Slashdot Mirror
Senators Call for Universal Internet Filtering
An Anonymous Coward writes "US senators today made a bipartisan call for the universal implementation of filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet in order to protect children. Their statement came at the end of a Senate hearing in which civil liberties groups were not invited."
I don't give 'em that much credit for savvy. Both parties in the states are still pimping for the "moral" voters, and support of a sure-to-die, nearly impossible to implement or pay for measure like this is a great way to get you name attached to a moral agenda without actually having to do anything.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"Are they completely aware the program won't do one damned thing to solve any problem, but the propose it anyway just so they can put a blurb in their campaign ads about how they protect children."
Well you don't have to look far, when voting against a measure like this will guarantee that next election cycle your opponent will run a black and white ad with ominous music saying, "Sen. Jim Bob wants to protect the rights of sexual predators to contact your children on the internet!"
House races especially are dirty like this. This crap happens all the time, I've even seen it in live debates.
And you want to know the really sad part? A lot of voters eat this stuff up. If you're average Soccer Mom Susie, all of a sudden you're not sure you can trust the candidate anymore, and if you already hated the candidate, well now he or she is the devil himself.
The committee is headed by Inouye, D-HI. Stevens is the vice-chair.
Is the world really that much more dangerous? OR are you just being fed the crap and lies of the media political machine that has for years been the means to control the populace through fear?
The fact is any sort of child molester story ends up on front page news nation-wide. Just because some pedo in California abducts a 12 year old girl/boy does not mean that you in Florida are any more or less safe than you were the day before this was reported. The PERCEPTION is that you are less safe by hearing about someone that was in a potentially similar situation to yourself.
Its just like 9/11... Sure it was a tragedy but are you any more or less safe the day after? Not really. Its the news coverage that gives you the PERCEPTION of being under attack and that big buildings = big targets for terrorists who hijack big planes. What are the odds of that happening again? Pretty slim most likely. The terrorists pulled a sneaky trick, after years of conditioning people to assume terrorists hijack planes to get people to release prisoners and shit, they took them and suicide attacked into some buildings. Now people are going to be conditioned to fight back when terrorists hijack planes because they do not want that to happen again.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
better to strap the magnets to him, makes it easier to wire up, since then you can just wind around the coffin
* Referring, of course, to Inouye's absolutely dismal record at actually getting anything passed, or for that matter, even supporting anything that gets passed. Of 289 bills he sponsored since Jan 21, 1997, only FOUR have become law. And for that, I think we can all be grateful. (source)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Sens. Stevens and Inyoue had a similar hearing last year. Not much happened.
This year, they heard fewer witnesses. A summary:
The witnesses heard are reasonable ones. We used to see a big presence from the religious right at these things, but that's not happening this time. Nobody was asking for much on the legislative front.
Actually we've had this kind of filtering for years now here in Norway and most ISPs are connected to the filter run by the national police. It's easy to get around it of course if you know how.
The other thing is of course the filter does not work the way it's supposed to! Lots of people have reported on internet forums and newspaper debates that their legitimate surfing has incurred the wrath of The Filter. Some of the just reported that legal porn sites were included. It's not like we feel sorry for them.
But the principles of free speech versus censorship should obviously be considered very important! They are central values in our constitution as well. But wouldn't you know it? The public does not know, care and did't get to vote on it. Welcome to democracy!
And now look what tops the bestseller lists - Harry Potter.
...which is number 7 on the list of most frequently banned books.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
"Worth having a look at when you feel like screaming "Somebody think of the children!" (thank you, South Park, for this amazing quote)."
It was in The Simpsons, spoken my Mrs. Lovejoy multiple times in the "Much Apu About Nothing" episode, although the phrase is common in other contexts. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in South Park too.
This is a publicity grab that's intended to ride the coat-tails of the news story on myspace's deletion of profiles associated with criminals and predators. The "bipartisan senators" are only barely senator*s*--there's precisely two of them: "Tubes" Stevens and Inoyue, of Hawaii. Don't hold your breath, people. The Internet will be fine. Other less insane or gerrymandered pols will not want to hop on a bandwagon that will roll directly towards a one-to-one policy correspondence with countries such as China.
Was that south park, or the simpsons?
L ovejoy
Upon a little research, I think the simpsons started it; Reverend Lovejoy's wife, Helen, says it in multiple episodes, most likely predating south park by several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy#Helen_
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
Social Services stats indicate 80%+ of the perpetrators are family members or known to the family.
Focusing on the internet as a breeding ground is just a way to ignore the fact that it comprises less than 5% of the events. Put another way - 100% elimination of the molestations that occur because of the internet will result in less than a 5% reduction of the overall number of molestations. Is this really the cost effective means of saving the children?