Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists
Erris writes "Senator John McCain has proposed a bill to extend federal obscenity reporting guidelines to all forms of internet communications. Those who fail to report according to guidelines could face fines of up to $300,000 for unreported posts to a blog or mailing list. The EFF was quick to slam the proposal, saying that this was the very definition of 'slippery slope', and citing the idea of 'personal common carrier'." From the article: "These types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service."
Why, I think you're right! It's the 2008 Panderfest beginning!
But in the years since, he has squandered it all. He has sucked up to the very President who had slurred him viciously here in South Carolina. He has cow-towed to the religious right. He has supported a war that he knew damn well was a bad move, for his own political ends. And, most telling of all, he caved-in on the one issue that I would have NEVER thought that he (of all people) would have caved on--torture of detainees.
So this move doesn't really surpsise me. He has become a political whore, nothing more. He's not even worthy of spitting on anymore, much less voting for.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, holy titty fucking christ.
The worst thing is that this applies to almost any party in those coontries. Not to talk about the new phantom menace (the new Soviet Union) of our times: terrorism. Everything is then allowed. And I mean, everything. Sad.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
And I think most will agree, Fuck John cCain.
In his neck even.
I have a few lists, and one of them is quite large (3000+ subscribers) and extremely technical. It's also hosted by Yahoo, who would necessarily have an interest in keeping themselves out of trouble. All it would take is one message from one dope to fly across "unreported" to end seven years of free technical support to the planet Earth.
Nice job, McCain. This will help, big time. and by help, I mean help me decide who else I'm voting for in 2008.
-BA
There is no fucking obscenity on message boards.
What kind of cunts out there think there's fucking obscenity on the net?
What a bunch of donkey-raping shit-eaters!
What the fuck is the matter with the U.S. government's retarded-puppy-raping legislators?
Obscenity on the internet... Sometimes, I tell you... Jesus baby-fucking Christ that's preposterous...
I'm gonna need a spec.
This bill is just retarded. What we need is LESS laws about obscenities, not more.
for a quick vote getter - poor very poor mr senator
From TFA:
Eh? Say what you will about sex offenders, but isn't this a little too much?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Senator, with all due respect, you can kiss my (_|_).
And if that's obscenity for you, have your eyes, sorry, your brain checked.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
... the less tolerant people get. The less tolerant people get, the more censorship needs to be applied to protect people from 'inappropriate' material.
Give people their free speech. If you don't like what they say, don't listen, but respect their rights.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Now they are going to have to outsource all of our Porn to India....... Seriously, when are these Techno-idiots gonna learn that they can't squash a multi-national structure like the internet and cram their morales down the worlds throat?
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
You might not agree with him but damn ... wishing that somebody should be MIA because you don't agree with him is just plain stupid.
Ironic.
You're peeved off because he's moving way "right".
Thing is, much of the "right" is just as peeved at him as you are precisely because he is so far "left" he may as well put a (D) after his name.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
From TFA: "Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she's planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes."
So who do we vote for now? Democrats had their fun with censorship in the 80s and 90s, now it's Republicans turn.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Its over here on the other side of the Atlantic. Our politicians get investigated when they take cash to give a shitty honour and go to prison when they take on the media and lose.
Remind me why you chaps had the revolution again? There was something in there about Freedom, but its all been lost in the noise.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Goodbye, 4chan, I hardly knew ye. /largely because I didn't hang out there //largely because of the obscenity ///look, I'm a fark.com forum guy!
This is fucking bullshit.
He wants obscenity reported? Please report to him that the following message was posted:
(The easily offended should skip the rest of this post.)
(Last chance to look away...)
Fuck Senator John McCain. Fuck him up the ass hard with a big thick dildo with built-in violet wand until the santorum runs down his legs. Tie him down and fuck him and give him the golden shower he wants and deserves, until he admits his wretchedness, admits what a bootlicker he is, admits that he gets off on being a slave, because he can't handle freedom.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Somebody should take away his deck of cards or at least remove the queen of diamonds.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This is just a way to regulate satellite radio, since it also simulcasts on the internet. All these guys need to take a break and take a page from Dick Cheney's public vocabulary: "fuck off".
stuff |
this is the other half of the article that is already on the front page... mind you, it probably makes more sense to discuss it as two separate articles
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Seriously, who would risk running a public forum in the face of fines like that? Even major players like Amazon would most likely be forced to take down public comment sections lest something slip through. Slashdot, Fark, Kos, Pandagon, Redstate, LGF, whatever your online bitching kink is, it's going away.
And suddenly Americans would have to go onto foreign servers just to find a forum to exercise their free speech rights.
See, here's what REALLY pisses me off. McCain isn't stupid. He's many things (repeating many of which, at this point, could possibly get me jailed), but stupid is not one of them. Either he's offering up this bill with no intention of seeing it passed, or he recognizes the death of free speech on the American internet as an acceptible price to pay for his rise to power.
Every time I see a bill like this, I grow a little less convinced that there's any way we'll be able to reclaim our government from these assholes.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
If GWBush had actually fought in Vietnam and became MIA, the state of the world would most likely be a hell of a lot better. Thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives..... Now that's no reason to go back in time and risk a paradox, but we can daydream, right?
McCain doesn't seem nearly as bad as Bush.... yet. He's steadily getting there.
Not satisfied with his first assault on our First Amendment rights, he's doing this to undermine the blogosphere. By imposing commercial-style constraints on bloggers, he makes it likely many of them will shut down, reducing the amount of criticism he has to face.
What a scummy little man.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
This is a guy who went into space. His life depended on countless smart engineers and scientists. And what does he spend his time on? Passing laws to fight dirty mouths! I don't get it. Maybe senators are required to get lobotomies before they can serve.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
While I still think this is a bad idea, the bill is directed towards child pornography, not obscenity in general. Also, according to the bill there would be a duty to report if the administrator obtained actual knowledge that child pornography was posted online. I didn't read the bill over in great detail but I didn't see anything about an affirmative duty to monitor, just report when something is brought to your attention. Still it sets a bad precedent and I'm disappointed in McCain who I've always supported.
