Slashdot Mirror


Illinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites

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.

31 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. think of the children! by President_Camacho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... oh nevermind.

    1. Re:think of the children! by Eukaryote · · Score: 5, Informative
      The 14th Amendment makes the federal constitution apply to all of the states.

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      States can have laws that ratchet freedom further, but they can't decrease your rights any more than the federal government Constitutionally is able to.

    2. Re:think of the children! by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is not valid legal theory. The bill of rights only applied to the states after ratification of the 14th Amendment and many lawsuits later.

      Regardless, the current tests for applicability of the 1st Amendment would not find anything wrong with the law being proposed.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    3. 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.
  2. Good. by seinman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for him. Have you been to the library lately? Just try to get some work done on a computer there during the first few hours after school lets out. Every computer is some punk 15 year old on MySpace. Let's get library computers doing what they should be doing: helping people with legitimate research. Not helping emo kids whine about their girlfriends.

    1. Re:Good. by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's the lesser of 2 evils. would you preffer a minor inconvience, or have less freedom of speech?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Good. by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the grandparent can afford a home computer, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone can. The point of a library is to educate and assist the public, even/especially those who wouldn't be able to afford similar services. Internet access is not a luxury anymore, and even those who can't afford it may need it to search/apply for a job, get information, or send that quick message to their brother across the country.

      Given that I'd still say this bill is absolutely ridiculous. A better solution would be implementing blocks on a few clearly labeled computers, or allow librarians to use their judgment to give serious users preference over frivolous users if necessary. For some reason I doubt it will pass anyway.

    3. Re:Good. by AlexDV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Given that I'd still say this bill is absolutely ridiculous. A better solution would be implementing blocks on a few clearly labeled computers, or allow librarians to use their judgment to give serious users preference over frivolous users if necessary. For some reason I doubt it will pass anyway.
      I work for a public library, and this is exactly what we do now. Every day when school gets out, we're inundated with junior high kids coming in to monopolize our computers for their daily MySpace, RuneScape, and AIM fix. The solution that we've come up with is to reserve one third of our computers for "non recreational use." Specifically, this means no social networking sites, recreational IM, MMORPGs, or games of any kind. Basically, it's at the discretion of the staff to determine when this policy is being violated, and to discus it with the patron.

      In short, we've already solved this problem without any help from our meddling "representatives" in Springfield. Same goes for porn. We don't filter our Internet access, but we do reserve the right to ask people to avoid sites that include explicit content, because the computers are all in a publicly viewable area. This is part of our own Internet Use Agreement, not some piece of legislation dreamed up by Senators with nothing better to do. In other words, we're perfectly capable of handling most of the perceived problems with public access computers without any interference from the government.
    4. Re:Good. by AlexDV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. However, shouldn't this be at the library's discretion rather than a state law? That is, libraries that feel that this is a problem can set up a proxy locally that bans access to myspace, and libraries where this isn't a problem (because they are too far away from a school) wouldn't need to.
      I work for a public library and, yes, we are perfectly capable of handling this without crazy legislation being shoved down our throats by clueless politicians. The simple solution is to reserve a portion of our computers for non-recreational use and locate them far enough away from the ones that noisy teens frequent so that people can get real work done in peace and quite.

      Wow, that was simple! We even managed to come up with that all on our own, without any help from Big Brother. We librarians are might smart and resourceful people, let me tell you. /sarcasm
    5. Re:Good. by Library+Spoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>legitimate research
      Posting on Slashdot?

      Why shouldn`t kids use Myspace? Maybe we should get rid of all Fiction books as well - I mean they`re
      not for legitimate research.

      Libraries are for everyone - don`t be such a snob.

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
  3. First, define "social networking". by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Technically, you could argue that all USENET groups (and therefore Google, as Google carries newsgroups) are a form of social networking. All sites that provide blogs (such as Groklaw, Slashdot, The Guardian newspaper, the BBC News, CNN) would also be covered. Hell, the discussion pages on all Wikis are technically blogs, so there goes Wikipedia, friends and family. Many technical sites provide web archives of mailing lists and/or web-based forums, so there goes Sourceforge and any University or College that carries Open Source products. Many commercial software websites have online chat rooms for technical issues, so you'd have to eliminate those as well. Virtually all fansites for movies, TV shows, etc, also provide some kind of web-based posting service, so you'd end up kicking those out as well. Oh, and Craigslist would need to die, too.

