Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Internet Regulation Proposed

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-do-love-a-good-fight dept.

429

bumgutts writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has suggested a mandatory website self-rating system. The system, very similar to one suggested under Clinton's administration, would require by law all commercial websites to place 'marks and notices' on each page containing 'sexually explicit' content, with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment." From the article: "A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive 'words or digital images' in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen 'absent any further actions by the viewer.'"

cancel ×

429 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

TESTICLE ROT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172437)

poo

The defense moves (5, Insightful)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172442)

It's not porn, it's art!

Re:The defense moves (5, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172586)

How did this get moderated "funny"? It's serious. Surely this law would have to ban nudes in art. The next step would then be to remove them from public display in museums.

Re:The defense moves (5, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172664)

From the article:

The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers... close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. It's all laid out right here. They want to criminalize something because it triggers a certain thought. A thought-crime if you will.

Re:The defense moves (2, Funny)

fallungus (810282) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172706)

So I guess the Victoria's Secret site is going to be illegal,too?

Re:The defense moves (1)

spammeister (586331) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172755)

People still go to museums?

Kinda reminds me of.. (1)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172445)

Kinda reminds me of this old one [subj.com] . ;)

Hell's frozen over! (-1, Troll)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172448)

Is it just me going insane, or does that actually seem like reasonable legislation?

-:sigma.SB

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172469)

It sounds reasonable, but soon you won't be able to say "fuck" on the internet, show indecent material between 6 AM and 10 PM in the USA and so on. Sounds like something that the Fucking Censorship Committee (FCC) came up with.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172470)

No its not just you. That does indeed seem like reasonable legislation. Porn on the net has gotten way out of control.

Out of control? (1)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172496)

Can you please provide specific examples of how it has gotten out of control? Inquiring minds want to know, because, I for one, just don't see it and I think supported evidence just might change my mind.

Re:Out of control? (1)

torokun (148213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172676)

how about animated advertisements that show explicit sexual acts, which appear all over the place on main pages?

people should at least have to be LOOKING for porn to run into this.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1, Funny)

hector_uk (882132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172474)

this is bad because it would make goatseing someone a prosecutable crime with serious consequences, for example if this were so i would of been prosecuted when i set my schools homepage as www.sch.on.nimp.org (dont click if your useing IE it'll fuck you up, heck fuck you, click it if you use IE, you deserve it, fuckers.)

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172614)


this is bad because it would make goatseing someone a prosecutable crime with serious consequences

I hope not or the next time I fly to the US, I'll be pulled over at Customs and sent to Gitmo...

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172654)

That page is a virus. Avast caught it and aborted it luckily.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (2, Insightful)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172477)

You're going insane.

This won't work, unless it's an international standard. That's just never going to happen....

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172571)

It'll work perfectly. The War on Porn is a guaranteed infinite war.

I can just picture the last person on earth's last words to another human: "I warned you about taking any more photo's of me from behind you pornorrist!"

Re:Hell's frozen over! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172599)

The US still controls ICANN. All they'd have to do is say "you must follow these rules or your domain vanishes" and they can enforce it world-wide.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

sm00thee (958537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172515)

It may seem like reasonable legislation but it does nothing to alleviate the problem. You might as well pass a law that states no more internet porn. It would have the same effect. Instead of good old American porn all we would have is crazy Japanese porn. Seriously how will this help, it would only effect American businesses. I am against any law that does not have a chance of stopping what it was written to stop. It just adds another pointless law to the books.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172520)

It may be reasonable, it's also unconstitutional. From the article:

The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

A little broad, eh? So now we get some neopuritan in the FCC or whoever gets to control this deciding what constitutes "sexually explicit". And what constitues a commercial website? Most museums and non-profits may be safe, but what about newspapers? Magazines? This is prior restraint, and this is one of the reasons the First Amendment was passed.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172673)

Closeups of fully clothed genital regions? WTF?

It sounds like this senator needs counselling if he thinks that's porn.