...it is that right wing politicians come up with laws concerning the 'net that are unenforceable and when they are, they hurt the US revenues from the 'net.
... in an US blog? Zip goes my blog and moves to ... Iceland is fine this time of the year. Or Russia, they also have better things to worry about than fu.. and shi.. in a blog. Of course, I'll dump my money onto the carrier there instead of the one in the US, but who cares? If the politicians don't give a fu.. (whoopse, may I still say that?) about the country, why should I?
Key question: How the hell do you want to enforce that? Can't post fu.. and suck my
The 'net is big, it is great and most of all, it's international. And it doesn't matter jack whether the server I blog on is in the US or in Uzbekistan.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It will cause a legal battle similar to the one over whether porn in the browser cache counts as possession. I predict that within a few years of this becoming law, some prosecutor will argue that you are responsible for the content that is moderated down by your spam filters. For those that don't know, in WordPress, Movable Type and probably others, spam is not by default automatically deleted. It's stored in the database with a flag on it that keeps it from being published when a page is sent. Why do I make this assumption? Because prosecutors are probably the ultimate assholes in law enforcement, who make a career often out of using every nook and cranny of a law to exact the maximum punishment they can get to advance their career.
So, for the ignorant Europeans here that don't know how much a senator can affect: What's the chance that this thing will get through and actually become law? And would it be just a local one for a state, or for the whole country? (and by extension, the whole Europe since the US seems to like enforcing its laws on other countries as well).
c++;
It's the water in D.C. I swear to God. Never have I seen so many people who really ought to know better, do so many stupid things.
I'm convinced the water there is contaminated with brain-eating parasites, there really is no other logical explanation.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perfect for the workday. It's nice to see things like this stuck in the message boards. That's what makes the Internet great.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The 'net is big, it is great and most of all, it's international. And it doesn't matter jack whether the server I blog on is in the US or in Uzbekistan.
Right up until they build a National Firewall. Which of course, is the only way to keep our children safe. And to keep out the terrorists. And Mexicans.
When a law doesn't work, the politicians don't just give up and say "well, hey, that was a really dumb idea! Let's never do that again!" No, instead they find a way to make it enforceable. Which is why you always have to be concerned when someone is passing an unenforceable law. Look at what it would take to make it enforceable on everyone, and that's what they're going to be asking for next year after it gets passed, and falls flat on its face.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This country is just going to keep getting more and more strict, until we have no rights at all. I've had just enough of this fucking bullshit. If this bill passes, I'm fucking out of here. I'll go live in Costa Rica and post obscenities on the Internet every day. This is fucking outrageous!
Example: There aren't any silhouettes of naked girls in Casino Royale's intro! I'll now have to watch pr0n to get my fix.
Politicians (and the lawyers who love them) mostly don't really get the total difference between mass media, broadcast like TV, and interactive media, returned on request. They try to regulate by brand name, like "email" or "the Web", but those apps have different kinds of media among their subtypes, with different risks.
Spam and other unsolicited email (UCE/commercial and otherwise) looks like a good target for regulating content, but instead only its sending should be regulated to enforce consumer choice to receive or not. Without that kind of requirement, spam is not interactive, but maillists are. It also might look like maillists should be forced to adhere to a self-published description of their scope and kinds of content. Who wants to subscribe to a "trojan horse" list about something innocuous and then get unrelated obscene pitches (requiring actual Trojans)? The Web is exactly the same: all request, and a problem only when the offer generating the request is deceptive, then the reply to the request arrives inappropriate to the offer and the reques.
But the power of individual choice in receiving or not is much more powerful than government regulation. The massively parallel, distributed Net "flasher" industry totally overwhelms any conceited government attempt to stand up to it. But Net consumers are an ever larger, more complex, and more powerful group - or the flashers wouldn't make enough money off us to stay in business. When we can choose never to receive "inappropriate" messages, as we decide for ourselves, we can choke off the entire creepy business.
Spam laws requiring opt-in, or even requiring opt-out force spam to be interactive. An effective version working just within that scope might work (so far, my obscene spam receipts have doubled every 3 months for 5 years or so). But that's as far as government can go without worthlessly spinning its wheels, even inviting contempt by "outlaws" who can't be caught. The government could go further in requiring OS makers (Microsoft, Apple) to include facilities that offer at least hooks to automating opt-out, like addressbook whitelists. Or better yet, develop at government labs (like Mosaic was) or encourage development (by investing some of our $3.5T US or other, foreign, budgets) of whitelist social networks. Maybe put some basic, easily enforceable laws on the books to occasionally make examples of the biggest abusers, inhibiting people from expanding the industry with risky investments. Especially if abusers get actual jailtime, not just fines as a "business expense".
Not too many politicians even use email themselves. They usually have a staffer print out their email. Especially a national mediamonger like John McCain - he can't be seen even thumbing a Blackberry without the mass media (and probably some interactive, too) tagging him as a "nerd", which might get some Slashdot votes, but would turn off the anti-intellectuals needed to win elections in America's "specialist" society. I've seen only a couple of politicians who might really instinctively understand the human dynamics behind the "online obscenity" problem. Howard Dean, who freaked out the national "campaign finance" industry by raising unprecedented money on the Internet from individual small donors. And Al Gore, known for (taking the initiative in) creating the Internet. Funny enough, they're both probably running for president in 2008, too. Haven't heard them trying to censor you yet, though.
