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!

Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the we-are-all-net-nannies-now dept.

Privacy 443

Erris writes "Senator John McCain has proposed a bill to extend federal obscenity reporting guidelines to all forms of internet communications. Those who fail to report according to guidelines could face fines of up to $300,000 for unreported posts to a blog or mailing list. The EFF was quick to slam the proposal, saying that this was the very definition of 'slippery slope', and citing the idea of 'personal common carrier'." From the article: "These types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service."

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

What's that smell in the air? (5, Interesting)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207140)

Why, I think you're right! It's the 2008 Panderfest beginning!

Re:What's that smell in the air? (4, Insightful)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207242)

Yep, he realized from 2000 that he's gotta move to the right in order to win the nomination. Its sad that more centrist politicians have to move to the left or the right to get the nomination and big money for their respective party's nomination

hahaha (4, Interesting)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207826)

Lincoln Chafee was on The Daily Show last night claiming that primaries encouraged both parties towards the extremes, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is true for the Democrats. Okay, there was Ned Lamont. That was an extreme case, and he still lost, and Lamont never ran as more liberal than Joe. Clinton was a centrist. Gore ran as a centrist. In one of the most liberal states in the country, Hillary Clinton is a social conservative who doesn't even support withdrawal from Iraq. Could someone name some of Kerry's liberal positions in 2004?

The GOP panders to their base, and fulfills many of their promises. The Democrats, much to the chagrin of lefties like me, do no such thing. If you don't even support gay marriage, you can go fuck yourself as far as liberal street cred goes. Eliot Spitzer is one of the few notable politicians that does. Only now is universal health care finally taking hold as a mainstream Democratic idea.

So again, I'd ask for any examples of politicians that have moved to the left to get a nomination. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, John McCain was never a centrist except for a few pet issues -- he just played one on TV.

Re:hahaha (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207894)

As a fellow liberal has the situation you just presented ever made you wonder if perhaps far left liberal ideas just have next to no appeal among the majority of Americans? Far right ideas seem to but far left ideas don't. I'm sure if Democrats thought far left positions could win them elections you'd see them stumping for gay marriage and drive thru abortions but they don't seem to be because the public doesn't seem to want it.

What do you think?

Re:What's that smell in the air? (2, Insightful)

nten (709128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207270)

The question to ask is who is this man's constituency? I thought I was, but I guess I was mistaken. I think that ditching a candidate because he disagrees with you on a single issue, combined with a plurality voting system is the cause of many of our nation's ills, but freedom of speech is kind of an important one...

Re:What's that smell in the air? (2, Informative)

bymiller (978335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207534)

Yes, let's be sure to tell him what we think of that: []

Re:What's that smell in the air? (4, Informative)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207664)

Yes, let's be sure to tell him what we think of that: []
Sending feedback to his Senate Office is less than worthless unless you're a resident of Arizona. If you're not, his staff will likely follow the custom of forwarding your correspondence to your state's Senators.

You're really better off writing your senators about the measure yourself.

Re:What's that smell in the air? (1)

bymiller (978335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207790)

As he obviously has presidential ambitions, I'm sure everything being done now is with a national stage in mind. Like him or hate him, when he anounces, he'll be everybody's Senator. He didn't have any trouble carrying Arizona in 2000 and he won't this time.

Re:What's that smell in the air? (1)

john.r.strohm (586791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207814)

More to the point:

Sen. John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Ofc. Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

1 SnailMail letter == 10 phone calls == 100 emails

Paper mail means that The Folks Back Home are REALLY upset about something. It is EASY to dash off an email. It takes a little more work to make a phone call. You actually have to WORK to type (or write longhand) a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, and drop it in the mailbox.

Re:What's that smell in the air? (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207802)

I prefer Warren Ellis' name for it: Snakepit 2008 []

Re:What's that smell in the air? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207820)

Don't you recognize it? That's the smell of oppression, slowly but surely being imposed on every aspect of our lives, courtesy the power elite who benefit from ever-expanding government.

Indeed (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207934)

I'd have had a hard time choosing between him and Hillary before, but with him going out of his way to stick his nose up the ass of the religious right after attacking them previously I'd say he's more wishy-washy than Kerry was. Thanks John, you've shown your true colors and lost my vote.

