Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Ban on Social Site Access
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a C|Net story covering a House of Representatives vote on restricting access to social sites on public terminals. The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot from terminals in libraries and schools. Adults would be able to 'ask permission' to access such sites. From the article: "'Social networking sites, best known by the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded in popularity in just a few short years,' said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of DOPA's original sponsors. Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'"
Why not just kick them in the face while you're at it?
-Eric (former poor kid)
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Obviously this law just screams out to be abused. Who defines when a site is social? Does the Democratic party have a forum? I bet that makes them social enough to be blocked. On the other hand though they are blocking MySpace, so this law does have some redeeming qualities.
Philosophy.
Apparently no bill is too stupid if it's for the sake of the children...
Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'
People might also get together and discuss anything else, including unpopular wars, politics (including bills to viloate privacy, violate basic civil rights and interfer with the 'free market' and communications) or the corporate predators who back them.
i welcome you to the new america. leave your conscience at the door.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Why don't they just ban housing. That's where most child abuse takes place.
Seriously, though, the abuse, etc. should be a criminal offense, not something that might be related in some way. For example, guns should be legal; murder should not be. Credit cards should be legal; fraud should not be.
I kind of think that's the point. They know this law has no hope of standing up, since it's almost identical but *more restrictive* than COPA. I believe this is election fodder. Call them stupid, but anyone who votes against this will be called a pervert lover come next election. Think of the children...
Doesn't this kind of interfere with the whole freedom of association thing?
And, banning Amazon is kinda silly -- so many things on the web link to Amazon for information about books and the like. Why include Amazon in this?
Are they even going to be able to enforce this? What about as people add new social sites, are libraries going to be required to know all of the things they should be censoring, or will someone give them a list?
I'm kinda hoping the librarians fight them on this and get it shot down as unconstitutional. To me, this sounds about as insane as barring Baptists or some other group from meeting in any number than two in a public area -- it's both insane and unenforceable.
It scares me how much they are willing to curtail everyone else's liberties in order to suport this witch hunt which allegedly is supposed to help the children. Very scary indeed. I'm just waiting until US authorities start arresting people who run sites in foreign countries because they accepted logins from Americans.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How is trying to block access to the 'social' internet as part of law NOT in very important ways a roadblock to free speech? If I add a Wiki or a chat function to a website, is it then a danger to children because anyone can access the site, and communicate freely to children using that tool?
That's a default system of banning speech in public, on a scale far worse than any indecency bill. It's akin to banning phone calls to private residences on public phones, in order to protect children from free communication.
What kind of idiotic message does this send to children anyway? The majority of our legislatures in the house seem to think that free communication is too dangerous a thing for children to do now. "Don't talk with strangers" is perhaps a way to get children to think defensively about the messages they get... but speaking with strangers is the only way to learn about the world outside your own little bubble. Sure - the boogey man of the Internet child predator has some reality to it, but the Internet is still one of the safest place for children to learn about the opinions of the rest of humanity outside their small environment. Banning such access in public libraries is telling children that they can't be trusted with even the possibility of such communication. I aknowledge that children can't be trusted with all the rights of adults, but our public infrastructure seems to be producing another generation of sheltered dropouts, each less qualified to enter college than the last.
This is an immoral bill, in my mind, and one I hope is found unconstitutional.
Ryan Fenton
I remember quite a few ads that were at least this bad in 2004, and I'm expecting it to be worse in Minnesota this year. Note that I never mention the word "vote" or any other candidate. That makes this an "issue" ad, rather than a direct campaign ad, and it's now under looser finance restrictions. The campaigns do a lot of research. If it didn't work on a large, vulnerable (ignorant) part of the population, they wouldn't waste money on it.
-30-
Dear People of the World,
It has come to our attantion that it is a LOT more difficult to keep you all under our control when you are well educateed and well connected. As such, we, the corrupt career politicials (that really have only our own interests at heart), all 410 of us, have decided to stop letting you connect with each other so easily.
We've decided that it would be best if the big corporations decide how much people should pay to have access over the shared global computer networks. We've decided that public services that offer Internet connections should restrict sites that allow people to connect and share information. You see, when all you "people" (plebs) out there keep sharing information and educating each other (for free) about what we're doing -- it makes us look REALLY bad. It erodes our ability to craft the message we want you to hear. It prevents us from keeping the food locked up and you worried about how to survive, so that you'll work real hard.
We're not going to stop this pattern. Each time it looks like the people have too much freedom, understand the world too well, or have too much information about how the state operates, we are going to pass more laws that try to keep ourselves in power. We're not even going to consider rational debate on how we should be paid, or really who we work for - we work for our own self interest!
Sincerely Yours,
The Senators and Representatives, leaders and crooks, cronies and career jackashers who have the world by the balls and have no interest in letting go...