Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Illinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites

Posted by kdawson on from the including-Obama's dept.

AlexDV writes "Library blogger Michael Stephens is reporting that an Illinois state senator, Matt Murphy (R-27, Palatine), has filed a bill that 'Creates the Social Networking Web site Prohibition Act. Provides that each public library must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Provides that each public school must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to students in the school.' Here is the bill's full text." This local effort harks back to an attempt last May to get federal legislation banning school and library use of social networking sites (Wikipedia summary here). The DOPA bill passed the House but died in the Senate.

6 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Re:*scratches head* by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, if one wanted to really protect the children, then you'd have to take a look at where kids really do encounter sexual predators. # 1 is in their own homes. #2, churches. #3, schools.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Think of the Geeks! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many a /.er treats /. as a social nw site where you might try to build karma, bitch about MS etc etc.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  3. I believe what they are really doing here... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is to prevent pedos to gain "anonymous" access to social networking sites when chatting up their perspective victims.

    --
    Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
  4. No, it's not. by AlexDV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, it's not. Read the text of the bill. It doesn't specify anything about pedophiles or anonymous access. Heck, it doesn't even attempt to specify what exactly constitutes a "social networking." This aspect alone makes this bill virtually impossible to implement in any meaningful way.

    Secondly, even if there was a definitive definition of social networking, just how on earth would you be able to block all sites that fit that profile? A gigantic black list? I'm happen to be the network admin for a small Illinois library, so if this becomes law, I'm one of the people who's going to have to deal with the mess. I'd be very interested in knowing exactly how the heck Senator Murphy thinks this would work. My guess is that he really has no idea what he's talking about, but thought that this would play well with the "think of the children" crowd.

    1. Re:No, it's not. by Diagoras+of+Melos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But social networking sites are demonstrably and materially vital to the objective of helping schoolchildren with their schoolwork. Kids collaborate. They help each other, and that is the central paradigm of our world today. That's how everything worth doing gets done.

      We can't for this purpose or almost any other distinguish between social networking and any other kind, and the Internet is after all a network, no?

      So it's not just our rights of Assembly that the bill seeks to abridge, it is the functionality of the Internet itself. Clueless.

      --
      -- "The only thing that is ever new in the world is the history you do not know." -- Harry Truman
  5. Re:think of the children! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People see the wor(d) "ban" and "public library" and they get all bothered. What's the problem?


    Well, for one thing, we pay for public libraries. They are meant to provide a service for us. And if enough people are using public library computers to visit social sites, then clearly that's a service for which there is demand. As someone who's on the board of a foundation that's trying to get computers into the hands of people who can't afford them, I can tell you with certainty that there are people out there who don't have the money to buy a computer or pay for broadband. If a social site is valuable enough for YOU to use then it's of value to them as well. And, believe it or not, we build public libraries for poor people to use, too.

    Your argument is like saying that if people are requesting that the library carry a certain book or magazine, the answer is that they should just go out and buy the book themselves. That sort of defeats the purpose of public libraries, though, no?

    I guess no matter how affluent the United States gets, there will always be people who think that poor people shouldn't get things like access to health care, access to public libraries, access to government. It's a pretty fucked up way to think.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.