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.
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.
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
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
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
Every time I hear the "uproar" against "obscenity", I hear the sound of silence over the real problems.
- Over 12 million living in poverty
- 40-50 million without health care
- 25% of the worlds prison population
- 46800 car deaths in 2005
- Every 90-second a car is colliding with a train due to lacking regulations if crossing.
- Higher education costs and arm and a leg and your first born.
This country has some serious problems to deal with, but obscenity is not one of them!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
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.
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
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.
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++;
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."
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
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?
Democrat Charles Schumer is also one of the authors....why is it that the media never mentions stuff like that?
I'm always left puzzled by why such moralists go after fairly harmless or beneficial stuff like sex, drugs, and contraception when there's far worse to get upset about, such as consumerism (ie., all advertisements and much content on the mainstream media), racism, and sexism.
I consider myself a moralist, but I don't even want to be put in the same company as your average evangelical censor.
...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
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.
I think it is very clear what it should mean. A declaration of partnership based upon serious, long term commitment by individuals who are both capable of understanding that precise commitment up front (the classic definition of intelligent, informed consent) and able to represent that fact in a legal and comprehensible manner. Such declaration may be public, or not, and it should -- not does, but should -- carry with it such legal obligations as the participants have agreed upon, and no others. Socially, it's dead obvious: "This is my partner, please treat them as you would me." Simple, easy to deal with, no worries.
When people say "we're married", that's what I think of. As to the specifics, these only matter when legal issues come up; and that is why paperwork stating the terms is such a good idea in today's world. Otherwise, some idiot could tell you you could not have a say in the treatment of the love(s) of your life if they were in the hospital, or that you could not have a say in the schooling of your offspring. Marriage, in the end, is a state that is intended to benefit the individuals involved. Not the rest of us as onlookers. If they wanted our opinion, surely we would have been invited to the ceremony, or made signatory on the paperwork.
Yes, however what you are arguing for here isn't "specific" meaning, it is canned meaning. I would argue that every human partnership involves different stakes, different foundations, different preconceptions, different commitment, and therefore just as when forming a specific type of business, you'll want a specific type of agreement tailored to your union. What those specifics are matter primarily to the members of the union, and are otherwise not much of anyone else's business until such time as a question of parenting or hospital visitation or the like comes up; at that time, you whip out your paperwork, point to the appropriate clause, and you're done.
Communications about what a union means would be vastly enhanced by a thorough hammering out of what one is agreeing to, it seems to me. Opportunities for improvement abound: No wife would find she had unwittingly become a dishwasher or drudge; no husband would find that his wife's last day of interest in sex was the day before they were married; no child would find itself stripped of a parent. Services to assist in hammering out such agreements would become widely available; sounds optimum to me.
Oh, I'm being perfectly honest. And honestly, what you want for anyone's marriage but your own and your offspring's is completely irrelevant to me. What I say is marriage for me, is marriage. Period. You don't have even a fraction of a say. Honestly. :) When it comes to you telling me what marriage is for you, then I'll listen, and I'll respect that, all the more so if you can make it clear. Marriage isn't religious to or for me, because religion doesn't intercept with any part of my life. Consequently, I don't give a flying hoot what any religion has to say about my marriage, or lack thereof, any more than I would if an astrologer tried to tell me I should live in some particular fashion. Superstition isn't a solid enough foundation for any fraction of a relationship I enter into, I can assure you. If it is for you, that's something else entirely, and I encourage you to have it your way. And I promise not to bother you about it; if that's the way you and your partner(s) roll, by all means, have at it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
* Parents have a natural affinity for their own offspring. Children have a natural affinity for their birth parents. Marriage provides the best solution - children have access to both parents, and both parents give their children full affection. This eliminates the "Your not my real father... " or "Why should I support *YOUR* kid..." types of situations.
:)
Clearly this isn't limited to homosexual relationships- heterosexual marriages often (usually?) end in divorce, and often the participants in the original marriage get remarried, thus opening it up to "You're not my real father" or "why should I support your kid" types of situations. Additionally, the phrase "both parents give their children full affection" in the context of heterosexual marriage implies that homosexual couples are unfit parents, unable to give the child their full affection. In any case, any given set of a man and a woman can crap out a child, regardless of whether or not it is wanted. It takes extra effort for a homosexual couple to obtain a child, thus ensuring the child is loved and wanted.
* Men and women desire exclusive access to their spouse - sexual, emotional, financial, mental, etc... Relationships with more than two people do not have the exclusivity privelege enjoyed by married couples. That is, one "spouse" will have to be shared by more than one of the other "spouses".
If the individuals in question desire exclusive access to their spouse, then they should not enter into a polygamous relationship. However, that should be left up to the individual consenting adults to decide if they want to enter into a plural marriage.
* The couple as a whole makes more intellectually and emotionally balanced, and less self-centered decisions. The complementarity of the sexes forces the couple to consider both feminine and masculine points of view when making decisions. A relationship between two men could exist without any consideration of how their public decisions (i.e. voting, politics, charity, etc...) affect women. Likewise, the relationship of two women would be unlikely to create any sense of understanding or compassion for masculine points of view.
The exclusively-male and exclusively-female couples should then balance each other out
To use your logic, the public decisions of heterosexual voters don't exactly show any sense of understanding or compassion for the homosexuals who want to get married, eh?
* The union of man and woman usually produces offspring, and the raising of children provides a service essential to the future of the state. Unions of only men or only women do not have the procreative potential and do not provide the essential service of future generation to the state. This reason alone would be sufficient for the state to recognize a union of one man and one woman as distinct from civil unions for the purposes of law.
I didn't realize there was a shortage of children in this country. In any case, I don't think allowing two men or two women to marry each other will contribute to a decline in the birth rate. Generally, people who are heterosexual enter into heterosexual relationships and get married and have children, while people who are homosexual enter into homosexual relationships, don't get married, and don't have children. Do you really think that if homosexual marriage was allowed, a bunch of straight people would suddenly say "enough of this opposite-sex crap. I'm off to get gay-married, to live a childless life of debauchery!"
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.