    By my reckoning, this leaves you with FTP sites that have no upload facility, the few remaining Gopher servers, and maybe the local taxi cab company.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. Speech by okinawa_hdr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's about controlling free speech and information dissemination. When there are vast networks of information distribution controlled by the people, that raises eyebrows.

  5. *scratches head* by zCyl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously speaking, what percentage of parents are terrified of social networking sites these days? I remember back in the 90s when everybody thought the internet was out to seduce and corrupt their children, but this is 2007. You can find worse things in google than found on most social networking sites. So how many people are really still afraid of these mysterious-yet-elusive "internet predators"?

    1. Re:*scratches head* by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Seriously speaking, what percentage of parents are terrified of social networking sites these days?"

      Plenty, if they read newspapers. Here's some trolling by Combs, published in my local paper.

      http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/ combs.asp

      How would _you_ mod that as a slashdot moderator? Me: -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait -1 Stupid (if only) -1 overrated (so it can't be taken away in metamoderation).

      --
      BMO

  6. R-27, Palatine by Konster · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had to look twice to see that Palatine wasn't Palpatine.

  7. 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.
    1. Re:Think of the Geeks! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      You've just nailed (accidentally or not) what I see as the second biggest problem here (after the blatant unconstitutionality of the proposed legislation)...

      What does count as a "social networking" site? Would SlashDot count? Would most blogs that allow comment posting? Would USENET, for that matter? The full text of the bill basically sounds like it violates Free (online) Assembly rather than Free Speech.

      The concept of "social networking", as used here, really has no meaning except by example. When you outlaw meaningless ideas, you open the door for overly aggressive AGs and DAs to start creatively interpreting the law to apply in areas not even the most paranoid of the beanie-wearing crowd could have predicted. Case in point, the DOJ (in)famously held a series of lectures on how to apply the patriot act and subsequent antiterrorism legislation to your friendly neighborhood weed dealer. Riiiiiiiight, protection from Osama.



      But, but, but... Think of the children!

  8. Proposal to ban People by Digital_Mercenary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets stop fooling around and do it right!

    (Global proposition 999)

    People are responsible for the most dangerous and irresponsible acts that can be committed against other people. I propose we ban "people" all together. Stop repeating a history of mistakes and destroy the worlds problems in one fell swoop. End people. They rape, torture, kill without regard for themselves or others. All over the world people are forced to jail people in order to protect themselves, yet the problems continue. They have children, abuse the children, who intern have more children with no end of abuse in site. Their is no way to ensure a person will never mistreat another person unless all people are banned from existence.

    So in conclusion, the only way to provide a safe loving environment for the future of our world is... the immediate and complete removal of all people from the face of the earth. Please support proposition 999 for a people free planet. "Get rid of the people, get rid of the problems."

    (Yes I've been drinking.)

  9. flamebait headline by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The headline chosen by kdawson was "llinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites", which is a ludicrous distortion.

  10. No social network... no job networking either? by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So I can't use a social networking site at a library... even to network for a JOB?

    What about people (for example some small bands) who maintain their websites through services such as MySpace, because they can't get, afford, or know how to do the coding to set up a website of their own?

    Or users of services like Facebook, where a school organization or club may be hosted mostly or entirely on the service, because the tools are extremely convenient to use and FREE? All of a sudden, those tools become off limits - neither club officers nor the members can communicate until an alternate (and probably more expensive) method is set up.

    Someone is being paid way too much money to come up with these ridiculous bills.

  11. A case study in sucky Internet regulation by RyanGWU82 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wow, I'm not sure I've ever seen a bill this bad. Reading the full text, I see that the legislation's primary function is defined in one paragraph:

    Each public library must prohibit access to social networking websites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Each school must prohibit access to social networking websites on all computers made available to students in the school.


    The bill goes on to define the key terminology it uses: administrative unit, computer, public library, school, and school board.

