Slashdot Mirror
Politicians Target Social Sites For Restrictions
cnet-declan writes "Politicians are looking for reasons to convince citizens to vote in November, and polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet. Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries. The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites. House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims it's necessary to stop 'dangerous predators' out here on the Interweb."
Well that explains why Rupert Murdoch, the richest & most influential media owner in the world (owner of Fox and myspace.) has ended years of Clinton hating and started cosying up to Hilary Clinton.
Utterly fascinating - he's a powerful, ruthless, pragmatic man, normally the kind of person who gets along perfectly with the current republican administration - but it looks like the christian right's prediliction for censorship is starting to ruffle his feathers.
Anyway, for anyone unlucky enough to be using internet access in a library, I'm sure the circumvention techniques good for the great firewall of china will work inside the US as well. Maybe the BoingBoing guide to evading censorware will be useful too.
Oh - on a side note, check out the spoof Rupert Murdoch Myspace Profiles
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Those who have nothing to say will have nothing to fear!
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
probably just practice for dealing with the new legislation that's coming in the US? Geeze, the US is falling behind in everything now....
The one of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, right?
So who protects the people from their government?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Now thats how to be a parent. Pass a law.. w00t.
Anyone who's opposed to this is a terrorist!
Think of the Kids!
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Finally someone has the courage and the brains to keep us all safe from opinions. Its great to live in a free country.
For God's sake won't somebody please think of the children!
I think the best thing is to privatise the schools so that they can be run properly offshore.
The sooner the children learn to speak asian, the sooner they'll have a job when they leave school anyway,
U send me ur education 4 ur offshore outsourced job plz.
Thx.
Now I'll never find a girlfriend! (Where's the -1 Creepy mod when you need it?)
Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:
From TFA:
That's a rather wide range, and a quick perusal of the web (Google is your friend) gives ample reason why this is such a moronic idea:
And from Speaker Hastert's statement: Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Now, I'm not trying to deny that online predators exist and are a problem, but a better solution than a draconian ban on all discussion-type websites might be to actually educate your child about the danger...after all, the predator can't molest your child through the computer, and if a child knows better than to give out sensitive info, it's over before it begins. But of course, parents would rather have our legislature raise their children than take a little responsibility themselves, and the legislature is more than willing to pander to the irrationality of the general populace, especially in a year divisible by two. The problem with this approach is that everyone gets treated like stupid children that need to be protected, and that's unfair to those who still have their wits about them (although they seem to be in the minority).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What do you expect these politicians to do, something worth while? We have budgets busting the income of the government, we are gushing in debt. We have 2 wars which aren't close to being over. We have looming social security problems and even worse is the pending Medicare problem (slated to go bankrupt in only 10 years!). Yet, our worthless, and i mean worthless in ever meaning of the word, politicans are more worried about restricting myspace. Maybe they should starting thinking of the children's FUTURE, being able to have a country.
Idiots.
When I was in high school (about six months ago), the firewall blocked a lot of "bad" sites, and myspace was one of them. However, most students knew how to get around it. The firewall was by 8e6 technologies. Bottom line: if the government is going to do it, they should do it right, or not at all. Otherwise, it's just money down the drain.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Right, so everytime some polly makes a ridiculous proposal we all should get our panties in a twist? Yes he is screaming a variant of 'think of the children', but unless it is has made some progres in becoming legislation, it is just some political posturing... If only the media would ignore such stupidity, we would see a lot less of it.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Good plan, let's completely cut off all the students that don't like talking to the preps and jocks in school from socializing with like minded people. Even if socializing doesn't involve physical contact that doesn't mean it is bad, you still learn skills for talking to people and discussing things. I have a better idea, let's just burn down all the libraries and murder all of our professors.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
This is right in line with expectations.
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm [oldamericancentury.org]
http://www.hermes-press.com/etch1.htm [hermes-press.com]
In the land of the NOT free, All hail the shrub!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
From the FA, which again a Slashdot submitter seems to have not actually read:
... a proposed federal law that would effectively require most schools and libraries to render those Web sites inaccessible to minors ...
Note the use of the word minors here. If you want to argue whether or not minors should be prevented from accessing sites like Slashdot, that's fine, but the article doesn't say at all that adults will be prevented from accessing those sites.
... but Slashdot! Nooooo!
why don't we just shut down the internet then?
If you're trying to put restrictions on sites with forums and places for discussion... good luck with that one you dumbass politicians.
quick, better start hiding the newsgroups before they figure out you can converse with people there, too.
I know it's an election year, and that means it's time for Congress to talk up a bunch of poorly thought out legislation that panders to the basest instincts of the populace, but honestly, this is not a federal matter by any means. The decision on what sites are accessible from a school is a decision best left up to the individual school, or at least to the local school board.
These people are trying to pander to the old reliable "think of the children!" crap because they can't come up with anything that would actually improve the lives of their consituents, so they have to play to their constituents' insecurities and fears.
Usually, we use the ballot box. Get out and vote. Get involved.
... political.
Get
Really, if you think about it, there are predators out there that will use such pages and forums to gather their forces to go after some of these poiliticians and get them out of office. It must be very scary for this guy and his ilk indeed.
Most teenagers i've met in the internet in "social sites" (i mean forums) have problems about abortion, parents beating them (or telling them that they're worthless), depression, anorexia, suicide problems, drugs... (you should read more teenager blogs , people). And I'm not talking about 18 or 19 yo's... I'm talking about people 15 years old in average.
Families are practically becoming prison camps for kids... and you're telling me that the greatest danger are sexual predators on the internet? Are you f*cking kidding me?
I've substitute taught, and I'm in favor of this legislation just to keep kids from wasting their computer time at school on networking sites and trying to one-up each other. They should ban yahoo mail while they're at it.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
They want Read-only access to the internet from schools and libraries?
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Well finally a bill to protect the American people. This bill including 'forums', would prohibit our children and users of public libraries to acess the URL www.whitehouse.gov. Following the link on the site to "Ask the White House" you get presented with this message.
Welcome to "Ask the White House". This online interactive forum, the first of its kind in politics, allows you to interact with Bush administration officials and friends of the White House.
Everyone thank your congressman or congresswoman they ARE trying to protect you.
polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet.
Brains say that laws are not a replacement for raising your kids. And teaching them the high-tech equivalent of "don't take candy from strangers" is a part of that.
So either do your job, or stop fucking around making babies if you can't handle them. There are also abortions for that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If you have a problem, legislate it away so it doesn't exist anymore!
It worked for drugs! It worked for corporate corruption! It worked for terror!
Oh, wait..
While I by no means approve of kids being exposed to potentially dangerous situations, cutting them off from access to potentially HEALTHY social interaction, as well as information necessary to learn what freedom really means (e.g. access to sites like Slashdot) would basically be throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.
When I was in school, teachers monitored my computer use very carefully. That is their job. They took it seriously. They actually cared to make sure I was spending my time on the school's machines responsibly.
Whatever happened to that? First you legislate away a parent's right to educate their own child. Then you legislate away the child's right to access to information. What's next? "Programming Camp" where all children are hooked up to a computer and everything the government wants them to think is instantly downloaded into their brain?
I simply don't understand whatever happened to the responsibility of critical thinking.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Communication. This would end up extending to blogs, sites such as this, many politcally affiliated sites ranging from Green Party forums to the Freepers (freerepublic). This is about limiting communication and making sure the youth grow addicted to mainstream media and the b.s. they pump into our society day in and day out. This is about control. In the great words of Carlin "Think about the children? F#*k your children".
And people wonder why laws don't get any respect. Or, worse, say that you ought to respect something just because it's the law.
Of course, if they said "fear" rather than "respect" they might have a decent point...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So I guess any research that would entail searching messageboard or knowledgebase posts would be banned?
As a high school teacher, it does concern me that so many young people are constantly exposed to so much adult material. While I am not in favor of the goverment getting involved. Does anyone pause and think about the amazing ease with which, say a 12 year old can access this stuff?
As they say on the WoW forums:
l2p
In this case, LEARN TO PARENT
involved?
I guess this is yet another "save the children" campaign.
But guess what? Most people that abuse children are trusted friends or family members, not some slashdot geek in his mom's basement in Maine going after the poor children looking at websites at the library in California.
The problem is not MySpace or Slashdot, its that the US is full of lonely scared sick people that take it out of the easiest victims that they can, children. And although it is pretty common to do minor pedophilia, severe and chronic abuse is very rare.
So brilliant legislators, what is next? Outlawing telephones, children in public places, school, libraries, music, TV, well, everything besides the privilege of paying taxes?
Dipshits.
Keep taking our liberties, and you will understand what the 2nd amendment is all about.