--
make install -not war
McCain has an 85% strong conservative voting record. How in the world does that make him "far left"? Speaking from the left, I can tell you: We don't want him.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Lincoln Chafee was on The Daily Show last night claiming that primaries encouraged both parties towards the extremes, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is true for the Democrats. Okay, there was Ned Lamont. That was an extreme case, and he still lost, and Lamont never ran as more liberal than Joe. Clinton was a centrist. Gore ran as a centrist. In one of the most liberal states in the country, Hillary Clinton is a social conservative who doesn't even support withdrawal from Iraq. Could someone name some of Kerry's liberal positions in 2004?
The GOP panders to their base, and fulfills many of their promises. The Democrats, much to the chagrin of lefties like me, do no such thing. If you don't even support gay marriage, you can go fuck yourself as far as liberal street cred goes. Eliot Spitzer is one of the few notable politicians that does. Only now is universal health care finally taking hold as a mainstream Democratic idea.
So again, I'd ask for any examples of politicians that have moved to the left to get a nomination. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, John McCain was never a centrist except for a few pet issues -- he just played one on TV.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
so she was either rubber girl, or her boyfriend joined in
Indecent acts like sodomy or sex with an goat? How about a picture of someone doing something we all do like urinating or taking a crap?
What about images on sites hosted outside the US?
I'll tell you what's obscene, this bill is obscene. If John McCain can scan it in and post it on some interweb tubes we can all report him. He was good in Die Hard but if this bill endangers scat porn, he's denying someone else that opportunity.
...And I'm spent.
Well, fuck you, John McCain.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
..how about a picture of John McCain having anal sex with his neighbor's dog?? Is that really obscene!!?? Or is it the truth!!!....that fucking disgusting bitch fucker!!!
Oh, fuck! You mean we can't be obscene on the Internet anymore? Fuck that!
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'd have had a hard time choosing between him and Hillary before, but with him going out of his way to stick his nose up the ass of the religious right after attacking them previously I'd say he's more wishy-washy than Kerry was. Thanks John, you've shown your true colors and lost my vote.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What about support sites for sex offenders?
No, not that! Serious sites.
A few years ago a local city learned that somebody was planning to establish a group home for sex offenders on parole. The community freaked and demanded a law that unrelated sex offenders couldn't live together.
The professional (and some sex offenders) said that was a Really Bad Idea since the offenders didn't encourage each other or share tips. They offered support to each other when temptation occurred, the support that only somebody who's been there can offer. I think they even had statistics that showed that recidivision rates of offenders in group homes was substantially lower than offenders on their own, but there may be a selection effect on that.
It didn't sway the community, but I can see an online support group where offenders could turn if they're feeling shaky. In fact, I can see that online support group being anonymous, so offenders feel like they can ask for help without risking an unruly mob with pitchforks outside their door.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If his actions result in people who have done little if anything wrong getting stiff jail sentences, I'd say that it *would* have been better had he never come back. Unjust jail sentences in total could easily amount to more than one man's lifetime.
-b.
Gee, Senator, this wouldn't have anything to do with the netroots exposing the Iraq "war" fallacies, or helping the Republican party and you towards the egress last election, would it?
Apparently some people want this guy as the next "President of the United States, Leader of the Free World"...
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
at taming the Wild Wild Web. When are people going to learn that attempts at regulating the Net in one country do not really affect another. If such an incredulous bill were passed, I would be looking into taking my operation off shore. Too bad. Then you start driving honest businesses out of your country.
The Web is an ethereal place with no borders. Trying to apply geographic dominion over such a thing is a fruitless exercise since the population exists all over the planet.
I'm no advocate of kiddie porn, but this is just ridiculous.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
I share others' disappointment with the *appearance* that John McCain isn't the same socially moderate, fiscally conservative politician we thought him to be a few years ago -- the guy who's led the battle against pork and other government waste for years.
However, let's look back to the '00 election (for those of you old enough to remember). I was living in GA at the time and voted for McCain in a Deep South primary where he was absolutely torched by a religious-right charged GWB ticket. A centrist candidate in this country doesn't stand a chance, unfortunately -- they can't raise money from either Republican pockets like conservative Christians or Big Oil, and Democrat money like Hollywood, Jewish interests, etc. won't touch them either. McCain had to pick sides, and he chose a solid Republican route which brings him more in-line with "the base."
I still *want* to believe in the man. I think he's one of a rare handful of people in our government who is (relatively) free from corruption and corporate influence and makes decisions based on his beliefs and responsibilities, not because of who bought plates at his fundraising dinner. I want to believe that he's saying a lot of this stuff to cater to the base, but in reality he doesn't agree with it because time and again he's voted for smaller government. This bill in particular will be almost impossible to pass and even more impossible to implement due to the required resources, but it gives McCain a conservative soundsbite that he's tough on Internet obscenity etc.
Personally, I feel that what may ultimately sink McCain's nomination or (if he wins the nomination) election would be his adamant support for the Iraq debacle. This flies in the face of current voter sentiment and the strong message just sent to D.C. by the American public (yes, US-bashers -- despite your claims that we live in a "police state," we did just send the majority party packing after it abused its power -- and it's not the first time we've done so). If the election were held right now, *any* candidate espousing "stay the course" would be soundly trounced by one advocating "immediately begin drawing down" -- regardless of party affiliation. Whether things are different by '08 is another story (but I doubt it except for a thousand more US deaths).
Fuck that.
If I earnestly wish to relocate outside of the US, what are some intelligent options? I'm an atheist, an IT professional, and a musician. I would like to live someone where with a modern data infrastructure and venues to practice either of my crafts.
Any suggestions?
RTFB! Please G O D read the fucking bill before you start screaming about civil liberties and 1st amendment atrocities. People! This bill isn't about censorship. Its not about forcing soap in your mouth if you swear. It seems to me to be narrowly focused on IMAGES of CHILD PRONOGRAPHY and SEX OFFENDERS. To put it simply, the bill says TWO things 1."If you run a web-thingy and you see someone post CHILD PRON, you must report it or else we are going to fine you." 2."If you are a sick bastard that has already been convicted of sexually abusing children then you must give us your screen names." Go ahead. Say fuck. Go ahead. View all the friggin porn you want. That being said, I do agree that this is largely unenforcable.