John McCain loses more of my respect every day (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207150)

You know, back when he was first running for President--with his candor, his willingness to take on members of his own party, his "straight talk express" relationship with the public and the press--I had a lot of repsect for this guy. I was a Democrat and even *I* would have voted for him if he had won the primary.

But in the years since, he has squandered it all. He has sucked up to the very President who had slurred him viciously here in South Carolina. He has cow-towed to the religious right. He has supported a war that he knew damn well was a bad move, for his own political ends. And, most telling of all, he caved-in on the one issue that I would have NEVER thought that he (of all people) would have caved on--torture of detainees.

So this move doesn't really surpsise me. He has become a political whore, nothing more. He's not even worthy of spitting on anymore, much less voting for.


Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (5, Interesting)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207246)

Exactly what I was going to say. I was really hoping he won the primaries back in 2000 because I was really excited about him as a canidate. But now he just disgusts me.

Between this and his flag burning its clear he's just another tool without any conviction at all. And between this and the flag burning amendment he's becoming quite the opponent of freedom of speech. And thats a position that I just plain can't ever get behind.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207380)

Agreed, this type of political stunt is the real obsenity.

blur (0, Troll)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207338)

You're peeved off because he's moving way "right".
Thing is, much of the "right" is just as peeved at him as you are precisely because he is so far "left" he may as well put a (D) after his name.

Huh? (5, Informative)

cje (33931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207794)

McCain has an 85% strong conservative voting record. How in the world does that make him "far left"? Speaking from the left, I can tell you: We don't want him.

Re:blur (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207914)

much of the "right" is just as peeved at him as you are precisely because he is so far "left" he may as well put a (D) after his name.

Much of the "right" doesn't really know why McCain can be considered a moderate or leftish, they think he's "left" because thats what they hear in the media. The other poster is correct: McCain has a very conservative voting record.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (4, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207452)

He has cow-towed to the religious right.

I think you mean Kowtow, not cow-tow... nothing to do with towing cows at all... see here. [] Kowtowing is making a grand abasement to a superior officer... [] prostrating yourself touching your forehead to the ground

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207488)

Seriously, I'm even willing to vote for Hillary Clinton over this guy now, and that's saying something. Too bad the "Anyone But McCain" campaign is unlikely to do any better than the "Anyone But Bush" one did.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207628)

McCain vs. Hillary would be a true clash of the titan political whores. I think I would just commit Seppuku if I was forced to choose between them.

I would rather vote for a dog. At least I could pet the dog.


Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207660)

did you not see the results from the election in November. The "anyone but Bush" campaign that was run was very successful even though it wasn't aimed at another presidential candidate. Here in Virginia it was insane how much campaining was done on the basis of "don't vote for Steele or Allen because they like Bush." And in both cases it worked. However, I don't think there is wide spread hatred for McCain.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207498)

The really sad part is, had he stuck with it, the Right would have struck him down, and he would have become more powerful than they could have imagined.

He could have been an Independent candidate, adopted by the mostly-centrist Democrats, or brought back in to the GOP fold once they finish self-destructing.

I don't get it (0)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207610)

This is a guy who went into space. His life depended on countless smart engineers and scientists. And what does he spend his time on? Passing laws to fight dirty mouths! I don't get it. Maybe senators are required to get lobotomies before they can serve.

Must be the water. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207730)

It's the water in D.C. I swear to God. Never have I seen so many people who really ought to know better, do so many stupid things.

I'm convinced the water there is contaminated with brain-eating parasites, there really is no other logical explanation.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207764)

Uhh. I think you have your John's mixed up. This is McCain, not Glenn. They were both in the military, but I'm pretty sure McCain was never an astronaut.

Re:I don't get it (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207908)

And John Glenn is a Democrat.

Re:I don't get it (1)

pjt48108 (321212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207850)

McCain never went into space. You are thinking of either Sen. John Glenn or Sen. Bill Nelson. Each is a Democrat. Glenn is retired from the Senate, and went into space AGAIN at the end of his political career (longest time between spaceflights for anyone). Nelson recently beat Katherine Harris to be reelected to the Senate.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (2, Interesting)

wiggles (30088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207714)

I was a Democrat and even *I* would have voted for him if he had won the primary

Which is exactly why he lost the primary. Democrats liked him way too much for right-wing tastes.