I've Got Fully Clothed Genital Regions (2, Funny)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172802)

I'm looking at some porn right now, I just tilt my head down and there it is, my pants cover my genitals, therefore they are fully clothed genital regions. I'm so dirty.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

ALpaca2500 (125123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172695)

The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

HOW CAN A FULLY-CLOTHED ANYTHING BE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT? I know some law enforcement already has some messed up ideas about what types of pornography should be considered legal, and what types are too dirty and need to be outlawed. But this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172525)

Somewhat agree with you on that portions are reasonable. Self rating of content would be nice but obviously some people are looking to capitalize on similar sounding names, keywords, etc... Try checking the site cheerlaeder.com (notice the typo in "leader"). My wife was a cheerleader coach for my daughters team (no, she never was a cheerleader but nobody else was stepping up) and started looking for online resources. While looking around the web, we accidently found this site. Fortunately my kids weren't around to see the site (that time or the subsequent times I "accidentally" typed the name :) ...j/k). The point I'm trying to make though is that while self rating sounds good, in some cases I doubt people would do a good job self rating, especially if they are willing to take advantage fo a typo. The other site that now comes to mind is whitehouse.com.

Jim

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172704)

Try checking the site cheerlaeder.com (notice the typo in "leader").

That's not a typo, they're just British.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172602)

I had the same kind of feeling. Pretty reasonable guidelines. Big questions about enforcability esp. internationality, but I think a fairly balanced request of webmasters.

Re:Hell's frozen over! (4, Insightful)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172718)

Is it just me going insane, or does that actually seem like reasonable legislation?

Both.

As parent, the thought of such a regulation gave me pause--I consider myself responsible, I want my 11-year-old to have access to the Internet, and I don't want to have to sit there with her ALL the time.

But then, I came to my senses and thought, "it IS my responsibility to monitor her Internet access." The silver lining to such a regulation proposal is that it has made me rethink of my parental priorities...

Re:Hell's frozen over! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172746)

Yes, the human body is a bad thing....
Jail is not good enough, let start chopping of fingers.
These laws would be seen as very good in a Taliban US state.
Osama has won...

What ? (4, Insightful)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172458)

How exactly are they trying to enforce this ?

  I'd say that the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US, probably Canada. So while all american sites and their revenues are hit bigtime (the search engines will definitely start to filter on this), the other countries get the profit.

  Every tenth poster about Madonna or Catherina Zeta Jones or any other female celebrity is somewhat sexual content.

  Since i'm not an american and i'm nowhere near US, it won't affect me, but it still seems enormously stupid idea. The motivation could be correct, but the implementation will suck.

Re:What ? (5, Insightful)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172490)

"The motivation could be correct, but the implementation will suck."

That, my friend, is the definition of the USA.

Re:What ? (5, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172502)

the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US

Hi, you must be new to American diplomacy.

Re:What ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172726)

It doesn't seem a bad idea. I don't think the US army is stupid enouth to use all those highly polluting ammunition that close to their homeland.

Re:What ? (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172784)

You misspelt "hegemony".

Re:What ? (1)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172583)

With the current Canadian government keen to bend over backwards (or forwards) to accomodate American policy, I wouldn't count on a Canadian location being much protection...

Re:What ? (4, Insightful)

lbrandy (923907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172593)

Since i'm not an american and i'm nowhere near US, it won't affect me

Instead of reading the the summary, thinking for 9 seconds, and posting as quickly as possible with the first kneejerk reaction you have, in order to get karma, you might want to consider reading the article. Among other things, this has been proposed before, it is also being considered in Australia (getting closer to home yet?) with the next logical step being that search engines will only (be forced to) index rated sites (effect you yet?), and the US will be able to use it's considerable clout to help get similar legislation passed around the world?

Re:What ? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172605)

I'd say that the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US, probably Canada.
Why would they do that? None of the proposed measures ban sexual content, and putting a notice on the pages is easy enough. And for those who are seeking it, labelling would actually make finding it easier. If you are saying revenues would take a hit from people who unwittingly get lured in and now would not, well I can live with that.

I do agree, however, that a US-only law would have limited impact because it would only affect a fraction of all pages.