When they are grooming their prey, they will be safe in the knowledge that nobody from the general public or library staff will walks past and see what's on the kid's screen. Way to go, legislators!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
is whitelisting and thats generally unfeasible.
once someone has a link to a friendly box on the outside there isn't much you can do to stop them bouncing off it to any site they like.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
stop reproducing! Studies have shown that a high number of child molestation and child pornography involves children. Quit trying to beat around the edges and go directly to the source I always say. Maybe, one day, when we're ready, we can have kids again.
The way this legislation was described, a lot of kid sites and gaming sites could also be affected. For example, I gave my 9-yo daughter a membership to Disney's "Toontown" (http://www.toontown.com)site. It lets her create profiles and chat with other players. Is this what they had in mind?
I can't believe that with Republicans in the majority, that htey would push for a Federal law like this. They are more than happy to make Evolution a state and county issue and to not regulate the sciences --- but they are going to attempt to regulate this? This is such crap and it strikes home in a deeply personal way, so excuse my venting.
I have been slowly working on a project called the Free Textbook Project that I'd liek to target at schools. As well as something called the Piaget project, which is a collaborative and interactive mathematics learning environment. Others at the MIT Media Lab are doing similar things. These would all be banned, as well as Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. GMail is banned, and really, most any other internet technologies. I don't see how one can find appropriate language on a national level.
"We've all heard stories of children on some of these social websites meeting up with dangerous predators." I've also heard stories of children meeting up with dangerous predators who are their teachers, priests and ministers, physicians, friends, relatives, siblings and parents. Perhaps children should be kept in social isolation until they reach the age of majority or turned over to Willy Wonka for safe-keeping.
is only that time in which they will be running for office or in office. Anything beyond that is someone else's problem.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The problem isn't letting children on community driven sites.
The problem is a community driven site has no way to properly police and identify it's members.
I ran a community based website for 8 years where users could create profiles, message each other, participate in tree style board discussions and it became very popular with high school age children. I went through most of the steps that would have made the site COPPA compliant (though it was unneeded) using email based multi-opt in methods to verify the user. The site was policed regularly for content that would have been inappropriate for underage users, erring on the side of caution. I didn't regulate what users sent privately to each other, though there were jobs that ran on the backend that would watch for things that should send up a red flag (ie, adults talking about 'plane tickets' with minors). It wasn't perfect, and most of the time the flags were false positives that I just ignored. Users were aware of the monitoring and generally approved.
I shut the site down about 10-12 months ago because I couldn't handle dealing with the child predators anymore. One of my monitors had gone off and upon investigation I found not just one but three different adults (30+ males) that were all attempting to 'hook up' with girls 13-16... I am not in position to judge, make laws, or anything of that nature. However, this activity is explicitly not what I wanted on my site (and since all parties were in the US, they all were beneath the laws of this country and their respective states). I attempted reporting these activities to the states the individuals were from (California and Indiana in this instance), was given the run around for a while and eventually just told in a round about way that nothing I could submit or do would effect anything. No investigation, no extra monitoring, no research into these individuals who were quite knowingly breaking laws and endangering a child (from at least the law books perspective).
I searched for ways I could as a small website operator (~20000 members) validate a users identity. I figured I could at least prevent some of these activities if users knew without a doubt that their accounts were tied to their real identity (even if it was hidden to other users). I hit a brick wall. I could not find any means to accomplish this and queries on solutions were left unanswered (though my Ask Slashdot question is still in Pending state and has been for the last many months).
I don't see this issue as being something that laws preventing children from getting on these sites is the solution. I *do* however feel the schools should have the right to block access to any sites they don't deem as needed for the education process. I happily blocked access to my site on my side at the request of school administrators that didn't have the technical wherewithall to block it on their side. Social networking websites have as much place in a classroom as cell phones and instant messaging devices. So blocking them I approve of, but at the school administrations discretion.
My biggest point here is the problem: "Sexual predators preying on children" is not solved by their solution "Block access to myspace while at school and put the load on the site delivering the service, not on the site accessing the service".
Most social networking sites ignore the fact that they KNOW their sites are/will be used by predators. Some of us let the guilt get to us and shut down.
And in other news, Republicans propose an amendment to the constitution making it illegal to let anyone under the age of 18 outside of the house, ever.
It may seam quite harsh, but one senator was quoted as saying "it's quite tame compared to the original proposal to automatically incarcerate all males who have reached the age of puberty. God knows they're all violent pedophiles in the making, better to lock them up before they harm any children." When asked if he had any children of his own the senator replied "Of course not, kids these days are just too unruly! Why would I want to deal with trying to raise one!"
OK, I'm a dad. I am not concerned about predators ever reaching my daughter over the internet. Why? Because I keep an eye on my kid and pay attention to her. My wife does, too. Responsible parents don't let the TV, iPod, video games, or computers babysit their children.
;-)
If kids can't get the attention they need from their parents, they'll look for it elsewhere.
You can't legislate that. Parents just have to pull their heads out of their asses and be parents.
Politicians are reactionary organisms that will do anything to please the masses so they can get re-elected. Bills like this are merely placebos that make the government appear that they're doing something about a problem that should be addressed at home.
This is a waste of time and a distraction from REAL issues. But I don't have any stong opinions about it
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
What were we saying about China now?..
Sorry, no. Hillary is just as able to appeal to security mom's fears and is more than willing to support censorship if she thinks she can get political traction.
Murdoch knows that this is a pay-to-play, over-politicized, big-government country. If your business is of any size, you play all sides of the political spectrum. You keep all potential power brokers happy. This has NOTHING to do with Hillary's priciples, which would hardly vary from these Republican losers. Murdoch merely sees writing on the wall, sees how the Republicans have completely squandered their position in power, and is putting some money towards the other side. He is insuring that wheoever wins, he will be greasing their palms. He will also grease Christian right palms.
Because as we all know those dangerous predators are only on the interweb.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If you want less nannying regarding the Internet, why on earth would you vote for Hillary Clinton? She and Joe Lieberman are frequently to the right of Republicans on most "civil liberties in tech" issues -- check out their broadsides against the gaming industry, etc.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
IANAL, but this sounds like another law bound to be challeneged before its even passed and overturned on constitutional grounds as soon as it hits the books.
this sounds achingly familiar to some of the language used in COPA style legislation.
A brief primer on the politics of controlling messages to the general public.
y =strategic_use_of_the_mixed
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entr
As evidenced by the growing grassroots political discussions on forums and blogs everywhere.
Wonderful piece about this phenomenon today at AlterNet.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Like this guy? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223201_west06. html
Impose restrictions on the use of telephones, mobile phones, email, snail mail, playgounds, school yards, and public transportation because obviously these are also a channel for sexual predators to operate on. The end of innovation on the web will not be a lack of ideas, it will be a clusterfuck of political red tape.
Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
For those of us that live in Canada, the bright side is that this really helps to ameliorate our national inferiority complex.
...can go to hell. Internet predators? What about THIS guy?
w girl9.12926f99.html
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060509_
Hastert doesn't know what a predator is.
--
BMO
danah boyd, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a well-known expert on social networking and adolescent identity development, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 annual meeting a few months ago about the critical role social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook play in the socialization and identity development of adolescents. In a nutshell, she argues that social networking sites are areas where young people can experiment with their identity in a venue frequented by their peers but (erroroneously) perceived to be sheltered from the prying eyes of authority figures. Thoughtlessly banning social networking sites and environments from public schools and libraries without input from psychologists and others who can testify why and how students actually use these sites would be foolhardy.
What we need is education for parents to understand how to educate their kids. The same kind of rules apply. Don't talk to strangers might be amended perhaps, but the idea is the same. The same dangers are there. Nothing has changed. It's just the medium of interaction.
Don't give out your phone # or address. Don't give out your name. Don't meet strangers without your parents.
Of course, these things all happen at shopping malls and parks and stuff when kids flirt and hook up, but nobody is banning that, are they?
Let's lock everybody up in their own prison cell. Then our kids will truly be safe! (Well, except from our own monstrosity.)
Murdoch's various media outlets cosy up to authoritarian parties wherever they go -- explaining the Fox-Republican mind meld, okay. He also happens to be quite satisfied with the regime in China, though, now you mention that "great firewall."
The People's Daily Online, March 16, 2005:
"In a meeting with Murdoch here Wednesday, Liu Yunshan, member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, and also head of the Public Department of the CPC Central Committee, thanked Murdoch for his "active efforts and strenuous work in advancing cooperation with China's news media."
Whatever's motivating him, Censorship ain't it.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
thank you :)
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
It's as simple as that.