That, and Karl Rove...

But, now that the center is moving leftward, I think McCain has a much better shot at winning the white house in '08. For you democrats, even if you lose in '08, you win. The centrist republicans (like me) also win with him. The only losers will be the neocons and the far right, and it's about time.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207750)

I dont think he was ever this golden child you describe. If you view his voting record (check out the aclu's site) you'll see he votes 100% straight GOP/social conservative almost all the time. The 'moderate' 'straight-talk' stuff is just PR. Don't feel bad, lots of people fell for it. Personally I think he's a poor politician but a great SNL/Daily Show guest.

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207896)

To spend over 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton [] is a terrible thing. Champianing corrosive values from religious hate mongers [] shows a certain lack of depth of our global reach; And, it is way to close minded for me. I do not know what would cause the honorable senator [] to trample on the First Amendment Right [] of everyone, but I resent it. A Real Republican is for LESS government, not more government. I was ready to vote for this guy in the California Presidential Primary, now I wonder.

"Hate Is NOT A Good Family Value" - Unknown

Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (2, Interesting)

Pinkfud (781828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207948)

I live in Arizona, and I've come to believe McCain is a national disaster. Can you imagine what this bill would mean to the WikiMedia Projects, with all the vandalism they get? It would break them just to file the reports! Nonsense of the highest order.

Anti obscenity laws? (5, Funny)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207160)

Well, holy titty fucking christ.

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (1)

Unlucke (1026008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207294)

shhhh! they'll [] hear you

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (1, Funny)

repvik (96666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207348)

Alternatively shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits

(Although neither George Carlin nor I understand why "tits" is there)

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (2, Insightful)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207438)

Fuck, wish I'd thought of that one :(

Seriously though, this kind of thing scares the hell out of me. I think that things like the "barely legal" scene and other pornography that depicts or 'disguises' older women as teenagers is pretty fucking pathetic, but that just means I don't engage in it, doesn't mean I'm going to go out and "ruin" it for anybody else. Nobody is hurt by it and it sure as shit isn't my place to decide what consenting adults can look at or even produce.

If anybody can explain to me why these so awfully 'moral' people want to fuck with everybody else quietly minding their own business, I'd really appreciate it.

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207784)

I think part of it is that they build their world view around a certain type of behavior being 'correct' and the idea of anybody doing things that they aren't allowed to do threatens that view to the point that they have to either give it up or force it on others. Probably overly simplistic, but a starting point anyway.

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207612)

SCO, Novell, Microsoft! Beat dis, you sissy! ;)

Re:Anti obscenity laws? (1, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207396)

Stone cold fuck nuts.

Lew saw this coming.

Actually (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207196)

There is very little we can do about this. The current society an America and many european contries (yes, here too) are overcrowded with neo-moralists for whom every single bit published on the media must be analyzed and critisized and eventiually censured. Even nudity in many places in Europe has evolved from being an "avan-gard" form of art in the 70s to the highest form of puritanistic panic.

The worst thing is that this applies to almost any party in those coontries. Not to talk about the new phantom menace (the new Soviet Union) of our times: terrorism. Everything is then allowed. And I mean, everything. Sad.

Re:Actually (5, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207520)

Every time I hear the "uproar" against "obscenity", I hear the sound of silence over the real problems.

- Over 12 million living in poverty
- 40-50 million without health care
- 25% of the worlds prison population
- 46800 car deaths in 2005
- Every 90-second a car is colliding with a train due to lacking regulations if crossing.
- Higher education costs and arm and a leg and your first born.

This country has some serious problems to deal with, but obscenity is not one of them!

You're right! (1)

PsyQo (1020321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207782)

Example: There aren't any silhouettes of naked girls in Casino Royale's intro! I'll now have to watch pr0n to get my fix.

Well, I say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207212)

And I think most will agree, Fuck John cCain.

In his neck even.

This would bring my lists underground. (2, Interesting)

Bright Apollo (988736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207214)

I have a few lists, and one of them is quite large (3000+ subscribers) and extremely technical. It's also hosted by Yahoo, who would necessarily have an interest in keeping themselves out of trouble. All it would take is one message from one dope to fly across "unreported" to end seven years of free technical support to the planet Earth.

