House Bill Won't Criminalize Free Wi-Fi Operators
Velcroman98 sends word of a bill that passed the US House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 409 to 2. It would require everyone who runs an open Wi-Fi connection to report illegal images, including "obscene" cartoons and drawings, or be fined up to $300,000. The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act was rushed through the House without any hearings or committee votes, and the version that passed on a voice vote reportedly differs substantially from the last publicly available version. CNET reports that sentiment in favor of such a bill is strong in the Senate as well. Update: 12/07 06:22 GMT by Z : As clarified in an Ars writeup, this summary is a bit off-base. The bill doesn't require WiFi owners to police anything, merely 'stiffening the penalties' for those who make no effort to report obvious child pornography.
...hence the lopsided vote. EFF has the insights no the rest of this bill. This is a "poison pill" amendment to the Ron Paul's of the world, but it's a small price to pay for passing the rest of this legislation.
blarg.
Organisms predisposed to eliminate all their offspring will not make any contributions to the gene pool. Economic standing, race, religion, and so on do not factor in. This is why it is so incredibly stupid for people to oppose abortion: if left unchecked, the “problem” solves itself over time. In other words, if you hate abortion, it is in your best interests to let it run rampant because individuals sharing your opinion are more likely to reproduce. (But, uh-oh, you have just accepted a fundamental tenant of evolution!) The other question is: why the opposition to couples wanting to have sex but not wanting to have children? That is perfectly reasonable, especially considering some couples that abort are parents with families who do not want or need more children. Give it a rest. You anti-choice people are so confused on this matter that you cannot even form cogent, sensical arguments.
Why bother.