[*]
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That makes it such that politicians have to know what the blithering fuck they're talking about before writing any legislation ever again. Don't know how the hell the internet works, let alone what the fuck forums are used for, (wonder if this applies to the "forums for discussion" that school programs like FirstClass have) but you still want to politically grandstand? Too fucking bad! I should include they have to pay a fine.... and take some classes. Honestly, from what I've heard, many of the politicians in DC have no idea how computers or the internet work. Let me illustrate my point: how simple would it be for the average slashdotter to amend that bill into something that's actually useful, as in, keeps kids from wasting time on MySpace but retains educational material and online journalism? Not hard, right? I swear, I am continually aghast at the utter lack of knowledge of politicians about something so blindingly important.... Sigh.
At some point you can't just keep on reducing this stuff down to metaphors and buzz words and expect a useful understanding of the subjects to magic itself into people's heads, and I'm damn sure that point is well before writing laws.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
part of the microsoft site have sign in and a forum like Interface to newsgroups so thay may have to ban windows update / microsoftupdate as well. There is easy to get to link on the microsoftupdate page.
Go microsoftupdate then click on get help and support then you will see a link to Windows Update Newsgroup.
The question is what kind of phoenix will ascend from its ashes? The usual fire bird has tanks, guns, and conducts elections at pistol-point.
As another poster mentioned, this is the reason for the second amendment. It's just ironic that liberals might be leading the pack in wishing that it hadn't been all but repealed.
Where were the privacy rights guys when people wanted gun registrations? Now the government has lists of who could oppose, and they'll be the first to go when the red bird rises.
People have been so divided by this "Conservative" and "Liberal" false separation that they refuse to think about the implications of each. We're all guilty of unquestioningly accepting dogma that someone tells us is consistent with our particular "faith". The evidence is the apparent absence of "moderates" in America.
So here's the revolution: Stop thinking in terms of Liberal and Conservative. Stop letting other people speak for you and think for you. Re-think your beliefs, and know WHY you believe what you do.
I think most intelligent people would understand that disarming the populace is the first step of any dictatorship, and it's only now, when something that always seemed impossible in the U S of A now seems frighteningly plausible, that people will see the obvious. That's also when it's too late.
The irony is that liberals may have set the stage for a conservative dictatorship.
Whoops, I totally spaced on Jack Thompson's involvement in that perfect shitstorm.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
School districts and universities use discussion boards and blogging sites in their curriculum all the time. My university (SUNY at Buffalo) has made a discussion board service, Blackboard, a required tool for many of its 30,000 students, and the Communications department requires that some of its students keep weblogs. We have professors that have Facebook and MySpace accounts. The language was broad enough so that the bill author could stroke his constituents without having to worry about whether the bill would actually pass. The bill was written to fail. Its attention grabbing, and a line in his next campaign ad. Anyone with half a brain knows that policy like this is more easily implemented at a local school-by-school level.
And while they're at it, they should enact a law that makes it illegal to use a cell phone to make or receive a phone call. Don't they realize that the internet is all about communication? If you remove the aspects that allow people to communicate using it (forums, webmail, etc), then you clearly don't understand why the net exists. Imagine working on a research project, but not being allowed to use the net to communicate with your colleagues in remote places. And then remember that that was one of the key reasons why the net was developed in the first place...
This guy's the limit!
Sure there are Predators online... but it's such high profile and easily tracted, that only the smallest amount of predatory stuff is going on, on line on places like myspace. how many cases have been related to myspace? 2? 3? since it's START? That's a fraction of 1%... That's nothing compared to the real numbers! Just like that idiot assualt weapons ban. For the most part, the so-called "assualt weapons" aren't used in crimes (something like 0.2%). Then some criminals in Cali rob a bank using illegally aquired, illegal fully-automatic weapons, and the politicans run amok to ban legal semi-auto rifles that look like their full-auto military counterparts. How's about PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM!!!???!!! Yes, there's risks, and there's responcibilities, but it's not thier job to take those all away and protect us all from ourselves. If you're worried your 16 year old daughter is going to get raped, buy her a 9mm!
Frank Zappa must be spinning in his fucking grave!
On the plus side, we've hooked up a generator to him, and he's now providing enough clean, green energy to light 200 homes!
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Does anyone have any excuse left for voting for Republicans because they represent "small government", "no intrusion into personal affairs" or any of the "Conservative" lies they've spewed for decades to grab power and squander American freedom?
--
make install -not war
Almost daily I am made more sad and more scared about the future of the internet. The internet is, without a doubt, the single greatest example of the poor-man's printing press of all time. And it seems almost daily that another challenge is issued trying to regulate it in the interest of "protection." But these people, out lawmakers, never, ever, ever, see the slipperty slope. They can't see beyond their own noses, beyond what is happening today and what ripple effects that a regulation on the internet could have. Start with a regulation on what people can look at where, and when does it stop? That is just the wedge to allow them to have some control, to allow them to work their way in ever further. And what is more, much proposed regulation is driven by lobbists for mega-corps that see vast fortunes that can be made if they control access to the internet. I realize that I'm sounding a little like a recent South Park episode, but perhaps that is a good thing. They were right to say that the first step toward censorship is a small one. I realize that there are "dangers" out there on the internet. I realize that parents are scared for their children. But the answer is not to put a Band-Aid on it and regulate the 'net. I am saddened and scared.
I'll just start using Q-Link again!!!
Not that anyone who's blathering about this bill even cares about the practicalities of implementing it. They don't care if it passes, even. In some ways it'd be better for the Dennis Hasterts of the world to have it fail miserably, so they could run on the "We are Christians being oppressed" platform. Or better yet, it could pass and then be declared unconstitutional -- surely it would, right? Those men in black robes again! We should get some sort of constitutional amendment going.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
it's true, our country sucks ass
When trying to notify authorities that there was something they should look into, they were not able/willing to do so. One of the groups (I believe it was the Indiana Cyber Crime division? I think? It's been a while) mentioned that they only detain these individuals when they are caught in sting type operations.
I have watched coverage more closely since then and this seems to be universally true. I have only seen child predators caught when it's law enforcement posing as the girl and luring the man in (there was a video on the front page of cnn.com for this yesterday even...).
I am not saying it doesn't happen via other methods, but I've not seen anything other than sting operations and parent/guardians filing reports as being the catalyst to get something done about predators preying on children...
I don't think that restricting sites like myspace from being accessible at school will help much, but perhaps it can't hurt much either. Bills like that won't get my vote because they're too heavyhanded unfortuantely. They take something which at the core might be a good idea and spread it too far and apply it too much. Banning this site, or other forums? If anything there could be cases where that's counterproductive where sites like this can often have educational and informative materials within the discussions. Discussions aren't inherently bad, but it seems like the bill is broad enough to imply that they are.
Presently here, but not there.
Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries.
This could be a clever way to move create free speech zones, areas were free speech is allowed, but off limits to increasing numbers of groups.
Just a thought, but isn't "dangerous" a bit redundant? On the other hand, I have some tropical fish described as "incompetent predators." (they wait until other fish fall asleep then slurp them up)
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I'm sad to say it's high time that America stopped billing itself as "The Land of the Free".
I'm willing to bet that there have been far more children abused and forever scarred by their parish priests than have been through MySpace and other social forums. Fucking ridiculous.
Your innocent angels are at the mercy of a big scary world and must be protected. Here is what you can do:
- Cut off their ears to protect them from bad words
- Blind them to protect them from bad images
- Demand that cars be banned because I read somewhere that some pervert used one once in some state to get a kid to go with him
- Ban kids from using phones because there have been obscene phone calls
Maybe it would be easier to just freeze your kids in carbonite and put them on the wall.
On a serious note, why ban access in schools and libraries? 99% of these kids access the net from home. I think people should be thrilled to find out that they were even going to the local library in the first place. They've got school access so restricted I wonder how useful it is anymore. Maybe, just maybe, this is just a showpiece bill to placate parents who won't admit that they don't control things at home? We've gone through this with TV and music (thanks Tipper!) already.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
And you haven't moved away because? 1) You're lazy. 2) Your job has you in a geographical head lock. 3) It's not that bad here, and you know it. I'm going with number 3. Just a probability thing.
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
A lot of good that did in Florida in 2000. And what about Deibolt's CEO boosting how he was going to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after they sold voting machines to Ohio in 2004? Yeap, he sure did, Bush won because Ohio's electoral votes went to him. I have nothing against evoting but the source code needs to be open source and there's a paper trail so people know the results are legitimate. I recall reading something back in 2000 on how Deibolt said it would be too expensive for voting machines to have printers or some such thing. That's funny, or NOT, because Deibolt is a maker of ATMs and I haven't seen one that does not have a printer. SImply if ATMs have printers I see no reason voting machines can't have one as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
contrary to the constitution of the United States.
from another POV, such access opens the world up to cross culture and country communications. Certainly that's something of teaching value, especially regarding social science.
