Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday December 12, 2006 @02:15AM from the we-are-all-net-nannies-now dept.

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."

11 of 443 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What's that smell in the air? by TheGreek · 2006-12-12 02:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why, I think you're right! It's the 2008 Panderfest beginning!
John McCain loses more of my respect every day by elrous0 · 2006-12-12 02:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

You know, back when he was first running for President--with his candor, his willingness to take on members of his own party, his "straight talk express" relationship with the public and the press--I had a lot of repsect for this guy. I was a Democrat and even *I* would have voted for him if he had won the primary.
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.
1. Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day by PingSpike · 2006-12-12 02:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Exactly what I was going to say. I was really hoping he won the primaries back in 2000 because I was really excited about him as a canidate. But now he just disgusts me.
  
  Between this and his flag burning its clear he's just another tool without any conviction at all. And between this and the flag burning amendment he's becoming quite the opponent of freedom of speech. And thats a position that I just plain can't ever get behind.
2. Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day by wiggles · 2006-12-12 02:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I was a Democrat and even *I* would have voted for him if he had won the primary
  
  Which is exactly why he lost the primary. Democrats liked him way too much for right-wing tastes.
  
  That, and Karl Rove...
  
  But, now that the center is moving leftward, I think McCain has a much better shot at winning the white house in '08. For you democrats, even if you lose in '08, you win. The centrist republicans (like me) also win with him. The only losers will be the neocons and the far right, and it's about time.
3. Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day by Pinkfud · 2006-12-12 03:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I live in Arizona, and I've come to believe McCain is a national disaster. Can you imagine what this bill would mean to the WikiMedia Projects, with all the vandalism they get? It would break them just to file the reports! Nonsense of the highest order.
  
  --
  The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
This would bring my lists underground. by Bright+Apollo · 2006-12-12 02:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
1. Re:This would bring my lists underground. by ZachPruckowski · 2006-12-12 02:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Which raises a new question. How long before trolls with throwaway emails spam lists or websites with illegal images (or even links to them), forcing the poor webmaster/admin to file a report every day. 5 minutes of the troll's time = 50 minutes of the admin's time. It wouldn't take more than 2-3 trolls to kill a list or site.
For the ignorant among us by pipatron · 2006-12-12 02:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

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++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
hahaha by Nasarius · 2006-12-12 03:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

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
1. Re:hahaha by hey! · 2006-12-12 06:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Well, the problem the Democrats have had for years is that the public agrees with their ideas, but doesn't like them. Ever wonder why Republican politics is so personal, why they can't just say they disagree with an opponent's proposals, but have to paint him as evil (Clinton) or what is more effective, ridiculous (Gore) or unpatriotic (Kerry)?
  
  Simple. It works.
  
  If the other guy wants a background check when somebody buys a gun you don't want people to think about how or whether this might be done to minimize the impact on gun owners' rights. You want them to feel that your opponent is a stupid evil, stupid traitor wants to take your guns away.
  
  Obsencity is a topic in which this kind of Manichean "thinking" is on both sides. Everybody is getting worked up, preparing to battle Evil. In reality, it's a tempest in a teapot no matter which way things go. According to the Miller test, and obscene work must depict sexual acts in a way that is both patently offensive AND has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific merit. The vast majority of blogs have nothing to do with obscenity, and those that do could be argued as engaging in reasonably serious critique, even if the works in question have titles like Backdoor Teenage Cheerleader Virgins IX.
  
  Now, personally I think there is a ninth amendment right to enjoy offensively obscene material that has no redeeming value other than the pleasure it gives you. I also think you have a right to shoot targets on your property during normal waking hours, and screw the militia. To hell with redeeming social value: private pleasures shouldn't have to be justified by serving a public purpose.
  
  So long as that obscene material is not delivered in a way that is intrusive, I don't think there is Constitutional authorization to restrict it. If it is possible to use your email account or web search without having to wade through a pile of obscenity, if parents have the means to regulate their dependents' use of such materials (whether they should is nobody else's business), in short if obscene materials do not intrude on those who does not seek them out, then you cannot restrict these materials because they create revulsion in some or even most people. What is left is a paternalistic state interest in the development of private character. Some believe this is a high public purpose, like protecting troop movements in a time of war, or protecting the individual's right of privacy.
  
  But even if a paternalistic concern for public morality is a legitimate public interest, I think prohibition has been shown sufficiently ineffective that it must be considered overbroad. Historically the weight of decency laws often fell on meritorious, but controversial works with little or no effect on the availability of obscenity. I've never heard of a place or age where obscenity was easy to produce yet hard to obtain, but you shouldn't have to patronize a shabby peddler of raunchy contraband if you want to read Huckleberry Finn.
  
  In any case virtue -- as those who have read St. Augustine are aware -- is about choosing the greater good over the lesser. A public interest in virtue is best served by fostering the availability of good choices, not the ineffective prohibition of bad ones, which is mere posturing. Ken Burns' Civil War has done more to elevate the public character than all the public decency laws combined ever have.
  
  But, having argued that obscenity laws are ineffctive and positively harmful to non-obscene expression, I don't think those who enjoy obscenity for its own sake have much to worry about. The bluenoses are not evil people who are going to take your porn away. They're misguided folks who at most will end up making you go through the motions of taking a dose of artistic merit along with your porn. You'll just learn to adjust. Possibly, that's why God created the fast forward button.
  
  It's people who are actually interested in sex related that have merit, particularly political merit, who should be worried.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Wtf by Dhalka226 · 2006-12-12 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
Sex offenders are generally tracked for a long time out of fear of recidivism, which has a very high rate among sex offenders

Does it? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
- Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
I don't know about the rest of you, but 5.3% recidivism doesn't sound awfully high to me. Am I reading that wrong?
Or, perhaps more likely, do the scare tactics about sex offenders simply have no basis in reality?