Nice job, McCain. This will help, big time. and by help, I mean help me decide who else I'm voting for in 2008.


Re:This would bring my lists underground. (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207282)

Which raises a new question. How long before trolls with throwaway emails spam lists or websites with illegal images (or even links to them), forcing the poor webmaster/admin to file a report every day. 5 minutes of the troll's time = 50 minutes of the admin's time. It wouldn't take more than 2-3 trolls to kill a list or site.

What obscenity? (5, Funny)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207226)

There is no fucking obscenity on message boards.
What kind of cunts out there think there's fucking obscenity on the net?
What a bunch of donkey-raping shit-eaters!
What the fuck is the matter with the U.S. government's retarded-puppy-raping legislators?
Obscenity on the internet... Sometimes, I tell you... Jesus baby-fucking Christ that's preposterous...

Re:What obscenity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207810)

Yesterday I read an article here on Slashdot
that the American government was questioning
the second amendment...

Looks like the first one is a question too?

And I quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207250)

This bill is just retarded. What we need is LESS laws about obscenities, not more.

POW, wasn't he? (-1, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207268)

I'm starting to think the USA would have been better off if John McCain was still MIA.


Re:POW, wasn't he? (1)

MrCoke (445461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207328)

You might not agree with him but damn ... wishing that somebody should be MIA because you don't agree with him is just plain stupid.

Re:POW, wasn't he? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207564)

If GWBush had actually fought in Vietnam and became MIA, the state of the world would most likely be a hell of a lot better. Thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives..... Now that's no reason to go back in time and risk a paradox, but we can daydream, right?

McCain doesn't seem nearly as bad as Bush.... yet. He's steadily getting there.

Re:POW, wasn't he? (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207734)

If GWBush had actually fought in Vietnam and became MIA, the state of the world would most likely be a hell of a lot better.
Yeah, because Joe Kennedy's dream of having a son become president died with Joe Jr. in WWII.

Re:POW, wasn't he? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207408)



die in a war

Re:POW, wasn't he? (1)

Steve B (42864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207504)

Somebody should take away his deck of cards or at least remove the queen of diamonds.

playing the pedo card (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207278)

for a quick vote getter - poor very poor mr senator

Wtf (2, Informative)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207284)

From TFA:

The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.

Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.

Eh? Say what you will about sex offenders, but isn't this a little too much?

Re:Wtf (2, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207382)

It boils down to "sex offenders can't have a myspace/facebook account. Of course, when you realize that other sites have profiles (like any forum I've seen), that could have a bit of a ripple effect.

I'm far from pro-sex-offender, but I think we have a problem when we're putting streakers and 18-year-olds hooking up with 17-year-olds in the same category as child molesters and rapists. You can't get away with the same restrictions on minor sex offenders as you could on major ones, in my opinion. I can see "If you're a rapist, then no MySpace", but I can't see "no Facebook for dumb drunks who streak in the dead of night".

Re:Wtf (4, Insightful)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207852)

I can see "If you're a rapist, then no MySpace", but I can't see "no Facebook for dumb drunks who streak in the dead of night".

That depends, are these "rapists" free? If you committed a crime and are released from prison, it's my position that you've paid your debt to society. If you haven't, then shouldn't you still be in prison? If we are pushing this once a criminal always a criminal mantra then why even let convicts out of jail in the first place if we are just gonna let the free world become another prison cell, gradually restricting their access to resources.

Either sentence them for longer, clean up the system, or do something that works. Don't punish them after they've already been punished. It's bad enough that they won't ever be able to vote or get a job better than grocery bagger, you have to start restricting their online rights to save "children" from "potential risks." How about _not_ scaremongering about children and saving our rights instead?

It's a slippery slope, first, restrict rights for convicts. Then, outlaw things to make everyone a potential convict. Bang...restricted rights. With the way people talk about online piracy, it's only a matter of time before that's criminal, and then after that's criminal maybe restricting the rights of those who have been convicted upon release.

I hate to be paranoid, but in Philadelphia they've installed security cameras on the streets. It's not long before you pick your nose and it's on the evening news.