My son and his classmates have to do weekly blog entries on the books they read. I had no idea my school district was exposing the kids to Interweb predators. Where's my Congressman!!!
Once again, the politicians are showing their ignorance of technology, innovation, and change... The mantra of hammering new things into the ground with censorship and 'not in my back yard' tyranny is getting way to old, way too fast.
Restricting access to such sites from public places won't stop kids from using them anyway. Yes, as long as we have nothing to do with it, it doesn't happen... BS As mentioned, there are plenty of sites that are similar to MySpace and are valuable resources to Internet users. Who is going to say which should be blocked? The Republicans? The moral majority? Librarians? who?
This absolutely shows ignorance.... I wish it hurt them to be that stupid.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Did you vote for Michael Badnarik last year? He got my vote. I see he's running for congress in Texas. He can join Ron Paul.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Your liberty, like everything else in life, is ultimately YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. Not only will no one else protect you, but you should not expect anyone to. The police are there to maintain order. The military exists to protect our government from other governments. Our own government exists for the same reason that government everywhere exists, as a structured and rule-based mechanism for the exercise of power. Government the civilized way for the powerful to compete with one another for the power they all crave. Government is why the US is not a collection of tin pot dictatorships and regional warlords. The reason why government is a necessary evil is that the alternative, anarchy, is both a worse state of affairs and an impermanent one. Someone always wins the kind of civil war that would ensue. That winner or winners would institute a new governemnt, one to their own liking which almost always means a dictatorship.
If you want freedom, you must fight for it and defend it once won. Your rights exist only as long as you are willing to fight to defend them. The fight today is easier thanks to the efforts of those who have come before us, but the contest never ends. There will always be those who seek to oppress their fellow man. This sort of evil exists in all times and in all places. The only thing holding it in check is the vigilance of individuals working to protect their own rights and the rights of those around them.
The arguments that are being made by our would-be masters are of course lies. Whenever someone calls for something to be done "for the children," you can rest assured that they're up to no good. Censorship is always evil. The most that can be said about it is that sometimes it becomes a necessary evil. This is not one of those times. The only thing that can protect children from online predators is the same thing that can protect them from offline predators; parents. When parents look to the government to relieve them of their parental responsibilities all it does is empower the state. Government, being a necessary evil, should never have more power than absolutely necessary.
Some people are of course going to blame the Republicans and particularly the religious-right Republicans. In this case that is probably an accurate assessment. But don't forget that the other side of the aisle has been just as guilty of this sort of nonsense itself. When it comes to crap like this there are no good guys. Where the right wing is obsessed with "obscenity," the left is just as obsessed with "hate speech." Both groups are perfectly willing and eager to try to silence and censor the rest of us. The only thing that differs are the excuses they use in justification.
There are four boxes to be used, in the following order, in the defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. Freedom will only endure when these four boxes are properly used. Neglect them, and the tryants waiting in the wing will seize the opportunity.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
I have a big problem with this because it begins to become government sanctioned censorship. The use of vague terms means the government would be able to control what information a student sees while he/she is at school. One site that could meet this loose definition is wikipedia, and while I never recommend using it as your primary source of information, creating a block to such a site, even if accidental, could hinder a student's ability to perform research online, especially considering the state of some school libraries.
The other big problem I have with this is the logistics. Who are they going to make block these sites? By forcing the school to do it, you are going to put a burden on already tight education budgets (in part because of another government legislation, but that is for another time). Many schools and school districts I have had the pleasure of witnessing first hand have had poor technology directors (if they had them at all), who often were not your top of the line technology professionals (after all they don't get paid much more then those crappy salaries the teachers get) and librarians are ill equipped to deal with the technology, typically. Also, there are plenty of ways around most the methods they would use to block the access to certain sites.
The next group you could put the job of blocking on is the ISPs. I do not know how many would comply or how quick they would be to do so. It is not their job to block content, usually, but it would not be outside their abilities. The problem with this is when they block the wrong thing, the schools have to go somewhere else to get a problem fixed. I could see the complaints about unreceived e-mails now.
But let us move to the next problem. How many kids on myspace (or any other site) are meeting sexual predators? I dare say, no more then they did before these sites became popular. It has become the medias hot story of the year. Remeber the shark attacks a few years ago? Seemed like every other person in the water was being attacked, but in reality it was a pretty average year. The media is quite possibly blowing this out of the water, and as usual parents and the people they vote for are eating it up and making an issue out of it.
These kids spend far more time at home and are more then likely meeting most of this people while there. This bill is a red herring of sorts. I have learned that most politicians really do not care about the children, well at least not about their rights. You see, the kid doesn't vote; the parents do. They can use this made up issue to convince parents to vote for them and extend their term a few more years. I have heard kids complain about their rights, or lack thereof, (I did it.) but the typical parental response is that you have no rights, except what they give you.
To those parents who say that, and apparently the politicians who blatantly agree with it, you mind pointing out to me where the Bill of Rights states that you do not have the freedom of speech (or any of your other rights except voting of course) until AFTER you turn 18?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
OK, which party is the one wholly against censorship in any form? ...
The Libertarian Party
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you invent a fictional person and begin to believe in their existance, and then conspire to murder that non-existant person, are you guilty of conspiracy to commit murder? No? Then why do people who attempt to hook up for sex with non-existant teens on the net get nailed?
Forget consensual things like pot smoking. Now we create people who never existed and charge you with crimes against them as if they did.
In this kind of world nothing really surprises anymore. In the name of anger, fear, self-righteousness, and above all not taking responsibility for ourselves, we will continue to do this till it all falls apart.
After all, people can't be expected to watch what their kids do on the net, can't be expected to control what game software gets installed on their machines, can't be expected to control what TV their kids watch. That's not the job of parents. No sir. We have a government to do that.
Welcome to the worst of all worlds, where the left and the right unite in control freakery and opportunistic advantage taking of the public's apathy and laziness.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Does anyone else remember that freedom of speech thing our politicians and military are protecting for us?
http://www.brentcastle.com
Lets not forget that Democrats are rabidly pro-censorship also. If anything, censorship is one thing that brings together the left and right and lets them find common ground. This is all part of the bigger "lets protect the children" attitude that people all over the left-right spectrum seem to have. Banning soda machines in highschools... creating "gun-free" and "drug-free" zones around schools that result in draconian enforcement and the loss of constitutional rights... and a whole slew of other restrictions to "protect" children... and now restricting Internet access.
I personally consider YOU part of the problem. When the next election comes, you will vote wholehearted for the Democrats... you will figure out some excuse why it is OK ("well, they are still better than the Respublicans... there are other issues besides censorship we need to think about... blah, blah, blah")... but regardless, you will be putting your full support behind a party that can't seem to get enough of censorship, and is trying to out-family-value the Rebpublicans for the next election.
If you vote Democrat (or Republican for that matter), you are pro-censorship - plain and simple. Your willingness to vote for horribly authoritarian candidates, because of some partisan fear of "the other side winning", is the whole reason why things have gotten so bad. If it wasn't for all the sell-out people on the left, or the ones who want "political correctness", or to "protect the children", there wouldn't be things like this happening. You need to blame yourself for the present situation, first and foremost!
The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites.
It would also unwittingly include any education-related colaboration sites. I can't name any off the top of my head, but I'm sure the idea to messaging back and forth with other schools across the country is already done on some K-12 company's site.
I just finished emailing other people on the Wikimedia communications committee about this. As I see it, everything in the new law applies to Wikipedia except two words - "commercially operated". Wikipedia is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, so presumably this law does not apply.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Dear CongressCritter,
Stop trying to protect my children for me, that's my job.
Please see Constitution of the United States and read for content.
Note: Ignorance is not protection.
Anything is possible given time and money.
The sponsors of this bill and all its supporters are attempting to undermine the Constitution for which our nation's Founding Fathers had to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Yet they aren't pledging anything, except vague political rhetoric, and unsubstantiated promises that this bill will protect children.
Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill is dangerous, ill-conceived, and ill-planned. It deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule, and it must be swiftly defeated. Mr. Fitzpatrick himself deserves no such ill will, but I suggest that he may not be fit to lead this nation in the House of Representatives if he cannot or is unwilling to follow the Constitution as his job demands.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
There's been plenty of sexual predation of children by one particular organization that maybe we should ban that organization before we restrict social network sites.
Now, I know there has to be some smart people in the government, somewhere. Can we find them and promote them?
please point out the line in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to dictate what I'm able to do on a school computer?
Not there? Thought so.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
in different states of the us? or Heaven forbid, other countries?!?!
No, we can't have that, it could destroy freedom and must be stopped.
and the children will be safer, now they won't get molested by strangers and terrorists, instead they can continue to enjoy the traditional abuse from a relative.