The real effect of such a bill would be to disuade people speaking their mind. I suspect such is the motive around similar legislation. With the current free for all Internet it's difficult for the people of influence to control the story. Gore Vidal once wrote that in order to divert the electorate politicians regularlly get into a save our children frenzy. It's also ironic that the politicians are quite happy to take money from the major communications companies, some of which are major involved in the porn industry. Lookup who owns Vivid Entertainment and who owns a satellite porn channels. I'll give you a hint his 'news' channel is refered to as 'Faux News'.
The 'stars' of such entertainment which invariably come from abused backgrounds usually at the hands of their own relatives. As if there was something OK with adult porn. It's degrading to those who do it and those who watch it. Lastly the porn industry grosses bigger than legit Hollywood. It's only beaten by the drugs trade, remember, the pretend war the US is fighting in Columbia and elsewhere. Now Senater when are you going to bring in leglislation to lock up the pornographers.
Howard Beale: I want you to go to the window, open it, stick your head out and yell: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."
davecb5620@gmail.com
for Political WHORE for 2006.
The North Vietnamese would have done U.S. democracy a favor had they shipped this sorry sack of babbling protoplasm and BushCo's puppet to the Soviet Gulag for PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
P.S. :
Dear Mr. McCain:
Go FUCK yourself and President-VICE Richard B. Cheney.
Thanks for nothing you fuckwit.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, EX-patriot
1. Post "obscene" material to a person's blog, forum, etc.
2. Grab snapshot of said post as proof
3. Wait until past the filing deadline
4. Extort the site owner with proof they had obscene material
5. Profit (no "...." needed)
Because most site owners won't have reported, they face the choice of paying the blackmailer's "reasonable" fee or "up to $300k" in Federal fines.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
That's what you can do now.
John McCain was a war hero.
Benedict Arnold was a war hero
John McCain thinks he knows everything.
Benedict Arnold thought he knew everything
John McCain has issues with the First Amendment and Free speech.
Benedict Arnold had issues with people using free speech to malign and impugn him.
John McCain was part of the Keating 5, a group that used their influence to curry favor and get campaign contributions. They caused significant damage to the banking systems years ago. This cost the taxpayers big bucks to clean up.
Benedict Arnold used his office to enrich himself while in Philadelphia.
John McCain passes laws to suppress any speech he finds offensive to him or could prevent him from keeping power.
Benedict Arnold disliked the way free speech was used to keep him from the command he thought he deserved and took action by giving the British the plans to the fort at West Point.
Draw your own conclusions.
Thought so. (It's in the headline)
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
if it did then Congress folk wouldn't be able to meet the career ending kids of their dreams via email.
They might have to resort to passing their time drafting useful legislation.
A while back, right here on Slashdot, a porn hosting webmaster posted a relevant comment.
Every now and then, somebody would set up a website on their system and upload kiddy porn.
He tried being a good citizen and reporting it. Several times. The authorities didn't follow up, they simply made angry threats to arrest him.
His company now silently deletes kiddy porn sites.
Playing devil's advocate, though, how is this proposal different from the existing legislation that requires health care providers to report suspected child abuse?
Ned Lamont was a Republican.
Then why don't we have similar laws about things like murder, larceny, arson, etc? Why single out one specific crime?
I didn't see anything about an affirmative duty to monitor, just report when something is brought to your attention
Then this proposal should be modded (-1, Redundant). There already exist laws about being an accessory to crime. If you have knowledge about a crime, any crime, not just child pornography, it's your duty to report it.
Democrat Charles Schumer is also one of the authors....why is it that the media never mentions stuff like that?
this shit is fucked up.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
It's a possibility! It could be any search engine though!
(Careful about offending the google groupthink in future)
...to be more irresponsible. Whatever happened to monitoring your kids to make sure that what they watch and listen to meets your expectations? When the kid gets his hands on a copy of the latest hack and slash game, complete with graphic mutilation and sexual content, it's somehow EA's fault, regardless of the rating and the fact that YOU bought it for him. It's the recording industry's fault that your toddler is listening to Disturbed, even though YOU bought it for him. It's the movie industry's fault that your kid saw a graphic sex scene, but YOU bought the ticket. It's MySpace's fault that your 14-year-old daughter is meeting some 36-year-old sleezebag for sex, but YOU are the one who let her keep a computer behind a closed bedroom door. Truth be told, you're lucky if all he's seeing is some creative adjectives thrown into a political commentary here and there. Speaking as a parent first and a blogger second, it is MY responsibility to watch MY child. It is YOUR responsibility to watch YOUR child. Let's leave it at that, please. :)
Sorry for the rant, but it had to be said. Also in need of being said-- Calling yourself a "conservative" does not fool anyone into believing you are less of the right-wing flavor of nanny-state liberal that you are.
John, your trying to create the "Thought Police". Now quit it!
It's like, "La Quinta, Spanish for Free wireless Internet" turns into "La Quinta, Spanish for we're telling on you!"
"No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
but I have to get this off my chest here.
I think this country is going WAAAYY overboard with the whole sex-offender stuff.
I don't remember the details, but I remember reading not too long ago that a large portion of the people we label as "sex offenders" are 19-25 year old men dating girls between 16-18. Ok, I KNOW thats perhaps not ideal, but I don't think these guys should have to pay for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, with what society is doing to them now.
Granted, many EVIL bastards out their that molest small children deserve everything they are getting, but THIS is getting a bit crazy.
I'm not preaching that I have any answers, I'm just calling out for a little more COMMON-FUCKING-SENSE with this shit already.
I'd be interested and appreciative if anyone with a bit more insight can provide information supporting/rejecting the percentage of labeled "sex-offenders" of whom I am speaking of here.