What happened to that freedom thing? (5, Interesting)

CaptCommy (872383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172475)

While it sounds like a decent idea, I'm really all for the whole uncensored and unregulated internet. It's more interesting to me to see what people do with the total freedom granted to them. The more stuff like this that's get passed, the closer we move to real censorship. Okay, so I know I probably sound like I just put a fresh bit of tinfoil on this morning, but I really like my internet the way it is.

Too late (1)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172565)

Yesterday I was watching the news (amazing I know) and saw an old chinese woman protesting peacefully outside the whitehouse. She was the only one, but a police officer came and escorted here away. I'd say we are in the midst of the end of our freedoms anyways. All those soldiers that supposibly "died for our freedoms" are rolling in their graves right now because we don't have it anymore and they essentially died for nothing except to say that our way of government was the right one. Which is just what every government tries to do.

Re:Too late (2, Informative)

torokun (148213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172741)

actually, there were quite a few people outside the white house protesting.

this woman used press credentials (probably for shintangren (NTD?), the falungong media group) to get on the white house grounds, up on the camera stand, and then started screaming at the top of her lungs at president Hu when he started talking...

Bush indicated to Hu that he was ok, and he should go on.

The press guys tried to chill her out, but didn't restrain her.

Finally, secret service got up to the top of the platform and escorted her out. She's charged with disorderly conduct.

I don't think the administration did anything wrong here at all, since she snuck in under false pretenses and disrupted the media coverage of a major diplomatic event... and it was not a public area.

boobies (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172476)

The Fark 'boobies' tag finally gets the nationwide recognition it deserves...

Re:boobies (2, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172653)

Where have you been? Fark doesn't have a 'boobies' tag anymore. They moved all the adult stuff to a seperate URL, foobies.com.

The legal implications of the word (-1, Offtopic)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172481)

Fuck
By Christopher M. Fairman, Ohio State Moritz College of Law
You can download the paper from here [bepress.com]
ABSTRACT:
This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context. To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists, linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural taboo. Fuck is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.

SUBJECT AREA:
Communications Law; Constitutional Law; Education Law; Employment Practice; Psychology and Psychiatry; Sexuality and the Law

SUGGESTED CITATION:
Christopher M. Fairman, "Fuck" (March 7, 2006). ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1087.
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1087 [bepress.com]

uh, search? (4, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172484)

All you have to do is know one name, one word even, and any search anywhere will return adult material. Are they gonna put something in front of that? How about just typing in a url that goes to some detail page beyond the index page? Blocking all of that takes a trememdous amount of work... way harder than just "watch your kids" and "tell them about what's there". Any kid can go into a bookstore and see books with adult material in them, in fact you can go to any commercial big-box bookstore (barnes + noble, etc) and you'll see a slew of underage kids in the adult book area. We're just people, people!

I generally don't like Gonzales (4, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172495)

Note: I am a conservative, but I still don't like most of what Gonzales does.

A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen 'absent any further actions by the viewer.

This one actually makes sense. I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best. I apprecite those webmasters that have the decency to place a warning and no explicit material on their portal page. Even better are those that make you agree to view the content and set a cookie. That way no matter what page you enter to (since Google doesn't give preference on most searches to a home page as opposed to one deep in the site), the cookie is checked and you get the "agree/disagree" page no matter what.

However, it seems a bit unenforcable. I mean, what about websites overseas? What about websites overseas operated by American's? What about websites in the US operated by foreigners? I think that there are still too many unresolved questions about jurisdiction on the Internet. I would think that as a lawyer, Gonzales would understand that. This is something that depends on the goodwill of the webmasters, much like most other things on the 'net.

Re:I generally don't like Gonzales (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172549)

I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best.

So, you click on (enter) someone else's website (property) and have the nerve to complain about how they run things? Welcome to the concept of individual sovereignity.

Re:I generally don't like Gonzales (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172561)

"I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best."

What a fucking prick.

The whole fucking planet should change just so you can 'save' your students from boobies.