I'm sorry, you shut down a site where 20,000 people communicated because 3 bad guys did something creepy?
This in my eyes is sort of like:
"I shut down my convenience store because this creepy guy used to come in once or twice a month and oogle random women"
I'm sorry... what?
"I closed down my airline company because someone was once assaulted in the toilet"
"I shut down my coffie shop because a woman and a man met there and later she was raped"
Do any of these make ANY sense to anyone?
*confused*
There are bad people everywhere. They are uncommon, but if you collect 20,000 people, you can almost guarantee there will be 3-4 bad people. Go to a parade or a sporting event. There are 5 or 6 bad people there. They are thinking bad things. Should we shut down the parade? No!
This is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stewing
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
they look a bit unsightly, don't they.
I have a much better idea for protecting kids from online predators. It's called the "Adult".
The Adult should know what their charge is doing online. What sites do they visit, what forums do they read and post to, who they're talking to on IM programs.
Install some of those NetNanny-like programs. They're not perfect, but they're pretty good. Cheap too.
At a school, I would imagine that a website whitelist would be just fine. Limit them to sites that are moinitored well on the other end. Teachers can do the monitoring, assuming they have any common sense. At a library, don't allow minors to use a computer unless an Adult (ie, Parent) is present.
Laws like the one proposed, though well-meaning, aren't going to do anything except cause headaches for EVERYONE involved. It's a misguided, poorly thought out attempt. I don't think that predatory issues will ever be resolved through law; Pass all the laws you want, nasty people will still find a way to get to kids.
The only way to ensure safety is active monitoring and, I know this is far fetched and difficult, but taking responsibility. The Government isn't the solution to problems; More often than not, it is the cause of them, and this is another example of that.
Love sees no species.
Do you mean the students or the teachers? Unless you're talking about that 1 peron in 1000 who skipped 2 or 3 grades then I'm not sure who the children you're referring to are supposed to be.
Defining a child as anyone under the age of 18 is grossly inaccurate. All children are minors, but not all minors are children. Childhood is a developmental stage a person's life. It ends 4 to 6 years before a person's 18th birthday. If a 16 year old is a child, then a 22 year old is an adolescent, and a 30 year old is a "young adult." Being 33 myself I do like the idea of being considered still young, but not enough to forfeit my intellectual integrity.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Parents who actually do their jobs as parents and dont rely on the government to be your nanny.
I do not recall the exact quote but it goes something like this...
"When they cam for the Jews, I said nothing. When they came for the Gypsies, I said nothing. When they came for the Communists I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to speak for me."
Freedom in the United States has been losing a war of attrition. When the property rights of those who use drugs and prostitutes were trampled with seizure laws no one spoke up. Now the government and big business have moved on and now have the philosophical and legal precedents to seize underdeveloped, privately owned property if they feel they can use the land better than the current owenrs. When they took the house of the pot grower and auctioned it before trial no one spoke up. When they sold the car of the guy soliciting a prostitute before trial no one spoke up. Now when they take the houses of the middle class to build hotels there are fewer left to speak.
When the pornographers were attacked and forced to put their racy magazine covers inside black bags they were left to fend for themselves. When the flag burners were fighting for the right to express anger and disssatisfaction they were thrown to the wolves. Now the legal and philosophical precedents are in place for censoring what you see and say.
Imagine your rights as a man in chainmail. The chainmail suit is the actions of all those who exercise their rights with each link in the chain a different variation, a different reason, a different point of view. Eliminate JUST ONE LINK and it becomes easier dagger of facist totalitarianism to find its mark and penetrate to your very heart.
It is the responsibility of all who want to see forum access remain in libraries to fight unjust flag laws. It is the same damn issue and we cannot make rules by special cases and half-complete reasoning. If you want to be free of unreasonable searches by DVD-sniffing dogs then you must defend the rights of drug dealers against unreasonable property seizure. It's all the same issues.
And BTW, if they first ask you to register your guns, then to license your guns...where do you think this is going?
I hate that... I've picked up on hundreds of hot girls on slashdot and they always end up being minors! I wish someone could stop those crazy kids from logging on. When will the madness end? I feel so violated.
this is an election-year ploy by republicans to get more votes from the concerned-parents demographic. if the law even passes, it'll be challenged and ruled unconstitutional, at least in part, like the Communications Decency Act.
"Voting means nothing"
I appreciate that you feel this way, but what's the point of posting it?
Do you think you're unmasking some big lie or something?
Voting does mean something. Local politicians get elected because of your vote. In fact, the more local the politician, the more closely tied to your vote they are.
So I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Honestly, I don't think you are trying to make a point. Frankly, I think you're just bitching.
In the jurisdiction where I live, and probably many others, if you attempt to commit, or conspire to commit, a crime of any kind against a person you believe to be real, you have commited that crime. Out law specifically says that a "mistake of fact" does not negate culpability when the suspect actually intended to commit a crime, even when that mistake (e.g., victim doesn't really exist) would have prevented the crime from being committed at all.
So the answer is, yes, you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... ...or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... ...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress, and Angry Mothers... I want a bullet in them all.
Every time someone proposes something in congress, news agencies and bloggers run around Chicken Little panicking and presenting it as an attack on freedom. I would like to see the figures on exactly how many bills are proposed to congress every day, and how many of those bills are completely rediculous.
Don't get me wrong, the fact that there are elected officials that think this way is quite alarming. But, a proposal is a VERY LONG way from an actual law, and most of these bills are shut down before they can go anywhere.
The sad thing is, the US government is destroying American freedom and stealing our liberty right from under our noses. They can do this because the American people are too lazy to overthrow their government. When you have a two-party-only system where they are equally bent on freedom-hating, something is wrong. When you have votes in congress going to the highest bidding lobbyist, something is wrong. When the head of the Federal Disaster relief organization is unqualified for his job but was put there by corrupt officials as a personal favor (read: bribe), then SOMETHING IS WRONG! If the founding fathers were alive today they would be the leaders of the revolution to overthrow the government, the founding fathers WOULD BE CONSIDERED TERRORISTS TODAY!
No.
I shut down because I found another 3 participating in this and I had no recourse.
Your analogies are bad.
Parades can increase security.
Coffee shops can install cameras or hire security.
I had a situation where even in a small community there were repeated issues with sexual predators and I had nothing I could do about it.
No one to report it to. No way to block them without spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out 'what IP are they using this time'. No way to prevent it.
You may think it is absurd that I do not want to be in a situation where I have no options that I consider viable. After years of trying to do something to stop this from happening, I was unsuccessful. So, I accepted my failure and inability to make a change to the situation and did the only thing that would allow me to continue to feel good about myself.
You may not have had to make the same decision, I accept that.
I did a short article on this subject a few days ago.... www.harboggles.com
To each his own.
Now where am I suppose to go to pick up 12 yo girls?
Fuck these god damn 14 year old girls! (no pun intended) its half their fault too, theyre the ones putting up that they are 18, and that they want to meet up with 30 year old guys, what the fuck to they expect to happen?!?! Seriously, screw regulation of the internet, ehhhhh..... the internet is going to become the new tv and radio (you cant swear, you cant go where you want, and you have to watch a commercial before you can do anything).
Where the hell is our society going? Focous on things that really matter like our incredible debt, one morning were gonna wake up and our dollar is gonna be worthless.
I apologize for using the term minor and child interchangeably. Feel free to /child/minor/ and /children/minors/ in my post and I hope the gist of it remains the same.
The problem is people who do vote but don't research.
Factcheck.org and vote-smart.com are easy to use so there's no excuse for voting based on a campaign ad. As late as 2004, half of Americans believed that Saddam had been providing substantial support to al-Qaeda. Like everyone else, we get the government we deserve.
What happened to the republican ideal of "less government"? This trend of over legislation has become an epidemic.
Schools and libraries already have the means to block such sites if they choose to do so. Considering that schools should be considering implementing such practices proactively, or citizens demanding it directly of the schools, congress adds nothing by legislating at this level. Libraries, might be a different matter, however... but let's stick with schools for the moment.
This is similar to the problem we saw with the advent of the conservative family values campaign. We-do-not-need our government to legislate morality, that is the right and the responsibility of the populace at large. Parents and social groups should be reinforcing the behavior they hold as moral, not looking to the government to do it for them. The government needs to concentrate on matters of economics and trade and ensuring that Americans will see opportunities in which they can feed and educate their children.
As I may or may not have bleated before, this does not mean that the government is completely culpable. "We the people" have to shoulder much of the responsibility. I've noticed a very disturbing trend over the last ten years. Americans are lazy when it comes to (self) education. Many Americans want technology and information exchanges legislated because they cannot be bothered to educate themselves. Most of the "computer illiterate" I've had the misfortune of working with are willfully ignorant. They feel that the knowledge should somehow be provided to them for free (sparking the tangent argument for poor IT worker compensation). These are usually the same individuals who buy into the party line and take their political choices at face value rather than educating themselves on the issues, and the ramifications said issue carry.