Everyone knows that government regulation is here to protect us from exploitation by the evil corporations! If the government doesn't regulate bloggers, as well as all personal behavior, the corporations will run our lives!
Everyone who doesn't support total government regulation of freedom of speech, is an evil capitalist running dog lackey who wants the corporations to rape the earth. While I totally support freedom of speech, I am smart enough to know that freedom of speech doesn't mean saying something that the government doesn't want you to say!
Regulations can not be used to harm the people... so long as elgible adults are allowed to put a piece of paper with a candidates name on it into a box every few years, the government can't possible harm it's own citizens!
Okay, I agree with the part of the act that would protect a web master from prosecution for keeping an archive of an offending posting or whatever. Now whether or not that archive should be required is another thing entirely.
But when the article starts going into things like this:
I begin to think that our wonderful congressmen should take a basic computer course. Things that apply to real life, such as keeping a record of changes in address, changes in telephone numbers, etc, often just don't apply to the internet. Its hard keeping track of people in the real world, but the internet is built upon anonymity.
And when you start requiring people to report stuff on things like chatrooms, message boards, and IM conversations, things just become absurd. The equivalent would be forcing the reporting casual conversations in which they mentioned that a high school girl "was hot."
> Senator John McCain
Ahh, well, so much for voting for this guy. See also: Al "Tipper" Gore.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Fuck off.
Sincerely,
The Internet
Big Surprise.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
leaving the Republicans. I have several Libertarian friends, two right leaning, one in the Chomsky mode. The two right leaning voted Republican until this election. One right leaning Libertarian even worked for Democracy For America alongside us Democratic activist. He helped the campaign of what is now the first woman to be elected to the state Supreme Court.
The Dems aren't perfect, but they are not obsessed with our sex lives or if we use an occasional four letter word in public.
photosMy Photostream
After seeing thousands (10's of thousands?) of private parts in every imaginable configuration- the only ones I'm interested are real ones of people interested in me.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Now that the show is over, and we have jointly exercised our constitutional rights, we would like to leave you with one very important thought: Some time in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a so-called obscenity case. It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from listening to Boards of Canada may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV programme. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally-protected rights. No one else will do it for you. Thank you."
The problem with requiring all child pornography to be reported is that it'll just flood the NCMEC with cases where abuse isn't really taking place. I have several friends that work on the abuse team of a large social networking site, and the vast, vast majority of child pornography reported are cases where some 17 year-old attention-seeker decides to post topless pics of herself. The accounts are immediately suspended (disabling all access to the content), but if the NCMEC had to be alerted any time someone under 18 acted sexually, the signal to noise ratio would be far too low for them to effectively go after actual child pornographers.
...what the elected officials believe.
Most elected officials already have a set philosphy in place when they are elected. Unless something drastic happens, their views won't change.
However, it's more of the public's fault since we elect these people to represent us in the first place. So if your poll is true... American's are some of the worst voters out there.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
For winning this weeks "Low Hanging Fruit" award...given to those with a keen ability to spot the obvious joke without resorting to any of the following:
"In Soviet Russia..."
".....PROFIT!"
"I for one, welcome our new...."
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster...."
{...any Microsoft reference }
{...any SCO reference.....}
A goal is a dream with a deadline
...that he's a Republican. At least he's continuing in the fine tradition of stifling free speech that has marked his career in the Senate (McCain-Feingold, anyone)?
Anyway, I believe it is time for me to cry "I told you so". I said on-line registration requirements for sex offenders would be abused to stifle freedom of speech, and sure enough here it is in the very same bill which would set up those registration requirements. Social networking sites would be _required_ to remove web pages of registered sex offenders. No, no violation of the First Amendment there.
Most states have acknowledged the distinction and dealt with it appropriately. Here in Virginia, all sex offenders must register (to comply with federal regulations), but only *violent* sex offenders are listed on the publicly accessible web site. The more draconian measures for dealing with sex offenders are also reserved for only the more heinous offenders.
So the non-violent offenders are not subject to the restrictions that the dangerous ones are. Statutory rape, indecent exposure (drunks pissing in the wrong place), etc. are not treated as violent crimes.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No more public discussion on American servers on the Internet. Seriously, who would risk running a public forum in the face of fines like that? Even major players like Amazon would most likely be forced to take down public comment sections lest something slip through. Slashdot, Fark, Kos, Pandagon, Redstate, LGF, whatever your online bitching kink is, it's going away.
The likely scenerio is to force everone into a two or three blanket carriers with the resources to deal with the paper work. All of these bloggers like truthout have been embarrassing to governments used to controlling three or four broadcasters. It won't put a stop to kiddie porn or the other four riders of the infopocalypse but it will make it next to impossible for forums in the world of ends. It is crap like this that will turn the internet into something that resembles webTV more than a flourishing free press.
Thanks, Zonk, for posting what I think is a very important issue, but I have a big correction to the summary. I made up the bit about "personal common carrier," and did not intentionally attribute it to the EFF. I was unable to find anything outside of the article about their stance on this and why they consider the bill unconstitutional. I'd love to hear more from them, but quoted everything I saw in the journal entry which I submitted. The part about "personal common carrier" comes from my own sense of justice, as expressed above, and views on freedom of press.
The article seems to have been updated, so I'll quote everything from the EFF here.
Privacy is important and necessary for real free speech, but it's freedom of speech and press that is my primary concern. It's my opinion that recent obscenity laws have were made to crush porn sites through expensive reporting requirements because the authors were unable to directly outlaw what they consider objectionable material. Now that they have accomplished that goal, they are moving on to other content that bothers them. The obvious net result of this proposed law would be to run every forum off the net.