    All well and good? Well, they never define what constitutes a "social networking website"! Which of these do you think would qualify: Slashdot? Reddit? Digg? Evite? Delicious? Blogger? We could debate this to death. (In fact, it probably is being debated at some Web 2.0 conference.) Without a clear definition of the most crucial term in the bill, how are schools supposed to know how to enforce it? How are the rest of us supposed to know what's allowed and what's not?

    If a legislator took the effort to become knowledgable about the Internet, understand how it operates, and then proposed some carefully-crafted regulation, I wouldn't get so emotionally angry about it. Instead we get Ted Stevens' rant about tubes, and crap like this, because people don't take the time to understand what they're talking about. We should expect more out of our elected officials. They wield significant power, and it's ridiculous that they choose to use it without thinking.

    Ryan
  12. 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 lukas84 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's easy. Just whitelist all the pages which are not social networking pages.

      And that would be porn, with a few slides of usable content.

    2. Re:No, it's not. by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's most likely not intended to universally block all access to social networking sites. There are, after all, internet cafes and home internet access available.

      It is not "universal" - it only applies to schhols and libraries - but it is mandatory blocking.

      It's most likely intended to give the librarian the authority to tell someone who is using the library computers to surf myspace.com to get off the computer and let someone waiting to do their homework have it.

      Librarians already have the authority to do that.

      The Fine Article has a link to the text of the bill. This bill explicitly says libraries and schools " MUST PROHIBIT access to social networking websites on all computers made available to the public / students". It contains enforcement provisions by which the Attorney General or any random idiot citizen of the State may initiate a court action if they are personally "not satisfied" with the school or library.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Where did "freedom of speech" enter into it. by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Freedom of speech" implies the right to hold/express an opinion not "free computers for spending the whole day instant messaging while people who need to look something up on Google are standing fuming behind you".

    If you desperately need to use MySpace then go across the street and pay $1 an hour in the cybercaf like everybody else.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Where did "freedom of speech" enter into it. by krotkruton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Freedom of speech" implies the right to hold/express an opinion

      How about holding the opinion that my time on MySpace is worth just as much as your time on Google? I'm not a big MySpace user, but you are putting values to the way people spend their time. If your community feels that people shouldn't use library computers to get on MySpace, then campaign to make it a policy of your local library, but don't support some bill that will make it a requirement of every library. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there isn't some community that only uses their libraries to access MySpace.

  14. Federal vs. state by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Informative

    The founders believed that the states would protect their people against federal tyranny. It's in the Federalist Papers, which are utterly fascinating reading.

    That idea did get turned upside down less than a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

  15. Example of poorly implemented legislation by oKAMi-InfoSec · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are so many things wrong with this bill...it is difficult to start, but two areas seem particularly wearisome:
    • No definition of "social networking site": this leaves sites such as linkedin and slashdot and any site with a comment feature in limbo.
    • No definition exists to identify what is "reasonable effort towards compliance with the law"
    --
    Chalmer
  16. Contact information by zantolak · · Score: 3, Informative

    If anyone would like to contact Senator Murphy about this, his email is info [at] gomattmurphy.com. I just did.

  17. But by KKlaus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Library computers shouldn't be used for myspace, but nevertheless this is no place for the law. Have it be library policy, and give the library tools to enforce it, i.e. throwing people out, then banning them, and then trespassing carries hefty enough penalties that I'm sure it will be fine. The desire to fine people or (worse) criminalize them for things that annoy you when far less severe measures are available and effective is just plain wrong. We don't need anymore criminals in this country, and we don't need anymore people thinking that it's ok to fine them a couple hundred dollars for browsing a website when they're not supposed to. It's just a site.

    And to the extent that, in good slashdot tradition, I didn't read the article, this statement should be intrepeted as broader than this specific instance. I.e. I don't know what the actual suggested "consequence" of violation would be, so MMMV here.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
  18. better altenative by idlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Get more PCs for the libraries. Seems like money well-spent even if students spend their time on MySpace.

    Not helping emo kids whine about their girlfriends.

    Emo kids, whining, and girl friends is mostly what literature (i.e., the stuff that belongs in libraries) is mostly all about. Think of MySpace as interactive, participatory fiction.