It seems that much of our country wants to be protected, have all their decisions made for them, and be spared the bother of practicing their responsibility as informed voters. This is troubling, because I hate the idea that the lazy and willfully ignorant are making all the decisions for the rest of us. Am I alone in these feelings?
"09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
Let's just restrict clergy access to children and be done with it.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Seems to me that a broadcast morgul
I think that was supposed to be "mogul."
However, "morgul" would be very appropriate here.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
but it looks like the christian right's prediliction for censorship is starting to ruffle his feathers.
As someone who is devoutly christian and historically conservative, I would really appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with this crowd. I'm not alone. This kind of garbage is neither christian nor conservative. Just because the leader of the mob claims to be something doesn't mean you should believe him or label those who are that something as being like him.
I recognize that the media has created a term "Religious Right" and some meaning is inferred but it really is a bad/wrong/inapropriate/misleading label.
I don't mean this to sound like a harsh rebuke to the poster but I am just as angry about this as anyone else and more than most (as a professional librarian it hits pretty close to home).
I have it on good authority that pedophiles actually eat food. Not only that, but I've heard they actually need food to survive. So, my solution is simple: Outlaw food. This will, I have no doubt, put a dent in the pedophile population and bring the problem under control.
So the bill would block access to these sites from schools and libraries to protect the kids from predators..
I never realized all the predators hung out in schools and libraries..
I don't think the blocking is going to have the effect the lawmakers think it will.
Do they honestly think ALL those kids post their sites from school and the library ? trouble is half the kids have their own PC at home and it's in their bedroom instead of a common area of the house where it should be..
far...out
This is true.
OMG, self responsibilty?! Being a parent, and taking responsibility for your kids?! What world do you come from?
This doesn't "delete" online predators, it "deletes" online young people who've done nothing wrong.
In reality, online predators will still flourish, young people will get around blocks, and the government will come back asking for a law that places new burdens on individual sites a la COPPA.
Why are young people who've done nothing wrong shouldering all of the burden? In terms of victimization when compared to the real world, myspace is paradise for teens. Sociologist Mike Males discusses this hysteria here http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/yt-myspa.htm
The Massachusetts AG wanted myspace to raise its age to 18 to "protect young people from predators". Given that the overwhelming majority of predators are over 21 and many are over 30, why not suggest banning people over 30 and limit people 21-30 if "protecting teens" is the goal?
What's next ??? There will always be risks for kids. That is what parents are for.
foreign and domestic...
2 85136
Now, let's see China open up HER apparatus to tear down US censor blocks. Then, we'll see how soon the US declares THAT an act of war...
See my:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185169&cid=15
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
ask anyone from the BBS days.
The Internet makes solutions a little more difficult. Some BBS used to use a call-back routine to verify that you had a known good phone number. Better ones would call you personally....giving a known voice to the number as well.
Trouble is that calling Austrialia or Japan or even England from the US can get expensive. But then you could validate that there was a live person at the other end. (Validating a person's identity is nearly impossibly - witness the explosive growth of identity theft).
However, in my opinion, the problem issue isn't validating an identify...it's showing that anonymousity on the BBS is gone. (Behave yourself...and who cares if what name your care to call yourself. Be bad...and we start digging.)
This kind of thing gets on my nerves. If certain children and teens actually thought about what they put on their profiles then this wouldn't be necessary, however because parents generally don't understand the internet because they don't use it enough (especially the "social sites"). Schools should educate on the dangers of internet grooming, if then people thought about it then that would greatly reduce problems. The govt. should be aiming at the root cause of the problem paedophiles for one need to be come down on harder and rather than spending billions on plunging Iraq into virtual civil war they could spend the money on hiring people to monitor places like Myspace and chat rooms and reduce grooming. Another "cause" of the problem as I said is lack of education , if parents even tried to talk to their kids about it then that would help. One large part of the problem is lack of common sense, if you put your address on the internet then people will know your address (duh), likewise if you put your phone number on the net then people will undoubtedly call you (which happened to someone in my school - they got called at 4 in the morning by some Japanese guy). I am 14 and I use the internet all of the time, chat rooms forums, not Myspace (spits) and I blog etc.. The difference is that unlike some idiots I don't give out enough of my personal details. I actually think as if I was a so called predator when I put details on the net, I think about how much of my life someone can work out by them, I try to think like one for that moment as a safety precaution. This I feel is another reason why net neutrality is important, while US is only imposing it on schools and libraries they have the potential to enforce or at least pressure net-wide regulations. Also most politicians don't actually know what they are blocking first hand not to mention only do it to win votes, if they do something that would threaten them getting in next election they wont (like if they banned 4x4 SUVs to benefit the environment then it would benefit the planet but the 4x4 drivers wouldn't vote them in next time and so no government is prepared to take drastic action even to benefit the people.)
Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
Every user can create a "profile" (user page) in Wikipedia, and the talk pages see plenty of socializing. So we're now banning Wikipedia from schools and libraries?
We have more news of domestic surveillance, AND more news that MOST parents supervise the games purchases of their children.
o rld/purchases20060510
o day/nsahasmassivedatabaseofamericansphonecalls;_yl t=Aj2ro.hLIS7JFyP0fyvkZ._B4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
So, tracking and reigning in sexual predators is most likely a cover story. In maybe 20 years we'll find the US domestic/global spying apparatus is mega times that of size and sophistication of that of China. Hell, the NSA probably now has or has been using the capability to substitute not only written text in real
time, but spoken WORD as well. Imagine being undermined or discredited or set up for demise by the capabilities they choose to use.
May be unrelated; E3 could just be on a mission to protect their positions on ratings and games sales.
E3: Study shows majority of parents oversee game purchases
http://news.yahoo.com/s/macworld/20060510/tc_macw
Check this:
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060511/ts_usat
Ahh... sort of supports what I said above:
"The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. L"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Seriously, why waste our time fixing the national debt, healthcare, education, or any other number of problems with this country when we can play nanny with the Internet. Somebody tell me again what the point of electing these people if they don't even care enough to actually get things done rather then sabre-rattle and stroke their egos?
"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot." ~ Stephen Wright
So a commercial website is inherently more dangerous to children just because it's commercially operated??? I guess that means they can't eliminate my position and outsource the web services unless they to block in-district access to all of our district and school web pages.
Yeah!!! Job security!!!
If the US government took actions infringing on China's sovereignty or territorial integrity, that might be an act of war. If, however, US citizens on their own initiative do so, then that's... possibly not even a crime, if they don't ever actually go to China in the process.
Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, the US established an awkward precedent when they invaded Afghanistan and deposed its de facto government in revenge for acts allegedly perpetrated by a private resident of Afghanistan on his own initiative...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
My rep opposed a similar prior legislation, so I had 20 people call his office to put this on the radar.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
I dont believe how you u.s. slashdotters can put up with such crap in your backyard ?
Apparently these people are STUPID. there is no other explanation.
'Disabling of forums' - get a load of this !!!
Why noone is proposing a law to ban people from proposing laws for things they are totally clueless upon ?
Isnt looking after and upbringing of children are the responsibility of the PARENTS in america ?
If the society will protect the children from everythin, what the hell are parents will be good for ?
Will they just wander around spending money, going fishing, being lazy in general ? Is that it ?
That seems so.
You people are much too tolerant of idiots in your midst. Much too tolerant - even to the degree that their actions and wants might go to the extents hampering free speech, your first amendment, your rights, and even the concept of tolerance itself !!!
Read radical news here
I'm not a republican or a conservative... I just hate these 2 people, and want to see real American's elected to office. The kind that stand up for free speech, expression and have the fucking courage to tell Americans "NO" like the big babies we are. We need someone to remind us all of what AMERICA is about...
A whole LOT of Democrats and progressives agree with you.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
That's part of why I told some federal officials who once contacted me (in 2003), "this kind of stuff is putting a BULLSEYE on MY BACK! If *I* travel to the wrong country, I could have my head blown off just for having a US passport..."
They didn't comment on that part, IIRC...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
...for authoritarian rule.
This philosophy that we can just restrict the activities of the new generation of adolescents to what the government deems appropriate is just priming them to have the rest of their civil liberties raped when they're adults. We should be giving these young people the tools necessary to protect themselves and survive in a world where danger is real.
:(){
Every one of your suggestions was done.
