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?
Anyone who's opposed to this is a terrorist!
Think of the Kids!
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, one can extend this just a bit. In my experience (I ain't exactly old, but I've been out of high school for decades) our Government CAN'T do anything right. So they should just stop doing everything.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
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?
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
So who protects the people from their government?
Guns. Lots of guns.
Just as guns can be used to repress people, they can be used to free people.
Of course, then the whole "throne of bayonets" thing comes into play...
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
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?
Terrorists.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that's comforting....problem is, we're under it, and when it collapses, it's gonna hurt.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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.
Well, if it's China, that would be the US. If it's the US... hey, leave us alone... mind your own business... can we buy some more cheap goods?
Supposedly the arrangement is reciprocal: our government protects us form ourselves, and we protect ourselves from our government. Unfortunately, we Americans have gotten a little lackadasical in the upkeep department, and now we can't seem to throw out the bums when they do stupid things.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
It's as simple as that.
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.
Voting means nothing, and I think 50% of Americans don't vote probably because they realize this.
Maybe it's the other way around; maybe voting means nothing because 50% of the public is too stupid to take up their part of the process. Maybe it's these kinds of people who let things get bad because their too gutless to take 5 minutes out of their busy day and let their elected officals know what they're thinking.
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.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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
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...
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?
802.11 assault rifles.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Actually our framers thought that it was a patriots duty to violently overthrow their government when it has become an oppressor. Hopefully it won't come to that, because if it did, who knows what kind of government would be built? Would it be a rebirth of what our framers had in mind, or would it be similar to what Stalin had?
Lets face it though; in the end, you unfortunalty need violence. Honestly, do you really think power hunger people will care what some paper says?
Ask any battered wife how effective a restraining order is. My wife got one against her ex, but the cop advised her (off the record, of course) to buy a gun. You can NEVER rely on someone else to protect you, thats just the way it is.
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.
The only way voting would mean anything to me is if we could vote to have no government at all. As long as there is someone in charge making laws over us it violates our natural rights and makes us slaves, as beautifully said by Lysander Spooner.
Agreed! That's one reason I support FIJA, Fully Informed Jury, as well as Jury Rights & Jury Nullification.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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!
One man with lots of guns.... will never beat a government :)
:)
;)
It takes a lot of men with courage first... The lot of guns helps, but wont do dick against the airforce
Or do you think that hunting rifle can shoot down a tomahawk missle?
terrorists arent some crazy demonic subhuman entities. They are the same as *YOU* or I.
No, they are not. I don't generally run around blowing up children nor make excuses for those (including my gov't) who do. When my gov't is doing evil things I work my ass off to stop it and hold the idiots responsible. In a democratic society, there are plenty of peaceful mechanisms for doing so. And even in non-democratic societies, folks like Ghandi, MLK, and Desmond Tutu have shown that change can happen without resorting to violence.
Do you really think that the immigrant busboys who worked at the restaurant at the top of the world trade center were responsible for US policy and deserved death? Do you really think that the Iraqi kids who have died at the hands of Zarqawi inspired suicide bombers deserved death?
you really need to gain some perspective.
Pot, meet Kettle.
FreeSpeech.org
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.)
Guns. Lots of guns.
You might want to ask David Koresh how that worked out for him... or the folk at Ruby Ridge
Violence only begets more violence. A well educated populace that is active in their community and politics is the only long term defense against corruption & tyranny. Teach your children well.
Or maybe more to the point a violent uprising to gov't only plays into their hands by justifying their use of overwhelming force. The US people would not stand for a Tiananmen Square style crackdown on US soil. Look to the civil rights movement of the 60s. Freedom Riders being attacked on National TV forced JFK to send in the troops. Or look at the Kent State Massacre.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
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
I think the problem is that the Democrats (and the Republicans) DO see Americans as "big babies". Except that they feel their job is to protect the babies from the mean old world instead of forcing us (allowing us?) to grow up.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
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?
Blackboard, an excellent and widely-used online education tool at every level of education (K-12, college, even the US Military Academy at WestPoint) would be blocked if the current wording of this bill were to become law.
"Complete and udder stupidity" doesn't even begin to cover this...
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
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.
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.