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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon? I'm sorry to say... not until he keels over on the Senate floor. Up here in Alaska, he's known as "Uncle Ted." He brings obscene amounts of money into this state. The international airport in Anchorage is the "Ted Stevens International Airport." The man is still alive! His eleventh hour ads supporting Lisa Murkowski turned the election around and won her the junior seat in the Senate two term, popular former governor, Tony Knowles. This was the lady who was APPOINTED to the Senate by her FATHER when he was elected governor. Can we say nepotism? Most Alaskans hated her... right up until Uncle Ted endorsed her. In this state at least, the man walks on water (or tubes... or bridges to nowhere). But the people here have no choice. We have a population of around 700,000. We're constantly having to argue with government agencies for them to even have a presence here. To them, it's not worth spending money on services for such a small population spread out over such a large area. (Never mind the billion dollar oil, fishing, mining, and tourism industries.) So we have to have someone who can make our voices heard. Stevens has a lot of clout in Washington, which means Alaska has a lot of clout in Washington, and I doubt we'll give that up until we absolutely have to.

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.

Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007

[stomv]

Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 for two reasons:

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.

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.

So, with Uncle Ted presumably bringing in less pork for the foreseeable future, will Alaskans react by electing a Dem, or will they re-elect Uncle Ted in the hopes that the GOP recapture the senate and Stevens' seniority becomes valuable locally again?