.or they tell the people who ask them "NO! I'm being *framed*" (Like I'd have something to gain by revealing their activities) and most of these girls naively accept it . .These guys have already sweet talked them into having sex, why wouldn't they believe everything else out of their mouths? Or rarely, the man will write directly and blusterously threaten lawsuits, barratry and the like. None of these actions does anything to dissuade their activies or do anything about preventing future activities.
I would have contacted the girls parents if I had some means to do so.
Shaming the men does nothing. They either don't care or they create new accounts or come from new IPs. Have you ever notified a teenage girl not to do something when she thinks she loves someone? I have. They already know that the man is 30. They already know it isn't right what they are doing. But they LOVE them!
Notifying the site at large has very little effect as well. You either cause the men to do nothing . .
I don't see this as an issue of sensitivity but of social responsibility. A coffee shop like any other business can report illegal and suspicious activies and law enforcement will investigate. A community website does not seem to share that same ability at this time.
I think I'm about done with this line of discussion as you keep making assumptions and are now nitpicking (even when corrected that this is not just about *3* people... The last 3 were the last straw is all). I have no urge to discuss economics of coffeeshop management.
The Navy uses Tomahawks. The Air Force uses precision laser-guided and GPS-guided munitions to hit targets with +/- 3 meters of accuracy. However, there must obviously be an effective way to avoid both Air Force and Navy, because otherwise Osama, Al-Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi would all be smoking craters.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
They are more than happy to make Evolution a state and county issue and to not regulate the sciences --- but they are going to attempt to regulate this?
You're never going to get anywhere unless you realize the following:
If the federal laws will give you what you want, you claim it's a federal issue.
If the federal laws are going against what you want, you claim it's a state/local issue.
Make no mistake - the people who are saying "evolution is a state issue" would be more than happy to make it a federal issue if the proposal on the table was mandating equal time, versus prohibiting intellegent design.
BTW: Democrats are no better.
What's the point of the Republican party anymore??
Everyone who cries that they're screwed (by the government) and that there is no way to change things are right... as long as you keep sitting on your stoop and crying "poor me" you're not going to change anything.
Unfortunately, this is a problem. The public should NOT be given the right to vote. Governance is an actual skill, and voting is part of that. Governance does not come naturally. Voting should be a PRIVELEDGE, and NOT a right. Like drivers licenses. You should be qualified about the issues you are voting for before you are allowed to vote one it.
To illustrate, consider that a dumb retard in Alabama is gonna vote for a president about issues like economics and diplomacy. Now, how is that retard supposed to be any more qualified in economics than a PhD economics professor in Chicago? Why SHOULD that alabama retard be given ANY influence over society? Just because he's alive? Being alive does NOT qualify you influence over other people. Heck, most people don't even have the capability to control their OWN lives.
The failure in a voting public is apparent here. You people have been bred to believe that voting is somehow 'good'. Unfortunately, it results in the most average of political leadership: the candidate with the most mass appeal will win. And, mass appeal doesn't mean success. The public is going to vote for the guy with the prettiest hair, or is "like them", which has nothing to do with how sound their economic policies are. Policy and pretty hair have nothing to do with each other, no matter how hard conservatives try to their correlation.
Democracy is no better than any other system. It GUARANTEES that your leaders are, at best, average. At least with a monarchy or dictatorship, it's possible to come up with a leader that's above average.
Democracy is a horrible idea. In addition, representative democracy is a horrible idea. In our system, we elect a representative on issues like economics and diplomacy. Why are we defining ONE reprsentative to handle EVERY issue? Does a PhD in economics automatically qualify you as an expert diplomat? Does the fact that you own a pest-removal company or run a baseball team mean you're going to also make the best decisions about free-trade or human rights? Of course not.
The idea of a single unified government is a suck-ass idea. It's why we have things like "lobbyists", because independent issues are hijacked on top of other issues. There really should be a mechanism for seperating powers. We really need a seperate government on each issue. Government is just a simple legal agreement between people. We need one government to handle the interstate highway system. We need another government to handle social security. We need a seperate government to handle coal trade between states. And so on. Possibly hundreds or thousands of seperate governments, with independent representatives and leaders and enforcement mechanisms. Each government funded independently by local governments.
Europe does this. Although it's a continent, many Europeans identify with each other. But, there isn't a central European government. It's a system of anarchy. They have various legal agreements between states, to handle things like coal trade, currency, military, etc.. America also needs to do this. We do need to do the same in the US, and break up the federal government. Let the 50 states be their own seperate countries.
Nope, this should not occure or even be considered.
I find it terrifying when a politician uses God in a political speech. Because I'm a pagan.
I'm gonna be fighting my ass off within the Democrat party to keep us from having to choose between a Clinton and a Bush. I'd rather have to choose between Dean (or Clark) and McCain. McCain has lost all my respect by becoming a beaten whipped dog for the presidency, selling all the integrity and greatness he once had in return for table scraps from Bush, but at least he isn't a Bush.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
We're talking about schools and libraries... I for one get annoyed when I go into a library to find a bunch of 15 year olds using up all the stations to whore it up on myspace or some stupid chat site... If you want to post on forums or talk to cam whores do it on your home computer...
In any case you are categorically wrong.
My book, podcast
Of the mainstream electable national candidates that are even allowed in the debates at the national or even state level BOTH parties support the following:
c le/2006/05/09/AR2006050901485.html
* Global trade that screws both American workers and third world workers
* An increasingly aggressive imperialistic foreign policy, can you say Hilary Clinton threatening Iran I knew you could...
* Passive acceptance of policies dreamed up by elite think tanks that only serve the top 5% of the population. So called centrist Dems are vowing NOT to investigate Bush for his crimes even if they retake the house:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
* Increasing intrusion into our private lives supported by both parties
* Increasing censorship of video games, music, and DRM supported by both parties
What real choice do I have other than at the local level where a few Greens or Libertarians squeak in? Does voting for Repigs and Dems at the state and national level solve ANYTHING? I think not. The ONLY issues Dems and Repigs disagree on are minor issues like abortion, the ten commandments on public buildings, flag buring, etc. And yes I will step on some toes here these issues are MINOR compared to global war, the abrogation of the constitution, our long term sustainable survival on the planet, and decent living wages for our working people. Get over your lifestyle issues and thinking voting for mainstream politicians solves anything. As Colbert so nicely put it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenberg
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Just another day in which the Senuts and HOR members decide that we have to protect the kiddies who's parents can't be bothered to know what their kids do.
This slashdot fucking format is bullshit some times!
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 16.0).
Okay, let's fuckin munge it up
(Copyright GPL - Written May 11th 2006 By Anonymous)
"The Culture of Electronic Corruption, Orange Fence"
The plastic orange net surrounds you, The plastic zip-strip hand-cuffs cut, constitution ignored, facists charge yet un-charged.
weak and poor, devil needs more, middle class boiling, the melting pot, while we fight the war in Iraq, politicians stab us in the back.
sledge hammer felony, voting machine crack, impeachment, the secret document, erased with black
New Orleans mission accomplished, this time it was the blacks they hate, Secretary Of State, corrupt proxy for a facist state
u241, u242, u2, no hydrogen powered car, from nevada to iran, top secret plans
America is not free, Security Clearance, For the corrupt, catch 22
He's gone too far, While your at the bar, Stop and think, No more drink
Murderous mayhem, Coolaid drinking, War profiteering, Name smearing
If your not rich, life's a bitch, The cost of gas, The pain in your ass
Brainwashed Masses, New school classes, Decimate, The Fourth Estate.
So you think your home alone, Fuck it all, they've tapped your phone, they will never leave us alone
Worst leader in history, fucking bullshit misery, More red mist, Your pants are pissed
The Executive, House, Senate, Judicial, NSA, CIA, Military and your vote, all owned, Satanic Power, Bohemian Grove!
(Copyright GPL - Written May 11th 2006 By Anonymous)
It was supposed to be four line paragraphs..
It's true slashdot corrupts people and turns them to law breaking. Since I started coming here I've started drinking tons of energy drinks and snorting crystal meth. I don't even stop at lights anymore I just hit the gas and stick my finger out the roof. Please send me slashdot stickers for my bumper.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
Every other day there is some lawsuit to keep pornography in schools and libraries. how the heck can you allow porn sites (no speach) and ban social sites (all speach) and say its free speach?
Both free press (blogs, posts, forums etc)
and free speach, (email, PM's, threads, discussions, etc)
would be "abridged",
It would also block "peaceful assembly as many social sites are grouped by intrests.
Anybody ever tried to pass legislation about adults buying candy and driving around? I don't have exact numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that the proportions of child molestation cases that internet predators isn't that significant. Actually, statistically speaking, kids probably have a lot more to fear *from their own family* than the internet and I find that more troubling than a web forum.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Yeah, how about parents start doing their job by paying attention to their kids.
Not letting TV or the internet raise them!!!
and.... hell increase the penalty for sexual abuse.
