Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA"

DJCacophony writes "Ted 'series of tubes' Stevens has introduced a bill, going by the interim name S.49, that aims to block access to interactive websites from schools and libraries. The wording of the bill is vague enough to apply to Wikipedia, MySpace (and other social networking sites), and potentially even to blogs. The bill is apparently so similar to the failed Deleting Online Predators Act of last year that it has been termed 'Son of DOPA' by some." Stevens introduced S.49, the text of which is not yet available, on the opening day of the legislative session.

Comments

Jeez...

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?

Re:Jeez...

[TheRaven64]

Part of this is due to the committee system in the US government. Committee positions are where the real power lies, and these are awarded by seniority. This means that a state which replaces its senator will automatically have less influence on Capitol Hill, making it in a state's best interest to elect the incumbent unless they are acting against the state's interest.

Think of the (poorly educated) children

[Megajim]

Well we wouldn't want anyone actually LEARNING but using the Internet, would we? I particularly find it offensive when non-porn, sexually-related material is blocked from the very people who could use that information the most.

Re:Think of the (poorly educated) children

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What have you learned from MySpace that has any value in an educational environment?

I learned:

• introductory Web site design and examples of what not to do.
• the sociology of cliques
• the psychology of conformism and subcultures

Besides, this is only for schools and libraries.

Federal funding means responsibility to act constitutionally, including upholding free speech/expression for adults. The government judging that posting to MySpace is less valuable than posting to Slashdot, or some purely educational forum, is an unconstitutional act. The government should never be making these decisions, individuals should. It is called freedom, even if it is the freedom to waste an hour writing about how cute your poodle is and publishing it.

The case could be made that there is no valid reason for someone to be accessing MySpace from a library other than wasting time.

The case could be made that doing anything other than praying to Allah is a waste of time. The case could be made that reading literature instead of car repair manuals is a waste of time. The point is that it is not the government's responsibility or right to make that call, it is the right and responsibility of the individual.

However, I am assuming that by "schools", he is not including universities and colleges.

Public schools are one thing. The people there are children who are assigned by our society a subset of rights and responsibilities belonging to other people. In that case it is up to the parent's to decide, possibly through the democratic process of the government, subject to some limitations. In public libraries, however, there is no justification. If people actually went to said libraries and read the constitution as well as the essays of the founding fathers, maybe they'd understand why.

They Want to Take Away the Power to Publish...

[eno2001]

...under the guise of protecting children. Bloody typical. The fact that anyone can walk into a public library and post their uncensored views of the government, politicians, policy, business, etc... is "dangerous". This is why the internet is destined to become just another medium like television where you only consume and are limited in what you can produce and how many hearts and minds you can reach. Unless you fight things like Son of DOPA. This is the typical approach in many segments today. Take something that you REALLY want to enforce on people that they would likely balk at if they really understood it, then attach it to some "noble cause". Make sure that the noble cause is something that makes it easy to paint the opposition as "pro-evil". And you win.

Predators? Well, in that case..

[Grashnak]

I understand a lot of child molesters use public washrooms to attack kids in, so we should ban access to public washrooms. Come to think of it, most kids are molested by members of their own families, so clearly we should ban families. Heck, I once heard that a molester drove a volkswagen, so hell, lets ban them too.

Re:You know it's an election year...

[Tackhead]

> I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?

It got rewritten and nobody told you.

Republicans are the party of Big Daddy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your bedroom to make sure you're not having sex the wrong way, because pornography is a national epidemic.

Democrats are the party of Big Mommy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your kitchen to make sure you're not eating the wrong kinds of food, because obesity is a national epidemic.

Once upon a time, Americans valued "freedom to" over "freedom from". The past 40 years of "every life is precious" and "you are a unique and valuable snowflake" rhetoric has changed that; as a nation, we've pretty much decided we'd rather be safe than free. Kinda sucks for us oldthinkers who unbellyfeel amsoc, but that's our problem, not New America's.

Re:People Dont read

[dabraun]

Are you serious? This is an old standby to get laws passed that would otherwise be considered outside the juristiction of the federal government. Go look up how the 55mph national speed limit was enforced (hint: it didn't apply to ALL roads, just ALL roads in states that wanted funding for interstate highways)

The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion.

Re:Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007

[alexhmit01]

I think you're a bit optimistic...

1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.

That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).

The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.

2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.

Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.

The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.

I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.

The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.

Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and entertainment industry... which would cut off their funds.