Others have pointed to my greatest fears: abuse by trolls and extortionists. Given the new Air Force mission to dominate cyberspace, various departments of missinformation and other funny business, I can also imagine government employees themselves abusing forums they want to shut down. No slippery slope is required for sites to be shut down this way. If this bill flies, it will be virtually impossible to host a site where people can post images and movies. The bill contains a "negligent failure" clause that's ripe for abuse.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If marriage is whatever 2 people say it is, then how will the word mean anything?
The problem is that in the legal sphere, words have very specific meanings. They have to. Otherwise, it isn't possible for two people to communicate honestly. If I promised a woman I would marry her, and later have an affair with someone else, am I free to claim that I have done no wrong because adultery is consistent with my personal definition of marriage?
If you want to have civil unions, fine. But don't be dishonest about it. It isn't marriage. You may think it noble, but most of us do not, and most do want to distinguish between married and unmarried. The marriage between one man and one woman has a distinctly different character than the union of two men, or a man and a dog, or 3 women, etc...
Another example - suppose my daughter's personal definition of marriage is such that marriage occurs when a couple sleep together. If you slept with my daughter and left her, she'd be able to sue you for alimony, because, according to her personal definition, the two of you were married. You would now legally be obligated to support her.
If one can arbitrarily change the legal meaning of words, laws are pretty much useless.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It's precisely this sort of action that must be vigorously fought, to prevent the onslaught of what's becoming a the United Police States of America, with Big Brother Watching as our President.
Conspiracy theories aside, really. This is an attack on Free Speech. It's one thing to fine FCC-regulated media, it's quite another to attempt to regulate an unregulated medium, which defines the Internet.
If successful, this would be a larger precursor to regulating the Internet; and I cannot think of a soul that would approve of that.
Let your voices be heard!
Is it just me, or has John McCain gone from "person who I have respect for, and might even vote for" to "betrayer of common American values" in less than a decade? What the hell happened to him to make him such a venomous cock-sucker?
I liked him once, and admired him for having gone through hell and come back in one piece. Then I pitied him for having to stand by his party after GWB and Rove raped his ass in the primaries by lying about him. Then I got really confused when he flip-flopped on the torture bill. Now, I feel like I have to defend myself against this Nazi scumbag who wants to ruin my country. How the hell could this happen?
He was once a good man, and it saddens me to see him like this. I hope he exits politics very soon.
The term marriage is the legal term for this sort of union. Giving homosexuals the right to "civil unions" but not to "marriages" leaves the door wide open for limiting of rights on civil unions but leaving heterosexual marriages alone. Unfortunately you are right that the religious reich doesn't realize this and thus fight on religious grounds something that is a legal issue. But trying to give it a different name for one group of people won't help matters, and may in the long run hurt.
As far as abolishing marriage licenses, marriage is a legal state, and carries many legal consequences, thus the need for legal documents like marriage licenses. The state takes no part in the religious side of things, make whatever promises you want to keep between yourselves and god. But when it comes to all the other issues, like taxes, child custody, and other legal rights, the state has to be involved.
Clones are people two.
Political enemies will "accidentally" show up on this list, and then the mistake will be corrected. However by that time every page they have on US Internet sites will be deleted. Great way to stifle dissent.
Well, the important thing would be to make sure that "obscene" is never, ever defined. Make its definition as vague as possible, and make sure to apply the rule in an inconsistant manner, so that no logical deductions as to the definition can be drawn either. That way, the only safe way to get something out there is to run it by the regulatory body FIRST, so they can let you know whether it's something that could get you in trouble.
Like - I'm sure you know where I'm going with this - EXACTLY WHAT THE FCC HAS BEEN DOING.
As long as its never MANDATED to run it by the censors first, it's not censorship.
Now, of course, the surpreme court is potentially a hurdle. On the other hand, they have no problem (it seems) with the FCC's tacit censorship of the broadcast airways. It would probably depend on the arguments being made, as well as the makeup of the court. With Roberts and Alito on there, I'd say the chances of it being ruled permissable would be quite high. They'd just say something along the lines of, there's no right to the internet and leave it at that.
Strict constructionalism, ya know.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
McCain has long been an apparent Maverick.
He has a mercurial temper.
And though he cloaks himself in an aura of public service, he is actually just looking out for himself.
In many respects I often see him as a politician with a wet finger to the wind.
AND
HE IS NO FRIEND TO FREE SPEECH
For example we may view what his supression of campaign spending (McCain-Feingold) did to the constituent groups of your choice. In the end, it was just a way of slamming the door on their free speech. Sure it shut down a number of groups who I am not comfortable with, but I feel that in the end, this is a grave mistake. History will tell.
This new thing of McCain's is more of the same. Frankly, he just sounds like another sellout to the Christian moralist taliban. Great for him, to try to get their votes, but frankly just political pandering.
He is McCain
He does that sort of stuff.
Remember, he is out for nobody but himself.
Frankly I side with the EFF, even if most folks don't much like folks who have been branded for life as sexual predators or whatever term is popular for them, it is insane to do what McCain has proposed here:
essentially to cut off your nose to spite your face
In our modern (seeming) age, we have already given up so much to the cries of "We shall keep you safe" and yet all it gains us is less freedom at the behest and beneath the smothering hand of a burgeoning uber-state.
Sure it is over quoted, but Benjamin Franklin was relevant then and is spot on still: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
I will admit here and now that my gut instincts regarding McCain have been uncomfortable for years and years. I just don't trust the man, regardless that he may be a genuine 'hero'. Regardless that sometimes he may espouse something that resonates with me. My gut sense for the whole of the man, is that he is unbalanced and dangerous, and just hides it well enough to fool people.
I am going to add one more quote, this one from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Let's not be fooled by a man who wants us to think he is deeper than he really is.
McCain is not deep waters. Not at all.
Nuff said.
when are they going to extend this to my phone calls, hell I curse and use more prophane language on the phones than anything I put on the internet. Remember the movie demolition man???
