot go around claiming that people can't use the same colloquial names simply because someone might not notice the difference.
Such a decision would not only make parody and criticism (www.walmartsucks.com) impossible if not improbable it would also setup a standard of definitions for the dumbest. If people cannot tell in advance that
The supreme court has long upheld the right to parody and criticize using similar names and images. It has also long held to the idea that we need not dumb speech down to the lowest common denominator, your argument would do exactly that.
Secondly; "Adult Sites", what the hell does that mean? I am sure that you and many others would agree that www.hornyteensluts.com is "adult" but what about the NY-Times? A glance through it's pages (online and off) reveal about Death war and horror, graphic depictions of carnage, advertisements prominently featuring women in their underwear and discussion of such frank topics as AIDS. Surely not for the average 5-year old. Do we make that
And then, what about the Bible, that patron book of goodness and light. A quick glance through its pages reveal war death, horror, plagues and yes, Sex. One Priest recently got in toubler for suggesting that the Bible was "Adult Material" but then, perhaps he's right perhaps Falwell and others should be god.adult and only the makers of the Children's Illustrated Bible can sell their wares in public. All the rest of the heathens would have to go. Until, at last you have Barney.com and Sesamie-Street.org "out there" and the-world.adult
As the Supreme court of the United States has long upheld You cannot, in the interests of protecting children limit the speech of adults into what is "appropriate" for minors.
Exactly the reason why we need a domain to keep you looney nuts busy with...
sheesh.
I'm "right-wing" now because I think kids shouldn't see a woman sucking a guy dick when they were trying to get to nick.com.
Or, I'm a "cock sucker" because I think pornography (which I actually don't have a problem with) shouldn't be next to the local Baseball Card shop.
You jokers need to have a few kids, or start paying some taxes -- oh wait, that would be aweful hard to do when you haven't left your dorm room in 2 semesters and your parents are still paying your way...
jackasses.
Incidently, i don't have a problem with you pimply little jackass whacking your self off to porn in the privates of your room -- do what you want, hey, go sell the stuff -- someone has too.
I think if you read what I was saying you'd note that there is a "time and place" for that stuff, and I don't think kids need to see it. Sheesh.
Oh, and my "worldwide what about the children" attitude is a HELL of lot more logical than your fucking flag burning, shave the whales, so-far-left-your-thumb-is-up-your-arse bullshit argument with "I fucking hate kids" BS. Nice, real nice. Whats next and argument promoting child-porn and that its constitutionally YOUR RIGHT to have it?
please.
grow up and get your head out of the fucking sand.