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."

Comments

Well that explains Murdoch/Clinton.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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

And this a problem

[denissmith]

Those who have nothing to say will have nothing to fear!

It's that time again...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:

Won't somebody think of the children?
Won't somebody think of the children???

From TFA:

Fitzpatrick and fellow Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on Wednesday endorsed new legislation that would cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service.

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:

• PhysOrg Forum
  
• SparkNotes Math & Science Message Boards
  
• StudentDoc Medical Message Board
  
• AOL Domestic Abuse Support Message Board
  
• Scarleteen Sexual Abuse Support Message Board
  
• Etc...etc...etc...
  

And from Speaker Hastert's statement:

We've all heard stories of children on some of these social websites meeting up with dangerous predators.

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).

More of nothing

[hsmith]

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.

WTF? O.o

[Spy der Mann]

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?

Re:WTF? O.o

[Billosaur]

It's been this way since time immemorial. Teenagers are the great misunderstood masses. Their problems are hard for them to deal with because the shine of them being little kids has worn off, but their parents and other adults won't take them seriously.

And kids have been trying to talk about their problems in social groups forever. Now they have a place to do it that allows teens from far and away to share their feelings and try to make sense of their world, and maybe just maybe form some kind of lasting connection that will help them later in life.

Can't have that.

Listen, there have been sexual predators out for kids as long as all this has been going on. Does anyone honestly thing locking down MySpace is going to make them go away? They'll just go back to cruising the streets or hanging out around arcades, movie theatres, and convenience stores. If a sexual predator wants something, he/she will get it, Internet or no.

I think if we were better parents, talked to our teens, treated them like people and not possessions, we wouldn't have to worry about them hanging out in social networks. They might actually be able to take care of themselves. One thing I know: Congress can't run the country, let alone raise my children.

Re:So the purpose of the government..

[meringuoid]

So who protects the people from their government?

Terrorists.

Re:Does not compute

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Hillary Clinton and Lieberman are definatly against free speech and expression. They have both launched wars against videogames, the arts, media and the internet in reguards to free speech and ideas.

I would hate to see Hillary as a president. Leiberman may lose his seat soon in CT. I hope so.

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...

Tolerance... freedom... and a peaceful way of life... not dictated by religion, corporations, or wealth...

I'm tired of the two Americas... the one for the rich, and the one for the poor... Where the laws dont really apply to the rich... and the poor are looked upon as criminals by default.

Hillary and Joe are the kind of wealthy social elites that are disconnected from reality. Their idea of "America" is their happy wealthy communities, where they feel above those of us who enjoy violent movies, porn, and all kinds of language...

They feel they have to save us from ourselves.... they know better than we do.... They know what America should be for you and I...

No fucking thanks.

Tolerance and Freedom... Tolerance comes first