The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
He's 1 vote out of 100 people in the Senate, who work with the 435 members of the House of Representatives to draft legislation.
He has slightly more pull in the Republican party because of his independent/libertarian leanings, so the Republicans need his vote to get their stuff through (the Senate is pretty evenly divided, I think the Democrats have a 1 vote majority this time, in the event of a tie, the Vice President, currently a Republican, casts the deciding vote).
The real scare is that he's one of the people who is likely to run for President in 2008. Right now, he has a lot of pull, but can't do anything much unless he can get the rest of the Senate to agree with him. That said, hopefully any such bill like this would die due to the Democrats currently in control of Congress.
Of course, the presidential elections are in 2008, so expect turbulence as crazy ideas come from people looking for more votes.
during the last scandal. It's CONGRESS that we need to protect the children FROM.
The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.
Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.
People are going to freak on this - both liberals and people with any online presence at all. It think McCain was thinking MySpace when he crafted this but we all know many uses for forums beyond social networks. These include -
*Software support forums (both vendor moderated and third party).
*Customer review sites.
*Comments sections on countless news organization sites.
All of these would have to implement and maintain a massive database of e-mail addresses to screen out sex offenders or subscribe to a service that identifies e-mail addresses. Both of these options cost money to solve a problem that most public forums don't have.
The legislation is completely clueless and will have businesses banging on McCain's door to kill it.
McCain's North Viet-Namese captors must have made that eff'n fool soft in the head. This act would make internet communication by private parties basically out of business. All those places when faced with those draconian penalties for not catching some trivia would simply go out of business.
True: it was started by older religions.
There are plenty of Churches that allow gay and polygamous marriages. You have your choice of religions, or make your own. But you can't choose another government.
It isn't. As an American, you are only limited by the government. You don't have to pick a religion. Eliminate government from the equation, and you can marry 2..n people.
This could get really interesting if the people posting some of the images are the kids themselves. With digital cameras you can have a web ready photo in almost no time at all. Once it is posted, it becomes subject to the law.
The law could then be used to charge the kid for posting child porn, making them sex offenders. And if that kid is a near adult at 17, then the charges could stick. (i.e. I've read that a 17 year old caught having consensual sex with a 15 year old relative was considered to be a sex offender and forced to deal with the laws usually reserved for the hard core types. Urban legend or fact?)
For that matter, given a recent news article about a preschooler suspended for inappropriate sexual behavior as the result of hugging a female teacher, I can see precocious five year olds falling afoul of the proposed law.
What is worse is that it wouldn't be hard to post it using someone else's name and address. If a kid was really mad at an adult, they could arrange for that person to 'responsible' for the posting. They could also do things that would leave an evidence trail pointing at the adult.
Heck, even if the kids weren't doing it, a disgruntled adult could take the same route.
I wouldn't be surprized if there are a few web sites on how to build a false evidence trail on the Internet.
So not true, what you claim. The bill requires reporting of child porn posters, not those who post obscene content. Know the difference, because it matters.
Actually, "reporting" posts isn't that hard. The stuff in most blogs is already in public anyway - if the government wants to know what people post, all they have to do is visit the site like anybody else. Hell, have them scan the syndication feeds (although nto all blogs to syndicate their comments).
Of course, we should all be so lucky to have a federal government that can learn how to use the open standard protocols we designed for just this reason. "reporting" probably means filling out and mailing form for each comment. Good luck with that, Senator.
You make some valid points, and then you just go off the deep end. There is no reason to believe he denies the holocaust whatsoever, and the connection you attempt to make between ignoring ancient history (which you simply assert that he is doing) and denying recent history is laughable. Perhaps you mean well. In the future, could you please make your comments in a way that shows respect for other human beings. They were, after all, created in the image of God.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Fuck Senator John McCain and his Obscenity Law... Fuck him... Fuck his daughter, fuck his mother, fuck his father, fuck his grandchildren.
Fuck every McCain in the galaxy.... hard.
You would think having a broken leg as a POW, being tortured, having your teeth kicked in by the enemy, would be enough for him to appreciate Freedom.
FUCK YOU JOHN McCAIN. VOTE NO.
With your figures, there is NO way that the dems would even come close to winning an election. And that is more true considering that the republicans did more gerry meandering with states than has ever been done.
Considering the number of ppl who back bush no matter what, you can consider them to be the right. That would be about 32 % i.e. 1/3. I would guess that about another 1/3 is democrat. That leaves 1/3 in the center. The real problem is that you have a LOT of FUD being given out by the republicans. Think about Rove's comments or all the "liberal" press that did not say a nasty word about Bush's policy (the majority). In fact, the press had predictions of bigger wins by the righty's, which it was not.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And keep in mind: You don't have to respect their opinion to respect their right to have it.
I think Christianity is retarded. In fact, I think most religion is stupid superstition, and I think people are stupid for believing it and continuing to spread it. I will not respect your religion.
I will, however, defend to the death your right to believe whatever stupidity works for you.
I respect your rights, not necessarily what you do with them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"John Spartan you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute."
- Demolition Man
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
A question was raised about the credibility of the data because it did not jibe with the personal experience of a critic. If the data truly supports the poster's conclusion, he or she should have no problem justifying the selection. The poster, rather than offering a reasoned response, merely pointed out that there was less credible data on the site. This is not only an unconvincing argument, but also calls into question the poster's selection criteria.
Add to this the poster's failure to include the contextual data needed to correctly interpret that survey results. The poster neither provided the name of the original source nor a direct link to any of the survey data used. This, combined with the middle ground fallacy result is the appearance of bias on the part of the poster. Right or wrong, the poster's arguments remain unconvincing to anyone who does not already share a similar point of view.
...but McCain/Feingold directly restricts the content of ads. It is illegal to refer to a candidate in an ad paid for by an organization that takes soft-money contributions. That is both a finance restriction and a content restriction. Put another way, if an act were passed prohibiting groups who have members of a particular minority from talking about candidates, would you disingenuously attempt to argue that it isn't a free-speech restriction?