Re:Wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207870)

This is a fundamental issue with how we currently deal with sex offenders.

We cycle them through the prison system and then back out to society. In most places they have to register. Depending on the soci-economic demographic of the neighborhood they choose to live in, residents may take action to make them not welcome. This basically drives sex offenders to the poorer neighborhoods where the residents aren't as involved due to money and time (guess what, when you work 3 jobs to make rent and feed your kids, you probably don't have a finger on the pulse of the local politics and comings and goings in your neighborhood) This in and of itself has some implications, is the system by virtue of some laws making it more likely that poorer neighborhoods and poorer families will be more likely to be victimized by sex offenders? I can't see how that can be constitutional.

This is just a logical extension, prevent them from temptations they may face online. Seems to me that we should just keep them in prison if we're going to do all of this shit. If you cannot be rehabilitated why do we want you back on the streets at all? It's like the tax system, it's so complex and screwed up and there are some basic fundamental problems that create a situation where it will just be added to until it collapses under its own weight. We put sex offenders back on the street because of costs or something stupid then we shift the costs to various other institutions because we effectively want to keep them imprisoned.

The other aspects of the law seem pretty legit to me. It's not adding to the federal obscenity law, it's simply saying that it's a crime not to report violations of it, particularly in public medias. I'm not in favor of censorship or anything of the sort but if you have a blog or mailing list and there is child pornography exchanged on it, I think it should be a crime, in fact I think it should be the same crime. If you knowingly allow that kind of exploitation, you're really no better than the exploiter. Doesn't it come to the miller test also? We're not talking about someone using a curse word. Just seems like a pretty basic part of being a member of a society, it's one thing to have a laissez-faire attitude towards petty vandalism and simple crimes, it's something else to witness a violent crime or see someone in dire need and not report it or take any actions.

I wish we didn't need laws like this. I guess I can't think of a good example why you wouldn't want to report such a crime, any examples? Other than fundamental disagreement with the obscenity laws in the first place.

Just to help Senator McCain here (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207288)

Senator, with all due respect, you can kiss my (_|_).

And if that's obscenity for you, have your eyes, sorry, your brain checked.

Re:Just to help Senator McCain here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207442)

But do you really WANT his lips on your ass? If so, thats whats obscene!
(To clarify: his lips, not your ass. :)

Re:Just to help Senator McCain here (2, Funny)

atrocious cowpat (850512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207728)

Senator, with all due respect, you can kiss my (_|_).
You want him to kiss your Bracket-Underscore- Pipe -Underscore-Bracket???

Now, I don't know about obscene, but this proposal does sound a little kinky to me...


And then I porked her... (-1, Troll)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207296)

I immediately spotted her, as she was coming down the stairs to the beach. She was wearing no top at all, as the European custom calls for. Her bikini bottom was quite small, and held very tight by strings on each side, pulled very tight.

She had quite an awesome cameltoe: her shaved pussy crack was entirely occupied by the yellow fabric. As she walked lusciously, her pussy lips moved against each other, immediately drawing to her crotch almost half the eyes who are on the beach.

She made the slowest possible beeline towards me, as she had spotted me. My huge erection was hard to miss, given my extremely tight lycra bathing suit...

As she came towards me, her eyes were unmistakably drawn towards my exploding crotch. As I slowly arose, the other half of the eyes on the beach were drawn to my own erection. As she passed by me, the way she turned around her head was unmistakable: she wanted meat!

I picked up my stuff, and ostensibly followed her back to her hotel, which was right by Snarky's bar. As soon as I closed the door behind her, she was pulling down on my shorts, popping up my shaved cock on her chin.

Within picoseconds, two hot pair of lips were on my shaft, very effecively stroking it along with very expert tongue motion. But not enough to make me explode; she just stopped short of the orgasm, only to throw herself onto the bed, pulling aside her bikini bottom enough to reveal her oozing crack.

I jumped on the occasion, and started heavily licking the dangling parts, while untying the side strings. As I was heaving my tongue in and out, my erection could not wait anymore, so I jumped up on the bed, but as I got ready to penetrate her, she said NO!

She turned around, and said "I want it in the ass!!!"