Re:I generally don't like Gonzales (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172705)

That one stood out as the one that made least sense. Addressability is one of the most important underpinnings of the WWW. It's the reason why frames and some Ajax applications break so badly. It's the reason why you can email pages to friends, why you can bookmark and why things like search engines and del.icio.us work.

A harebrained cookie scheme to try and force everybody through your homepage not only causes all kinds of technical problems, when it fails, the visitor can't even get into your website. That's not to say that people don't try to make it work, just that it's impossible to do correctly, and impossible to even attempt without going completely against everything that makes the WWW work so well.

Re:I generally don't like Gonzales (1)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172812)

A harebrained cookie scheme to try and force everybody through your homepage not only causes all kinds of technical problems, when it fails, the visitor can't even get into your website. That's not to say that people don't try to make it work, just that it's impossible to do correctly, and impossible to even attempt without going completely against everything that makes the WWW work so well.

Touché. I have tried to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I am not trying to say that it is the responsibility of each site's webmaster to protect my students (that is my responsibility, after all), but it did not occur to me that such a scheme would cause severe breakage. Of course, there is then the arguemtn of "who decides what is objectionable?" We use tools like Dan's Guardian, but I was hoping there was something that would cover the instances where those types of tools missed.

Less Government/Bureaucracy not more... (1)

Androclese (627848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172825)

I like the concept of coming up with a standard rating system where websites can set flags based on their content. It would make it easier for us (as parents, not the government) to regulate what our kids watch/view/read online.

I, however, want to see if voluntarily implemented and balk at government enforcement.

a) It would be impossible to enforce
b) There are better things we should be spending the money on. (like closing up the border from ILLEGALS)
c) Being a conservative, I believe in smaller Government, not bigger. I don't need somebody telling me how to raise my kids... that's the job of me and my wife, not a bureaucratic panel that we didn't vote into power.

washington is the american vatican ? (-1, Troll)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172497)

The current regime in washington appears to have a sickly obsession with porn, homosexuals and religiously defined marriage. Do the people who voted for republican party really think it's wise that a big central government in washington is dictating cultural norms to the country?

Re:washington is the american vatican ? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172612)

Why, actually, yes. Since they pretty much agree that anyone in the above-mentioned groups should be executed.

Note to the person who modded parent Troll (-1, Flamebait)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172655)

This doesn't compensate for your tiny, tiny penis.

Definitions needed... (2, Insightful)

Memetic (306131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172498)

A firm definition of sexually explicit would need to be written in. If left open to interpretaion ISP's will be dropping sites a the first complaint for fear of injunctions.

Afterall the difference between kinky nad perverted is just that between using a feather and the whole bird to tickle...

Damned Feds!!! (5, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172509)

Where EXACTLY in the Constitution of The United States is this authority delegated from The People or The States to The Damned Feds?

Re:Damned Feds!!! (2, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172656)

Right there, in the big that says that Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. If Congress declares that a subject concerns inter-state commerce then Congress is free regulate it.

Re:Damned Feds!!! (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172795)

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

This one? Article I, Section 8, Clause 3?

Hmmm... So, then doing business with only ISPs within the same state solves THAT.

Re:Damned Feds!!! (1)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172684)

Based on previous Supreme Court rulings, the Commerce Clause. They use it to justify everything.

obvious question (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172519)

How are they going to enforce this outside the US?

A litmus test (3, Insightful)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172524)

What if your site has that famous picture of Ed Meese talking about his commission on pornography in front of the bare-breasted statue of Justice? Is it art? It is news? It is porn?

Gonzales seems way too obsessed with pornography. Someone should give him a subscription to Hustler online or something like that so he can, er, release a little pressure.

it's quite clear... (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172527)

I've always thought the pictures spoke for themselves.

spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172536)

Maybe they should do the same thing with spam emails. That way our filters would work and those that didn't comply would be executed. OK OK 5 years in jail. On the other hand... Executed sounds better.

hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172539)

This is dumb. It'd make all the internet subject to dumb lawsuits like the ones created by the "sexually explicit" scenes in GTA San Andreas. Also, it'd be impossible to regulate since a lot of dumb porn sites are run by "web masters" that hide behind proxies, servers in other countries, and use free email accounts with bogus personal info.

Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172545)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of children. [wikipedia.org]

With articles about sexual topics and offensive language, could Wikipedia be affected by such legislation? Could a suit be brought if someone vandalized Abraham Lincoln [wikipedia.org] to contain offensive pictures or language? (which happens often)

Future criminal prosecutions - the future is now (4, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172546)

During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions

Future criminal prosecutions, whenever the government deems it necessary for those who might cause problems for them. The implication is the government does not trust its own citizenry, and must have the ability to invade their privacy at any time in order to control or silence them.

What other ways can people be spied on by the government? Is this what we want, a paternalistic government and a paranoid society?

Misguided legislation (2, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172547)

What is with this disturbing attitude towards sex in the US? It's just sex people and nothing more. Violence is far worse than boobies and has a more profound effect on kids. Its insane that showing people getting killed and beaten is more acceptable than sex. Sounds like the US still hasn't excaped their puritan past and that's sad.

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:Misguided legislation (1)

corellon13 (922091) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172765)

With all due respect, the argument that we let this inappropriate action go so we shouldn't worry about this other that is even arguably not as bad is invalid. In other words, saying, "Mom, Billy got away with it. So, why can't I?" isn't a good reason to not crack down on something.

Having said that, I agree that violence is a real problem too. I also think that front is being fought by those who are trying to get violent video games and such banned. Do I agree with either of these sides? Sometimes. But whether you agree or not, to simply point out that Americans need to get over being prude since we appear to not mind violence doesn't move the debate forward.

I think if we want a law, we the people should be the ones to vote for it, not have it decided for us and legislated accordingly. I also think that we as parents (yes, I have 4 young children) need to decide what is appropriate or not for our children and not count on or trust anyone else to do it for us.

Four rules for political appointees to live by. (3, Interesting)

sane? (179855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172562)

US politicos, repeat after me:

1) The US is not the world, so your laws can go hang.

2) Your views of what is sexually explicit are screwed up, so your rating system would be as well.

3) The real problem are the spammer and scammers stealing millions from the public. When I don't receive 100s of spams a day - then you can start getting worked up over boobies.

4) We don't trust you, we certainly don't trust you enough to let you do something this. Earn that trust back first.

Re:Four rules for political appointees to live by. (2, Interesting)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172797)

1) The US is not the world, so your laws can go hang.
Just one question... Do you feel the same way about France [newsfactor.com] when it considers censoring US sites? Or German [efa.org.au] censorship of US sites? Or Australia censorship? Etc. Etc.

Get your own! (0, Flamebait)

billcopc (196330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172577)

Why is it that every time we hear about some bored schmuck wanting to regulate the internet, it's always an American ? I really think someone should visit senate and explain to these people how they no longer have any say in these matters. They might have founded Arpanet way back, but today's network has little in common with the former military network. What's more pertinent though, is that if the US senators start crippling the internet, things will get moved beyond their juridsiction and the rest of the world will point and laugh at the foolish power-hungry senators.

Don't forget about the Chinese (1)

BruceCage (882117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172691)

They know a thing or two about regulation too.

Re:Get your own! (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172722)

Why is it that every time we hear about some bored schmuck wanting to regulate the internet, it's always an American ?

You wouldn't be confusing "always an American" with "is French" or "is German" or "is Chinese" or anything, would you? Do you really read so little that you don't know that mentioning certain historical items (like, say, old Nazi trash from WWII) is illegal in various oh-we're-so-progressive European locales? Ask Yahoo or eBay what it's like to try to freely operate online in the EU. Have you just mentally blocked out the fact that evil words like "freedom" and "democracay" get whole sites shut down (and people jailed) in China? I'm not particularly in favor of the approach Gonzales is mentioning, and I don't think it will pass muster in court anyway (thanks, US Constitution), but if you think the US is the only (or worst) regulator of communications on the internet, you're sadly, sadly mistaken. No, you have to know that. So, you're just a flaming troll with an axe to grind.