--First offence: chemical castration. (They will never get a hard on again.)
--Second offence: Death penalty. It is a pathological problem that will not go away. And I believe does not deserve sympathy. End the social cost to the government.(to us in taxes), and end the potential pain to the children by ending the creep.
So why should they tolerate you?
You remind me a bit of the homeless guy ranting about people being slaves to their jobs but also expecting handouts from them. One thing or ther other dude.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
what do they expect will happen when you can't access such websites FROM SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES?
the sexual predators sure as hell won't use those terminals for their hunting and I don't think that the victims (children) use those websites from public places like schools and libraries either... therefore this will protect nobody!
this is just plain stupid vote-hunting... why don't you just close down every playplace? - oh wait! there have been cases where children were raped in their schools... lets close all schools - this would have another positive side effect:
more stupid people = more people who beleive such idiotic plans would change anything = more votes
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
It'll be much easier to prey on adults if they've been completely sheltered as children.
>looking for funny, sad if I get insightful
I really hate Dan Patrick.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift in many Democrats soon. With Republicans going so far to the left and much more in favor of Federal government control of EVERYTHING, that is starting to leave a void in major political parties.
If democrats would start coming out opposing some of this big government crap and focusing on limiting federal government, I wouldn't be surprised to see many long-time republicans voting democrat.
Jack & Shit
& Jack left town.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
already blocked at my school and has been for a long while.
the Political Inquirer
This borders on censorship. Maybe an analogy would be banning teen drivers from driving sports cars because they tend to speed. Just because it's a social site, doesn't mean they're going to abuse it.
How about a quarter class (half a semester or trimester) in which students learn about net-etiquette?
Also, let schools decide what they want their students to access. Perhaps banning students from accessing the Internet for non-research purposes during school hours would be a good idea. (E-mailing one's paper to one's e-mail address would be acceptable. E-mailing friends for fun wouldn't be acceptable. E-mailing one's parent to pick one up from school would require permission.)
I work in a school system, so three things:
One, we already block this content. So this is purely campaign crap to get extra votes. And every school system, at least here in Virginia, is required to provide an Internet filter to protect students from accessing certain sites. Our public libraries do the same.
Two, what content we do not block, is for educational purposes. For example, Slashdot. Well, if Slashdot now fits the profile of a site that needs to be banned, then school systems across the nation will be required to sacrifice some sites that are essential to teachers' methods of teaching.
And three, why make the Internet more restrictive through more legislation? The Internet is a public forum for open communication and collaboration. Don't stifle innovation just because parents can't raise their children properly. I know from experience that parents like to point the finger at everyone except when it goes in their general direction. "Their kids didn't do anything wrong, it's obviously the school's fault."
Once, I had a student with animal porn on his school-issued laptop. We found it when he brought it to our helpdesk for repairs. We called in his parents because they just had to see it. They couldn't believe their 15-year-old son would do such a thing. Well, when I spun that laptop around with a picture of a girl and a horse on-screen, all his mom could say was, "[student name], what the hell am I looking at?" And the lesson of this little story is this: I can't keep him from getting it on this SCHOOL computer. If a hormonal little teen wants porn, he/she will find a way to get it; no matter what their odd tastes may be. I can take the floppy drive away, the cd drive, disable USB, etc. All I've done is locked a machine down so tight, it's now good for nothing. No amount of bill and legislation promotion are going to keep things like this from getting to kids because the kids (and their rearing) are the source of the problem, not the content. And I'm not condoning the predators or saying they're not at fault, but if children were taught/disciplined to be more aware of what's out there, maybe they wouldn't be so "stupid" to put themselves in a situation to be preyed upon.
That's my two cents. Thanks.
MySpace and similar services do not contribute to the educational experience, and should be blocked to free resouces for those going to school to learn, rather than to meet a desperate, easy blonde who only looks good in over-exposed pictures with which to procreate and further dirty the gene pool. Not a bad move on the government's part, but when it goes so far as to disallow access to content derrived from users who develop profiles and engage in conversation is certainly going to far.
This cuts out many sources of valuable information, sources that are derrived from user contributed content consisting of discussion of the state of events, something required if democracy is to exist. This prevents the opinion of the citizen from reaching the masses -- something already in jeopardy as a majority vote cannot even elect a president. I believe the government is making moves to appease one group of people, while slowly taking away those "certain unalienable Rights" supposedly endowed upon us irreversibly by our creator.
Fight it if you can.
Because of the fact that this law bans sites with forums in places like schools, I wonder how this will affect people trying to view wikipedia. It seems like it would be foolish to block in a school or a library.
Damn, dude... thanks. I just got a new sig.
Who gives the tests? Who decides what is "qualified?" As soon as you start introducing barriers to voting, you disenfranchise people for spurious reasons. Notwithstanding the enormous burden this would place on the government to weed out and defend disenfranchisement, this belies the entire concept from which representative democracy arose in the first place -- the right to redress of grievances. People don't need a degree to know they've been aggrieved, and they don't vote for a specific issue, they vote for a person whom they will entrust to REPRESENT them on all issues. That person in turn takes an oath to defend the constitution, and makes a promise to represent his/her constituency. The promise is enforced by the threat that upon the expiration of his term, he may or may not be considered for continuation in his job based on whether or not he has made most of his constituents happy.
To illustrate, consider that a dumb retard in Alabama is gonna vote for a president about issues like economics and diplomacy. Now, how is that retard supposed to be any more qualified in economics than a PhD economics professor in Chicago? Why SHOULD that alabama retard be given ANY influence over society? Just because he's alive? Being alive does NOT qualify you influence over other people. Heck, most people don't even have the capability to control their OWN lives.
This is where I have problems with your elitism. I don't think I have to spend a lot of time debunking your ignorance and prejudice. There are plenty of intelligent people in Alabama, and they know all about what is or is not making them happy. They may take some time to see they're being fucked by their rep, but they will figure it out eventually. It's not your place to decide whether they are worthy of having a voice in their own affairs. That is the cornerstone of Democracy.
The failure in a voting public is apparent here. You people have been bred to believe that voting is somehow 'good'. Unfortunately, it results in the most average of political leadership: the candidate with the most mass appeal will win. And, mass appeal doesn't mean success. The public is going to vote for the guy with the prettiest hair, or is "like them", which has nothing to do with how sound their economic policies are. Policy and pretty hair have nothing to do with each other, no matter how hard conservatives try to their correlation.
More elitism, to the point of being an asshole. I guess the best way I can explain my objection is this: thousands of years of feudalism left us with a system where wealthy inbred dolts fought with each other over the best way to assfuck their population. Periodically that population would rise up and revolt, because it occured to them that the monarchy wasn't any fucking smarter than they were.
Democracy is no better than any other system. It GUARANTEES that your leaders are, at best, average. At least with a monarchy or dictatorship, it's possible to come up with a leader that's above average.
Quantify this. If your leader is answerable to no-one, in whose fucking interest are his actions?
Democracy is a horrible idea. In addition, representative democracy is a horrible idea. In our system, we elect a representative on issues like economics and diplomacy. Why are we defining ONE reprsentative to handle EVERY issue? Does a PhD in economics automatically qualify you as an expert diplomat? Does the fact that you own a pest-removal company or run a baseball team mean you're going to also make the best decisions about free-trade or human rights? Of course not.
Again, who the hell are you to select leaders? Who is
My book, podcast
*yawn* When Hillary gets elected in 2008, I expect it to be all better in 18 months.
"Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries."
So you're trying to propose a federal law to restrict what can be done from state institutions?
I'm glad the GOP is out there preserving states' rights!
802.11 assault rifles.
How is 11/100ths of a rifle useful at all?
You're right, it's "Deibold" with a "d" not "Deibolt" with a "t". My mistake, thanks for correcting me.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, no, actually it's "Diebold", not Deibold nor Deibolt. Still think they "delivered" anything, or do we still not have all our facts straight?
:P
For the record, I don't even want there to be the imagined possibility, so I vote paper and pen, or absentee ballots.
I recall my highschool days. The school spending mucho money to get new computers for research, and then turning around to get a filter service to protect us that censored everything we were sent to the labs to research. For the most part the computers became used only by us who went to the few uncensored sites or had figured out the filtering process was through a proxy server and thus easially bypassed with a few clicks. Does this mean I have to return all the school library books I bought cheap at that clearence sale?
Casey will save the day! Move to PA and come vote against Santorum. Oh wait, election is in 4 days. Maybe next time.
So, you're saying Democrats are behind lesbian porn?
If you are so naive and discover just in 2006 what is going on I can't help ya. In future look always in to the face of a person and you can read his/her character. Have control always over your own content do not work for free for the media mafia. http://www.mazine.ws/