-- Old Man Kensey
From TFA:
In addition, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and McCain said that they'll introduce similar legislation dealing with sex offenders and social-networking sites in January.
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Has everyone forgotten their Internet history? Who was the major sponsor of the 1996 CDA that would have outlawed "indecent" material on the Internet (enacted but struck down by the Supreme Court)? The 1999 Safe Schools Internet Act (never passed)? The 2000 Child Internet Protection Act that requires schools and libraries to presumptively filter Internet access to receive funding earmarked for them? Hint: the answer is the same in all three cases.
John McCain has consistently led a crusade to have government interfere in the Internet. How can anyone take him seriously as a small-government conservative or a guardian of civil liberties?
-- Old Man Kensey
Oh man I wish I had mod points to mod you funny ... that's the funniest thing I've read all day!
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Adobe Photoshop runs on Macintosh, and Adobe's website isn't the UGLIEST PRODUCT WEBSITE I've seen in the last 5 years. That might give them a slight edge.
(I love how, to add insult to injury, you fill your crappy website with screenshots of your crappy UI editing horrible ugly images. I'm sure I'm really impressed that your software can turn people into horribly mutated demons, but is that the best way to sell it? Photoshop Elements has a picture of a cute kid superimposed on a flower.)
Just a heads-up-- hire a decent website developer!
Comment of the year
Unless I'm totally mistaken after reading the bill, this law essentially means that if an internet service provider happens to find child porn on his/her website, the incident must be reported to some government agency. This doesn't sound that bad to me - if I were running a site, I'd want to report something like that out of disgust and in hopes that the offending content poster would be brought to justice.
Here's text from the bill:
IN GENERAL - Whoever, while engaged in providing an online service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible, make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missin and Exploited Children...
It sounds like hosts aren't in trouble unless they don't report things they find, not that they get in trouble for just having some previously unknown, bad post on their site.
Of course, the easiest solution for those that would like to get around something like this is just to host the site outside the the USA.
When will people like this realize that laws in the USA don't apply outside of your borders?
...quaking in his hole
Table-ized A.I.
The Internet is a series of tubes!
,
YEAHHH!!! Why would I listen to yet another reason to incorporate big-brother into our lives?
Politicians just try to tell us all what we want to hear.
Why would anyone want another Bush like this to run our country into the ground?
This is just partisan religious right bullshit
trying to appeal to the masses of idiots who are willing to censor anything and everyone for their own agenda.
This bill is worrying, and mirrors a proposed law proposed in the UK where even possession of "obscene images" would be a criminal offence. Whether it's posted on the Internet, or kept on your hard drive. The penalty would be up to three years in prison.
Mediawatch-UK are fighting for the law to be extended to include a wider range of images (even those currently not considered obscene by UK law).
Please see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ for more details, or sign the petition in my sig.
If 60% of the country wants government-run healthcare, how come Senator Clinton isn't making that the center of her platform? I mean, last I checked, if you get 60% of the vote, you win an election.
If only 39% of the country favors outlawing abortion, how come Republicans, who are openly in favor of outlawing it seem to keep winning elections? You'd think those 53% pro-choice constituencies would tell those Republican candidates to go stuff it. Meanwhile, we've got South Dakota outlawing all abortion in all circumstances. Where are those 53%?
The whole 57% environment at the expense of their pocketbook. That's just rich. I'd love to see the questions that led to that conclusion. Voters have been voting their pocketbooks since the history of voting.
The 60% favor withdrawal from Iraq in 6 months. I think everyone would like to see us out of there in 6 months, but I doubt 60% of the country wants us out of there even if it means an Iraqi civil war that would drive up gas prices, produce a hardline dictator like they have in Iran, and make Iraq into the Jihad terrorist center of the world. See how it's all in how you frame the question?
At any rate, that's why I think your numbers are distortions of reality. They just don't seem to play out on election day.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Don't confuse "lacking health insurance" with "lacking health care". Ask any ER Doc what they do with people who arrive at the ER without insurance. I'll give you a hint: The answer is not "kick them to the curb 'cuz they can't pay." Source? Driving is hazardous. But US roads are relatively safe compared with other parts of the world. China actually has the highest traffic fatality rate in the world. Yeah, right. Every train accident is big news. And you're going to convince me that there are 960 per day which works out to 350,400 per year? I'm not going to even google that one. You're out of your mind. Go to state school. My college tuition was about $5,000 per year. I'd like to think my first born is worth more than that. In fact, I'd place a much higher value on both my arm and my leg, never mind the value I'd place on my first born child.And, actually, 37 million Americans live in poverty by the government's definition. It's 12%, not 12 million. But yet we don't have 37 million people starve to death each year. I'm going to suggest to you that real poverty, such that you'd find in the third world, and American "poverty", do not resemble each other much.
Clearly the America that you are living in differs greatly from the America that the rest of America is living in.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
who helped suppress news about the Isreal attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1956(?). His dad helped the cover-up. But you can read about it on wikipedia, and it's very truthy.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I would ban obscentity. I would ban the obscentity of power hungry yahoos deciding how everyone else should act and then forcing you and I at gunpoint (by law) to not only act that way but to snitch on everyone else that acts differently. This in an unholy obscenity of the highest order! The creature that proposed such vicious un-American nonsense has no place whatsoever in public office. Not in a free country. Not even in a country that makes the slightest pretense at being a free country.
IANAL, but how can you be liable for just linking to a website where people post stuff in public? here's an example of a weblog commenting service, designed in "chat blog" format : http://www.whoowaa.com/ the weblog commenting services could be made cheaply, numerously, and since they don't have deep pockets, you can fine them all you want, it's like squeezing blood from a turnip (I'm posting this anonymously to make a point about the topic, a la the medium is the message)