As for "get your own," do it yourself. If you don't like the US-built network, you build your own. We already did. No doubt the internally cooperative, resourceful, ever-productive EU can pull something totally liberating, non-censored in any way, and completely protective of your privacy together in a week or so. You know, the same collective cultures that so courageously dealt with the publising of a handful of Danish cartoons.

Re:Get your own! (2, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172738)

Why is it that every time we hear about some bored schmuck wanting to regulate the internet, it's always an American ?

Because we were colonized by the Pilgrims, a bunch of people so uptight even the British kicked them out.

Can anyone say "Offshore hosting"..? (2, Insightful)

ds_job (896062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172578)

I mean a quick butchers at Google [google.co.uk] gives 155,000 entries for "Offshore hosting" which kind of removes the teeth from this.

What about Teletubbies sex sites? (4, Funny)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172598)

"A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive 'words or digital images' in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs"

One of my sites features prominent images of "Tinky Winky getting it on with the Noo-Noo", "Tubby Custard Full Facials", "Over the Hills and Far Away, Hot Barely Legal Teletubbies Come to Play - With Each Other and Also With a Mysterious Large Cylindrical Object" etc. etc.

I hope that will not lead to legal misunderstandings which would put me in line for a stint of federally sponsored rectal enlargement.

Re:What about Teletubbies sex sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172668)

Sweet - where can I get an account?

Barbies and Teletubbies? (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172607)

I kind of understand the comment about sites being misleading by including the words "Teletubbies" and "Barbie" in a site that is actually full of sexually explicit photographs...

But what of sites that feature sexually explicit photographs of Teletubbies and Barbie? It is deceptive in that case?

And why only commercial sites? What about Ken and Tinky-winky's all amateur web-cam -- totally free, totally K`inky?

Re:Barbies and Teletubbies? (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172648)

Because the federal government has absolutely no authority to create such a law, but are always keen on using the "interstate trade" loophole to do whatever the hell they want.

The rest of your message.. I was going to post :)

Façade (1)

KrugalSausage (822589) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172620)

This is just set up to appease the 'protect the children' crowd, because the US govt. would only try to gain authority over US domains.

If they even proposed getting involved with ICANN, this would bring back the 'which govt. owns the interweb' debacle.

How many more problems can the US of A handle at once?

Re:Façade (1)

Rukie (930506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172781)

I know of one particular site, as of two and a half years ago, closed access to their site because of the government complaining about them. Since then they must have moved their servers because the website is back up. It is a website that works with rotten.com

Ookay (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172623)

Now what about MySpace pages and Photobucket pages that the images are uploaded by users. Will they have to check what's uploaded and put a label on it or will one be on it all the time? I bet if they see it now they'll yell TOS like Blizzard.

If this passes (1)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172636)

I'm putting a gold star on every webpage I own, whether it's porn or not. Let the king of denmark serve as an example.

Re:If this passes (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172731)

That'll be called "Beta Electronic Art Satistical Tag" or BEAST and this Mark of the BEAST shall be used by all companys of the web so that no one could buy or sell unless they had the mark.

Censorship (1)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172644)

You know, as much as I'm for protecting certain things that shouldn't be viewed by children, etc, I'm really getting tired of the regulation in the US. Everything is being regulated. People need to learn and be exposed to certain content that will allow them to grow. Nudity is a part of life. Sex is part of life.

Re:Censorship (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172729)

People need to learn and be exposed to certain content that will allow them to grow. Nudity is a part of life. Sex is part of life.
Where does Goatse lie in all this?

Gonzales should start self-rating the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172669)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should propose self-rating system not only for web sites, but for legal procedures, legal institutions.

Guantanamo, for example would be an interesting case: it's quite a pervert site - legally at least. Ignoring all the requests from different parties in the US and around the world, Mr. Gonzales does not seem to show much interest to "self-rate" it. Maybe applying the proposed five years prison term for failing to comply might work.
   

New proposal, old idea (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172675)

Why is it that every few months I hear someone clamor for a standard to do this, when there already is one, and it is already supported by 90% of the PCs on the planet?

Check out the ICRA [icra.org] which has been around since the late 90s. A standard which is already supported by Internet Explorer [microsoft.com] and most commercial internet filtering software.

Morons (3, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172677)

Great, more morons who don't understand PICS [w3.org] . At least this is better than the .xxx domain.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172681)

We're going to start putting people in prison for this??

While I have no problem with regulation and imposing penalties, I'm not at all convinced that we should start sending people to prison over this.

Bad wording!! (1)

HaydnH (877214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172683)

"...would require by law all commercial websites to place 'marks and notices' on each page containing 'sexually explicit' content, with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment."

So all comercial sites will have to add pornographic marks and notices on each of their pages?? I don't want to be bombarded with porn each time I visit e-bay thank you very much! I'm sure that's meant to read "on each page that contains 'sexually explicit' content"!

Great! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172687)

I'm gonna rate my website "Wacky"! Or maybe "Best Page In The Universe". Oh, wait, someone did that. OK. Wacky it is!

Nice Idea (1)

julienbh (969003) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172690)

This actually sounds a pretty nice idea, theoritically. The idea of the "first page without boobies" is pretty simple yet not respected as of now. I can already imagine some kid going to crisler.com (ie: instead of christler) and falling on a pornsite. This is nonsense. The problem is, most people just don't care about this today.

Forced Speech (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172710)

This should get kicked by the SC like prior attempts to do the same...hopefully.

Introduce this and stuff the UK (2, Informative)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172721)

The UK has an amazing law which allows its citizens - (sorry, subjects of Her Gracious Majesty Elizabeth II von Battenberg Saxe Coburg Gotha usw) to be rendered to the US at the request of the US authorities without their having to present any evidence that a crime has been committed. Imagine the fun of this one. I host a site in the UK without the flag, which is viewed by an American. As a result, the US Govt. decides to extradite me to the US as a result of an action beyond my control, i.e. the decision of a US ISP to permit relaying of an illegal website to a US citizen. And my heroic Government will do nothing to intervene. Of course, if the website is hosted in, say, France, the US authorities will simply have to interpret French legal expressions like "Merde alors".

Impossible - and here's why (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172724)

The law assumes an unhackable web server.

If this law made it to the books and someone got busted with it, all they'd have to do is claim they were hacked. And as soon as the next patch comes out covering some hole in your web server's system, that's your reasonable doubt. "Hackers must have used the XYZ exploit just patched last week to remove the tags."

Goatse (1)

RasendeRutje (829555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172736)

Does Goatse.cx count as porn? As I see it it's more sport and art than porn...

If this goes through.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172737)

I'll have to insist that ALL Biblical content be under this rating too, since there's so much incest, sex, rape, and other violence. I really don't want my kids being exposed to that kind of shit!

is it only the US politicians obsessed with sex? (2, Insightful)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172750)

This reminds me of the whole GTA:SA Hot Coffee mod. While a lot of other countries were concerned about the violence in this game (nevermind that it was recommended for mature audiences), the US politicians only went nuts when grainy, pixellated, soft-core cartoon sex was depicted in a hack.

I used to wonder how obsessed people must be over sex to get all worked up over this. Then I had a conversation with a Christian fundamentalist. Wow. The things they believe. They truly think they are doing God's work by imposing their will on the rest of us. And even more frightening, it's not just sex, but their whole perspective on everything which explains a lot about our foreign policy.

I hear that in Europe, their advertising has bare-breasted women. I don't see the Europeans running crazily through the streets and their societies falling apart. Yet when JJ flashed a boob at the SuperBowl, the US gov went nuts. Makes you wonder who has the more stable society...

Commercial? (1)

tddoog (900095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172770)

So, how is a website deemed commercial?
Selling membership or products, ad supported, viewable by search engine, .com ?
What if I just want to post some lascivious pictures on the net for my own remote viewing pleasure?

Freenet 0.7 (1)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15172809)

I've been using Freenet 0.7, and it's both fast and network-light now - pretty impressive. Looks like they made it just in time...

XXX Domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15172823)

They want to regulate it but they don't want an XXX domain? I don't get it. They just need to make pr0n belong to an XXX domain.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?