Re:And then I porked her... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207478)

"I want it in the ass!!!"? What the hell kind of a punchline is that? I want my money back!

MOD PARENT UP! +1 Amusing (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207752)

Perfect for the workday. It's nice to see things like this stuck in the message boards. That's what makes the Internet great.

"two hot pair of lips were on my shaft"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207836)

so she was either rubber girl, or her boyfriend joined in

JEOMK!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207872)

...And I'm spent.

The more is censored... (4, Insightful)

mrjb (547783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207310)

... the less tolerant people get. The less tolerant people get, the more censorship needs to be applied to protect people from 'inappropriate' material.

Give people their free speech. If you don't like what they say, don't listen, but respect their rights.

Just Great..... (1)

AlphaLop (930759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207318)

Now they are going to have to outsource all of our Porn to India....... Seriously, when are these Techno-idiots gonna learn that they can't squash a multi-national structure like the internet and cram their morales down the worlds throat?

Re:Just Great..... (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207418)

I agree, I don't think david morales should be shoved down anybody's throat. Chris liebing or dj rush, on the other hand...

Re:Just Great..... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207430)

Now they are going to have to outsource all of our Porn to India.......

Mmm, yeah. If it comes to that... look, you can keep it. No, really. We'll be fine. There will be another way. Trust me, we're good.

And it's both sides... (3, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207358)

From TFA: "Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she's planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes."

So who do we vote for now? Democrats had their fun with censorship in the 80s and 90s, now it's Republicans turn.

Come and join us in the land of the free... (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207360)

Its over here on the other side of the Atlantic. Our politicians get investigated when they take cash to give a shitty honour and go to prison when they take on the media and lose.

Remind me why you chaps had the revolution again? There was something in there about Freedom, but its all been lost in the noise.

Re:Come and join us in the land of the free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207474)

Yeah Europe's idea of free speech is that 'hate speech' will land you in jail. Of course, hate speech is general enough to throw just about anyone in jail.

Re:Come and join us in the land of the free... (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207540)

Yeah, it's gettin' time for a new one huh?

Re:Come and join us in the land of the free... (1)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207930)

Rather cheeky of a British subject (not citizen) to lecture Americans about freedom.

Yeah, we've got our problems. That's life. We'll deal with this McCain asshole and his ridiculous proposition.

Isn't it convienent that you have America to mock so that you can ignore your own problems and pretend your nation is better than ours?

Do I really need to start a list of all the crap you brits put up with that wouldn't fly over here for a second?
And if I did, would you just say that's media fear mongering and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about?
And if so, how is that any different than you commenting on a damn thing going on over here?

4chan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207424)

Goodbye, 4chan, I hardly knew ye. /largely because I didn't hang out there //largely because of the obscenity ///look, I'm a forum guy!

Pure, unadulterated... (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207448)

This is fucking bullshit.

Summary misleading (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207454)

After child pornography or some forms of "obscenity" are found and reported, the Web site must retain any "information relating to the facts or circumstances" of the incident for at least six months. Webmasters would be immune from civil and criminal liability if they followed the specified procedures exactly.
This is about reporting child pornography or "illegal" images, not about reporting someone saying "shit" or whatever.

Re:Summary misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207620)

No. Child porn is just a subset of what is considered as obscenity. Obscenity has been defined to include a far greater range of things in the US.

Fuck ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207476)

I can't fucking believe that !
This bill has the smell of a dick rolled in peanut butter with a lot of bare breasts on top of it !
Awfull !

Can somebody please give me a cup of hot coffee ?

he wants obscenity reported? (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207494)

He wants obscenity reported? Please report to him that the following message was posted:

(The easily offended should skip the rest of this post.)

(Last chance to look away...)

Fuck Senator John McCain. Fuck him up the ass hard with a big thick dildo with built-in violet wand [] until the santorum [] runs down his legs. Tie him down and fuck him and give him the golden shower he wants and deserves, until he admits his wretchedness, admits what a bootlicker he is, admits that he gets off on being a slave, because he can't handle freedom.

Report This! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207506) []

sideway into regulating satellite (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207510)

This is just a way to regulate satellite radio, since it also simulcasts on the internet. All these guys need to take a break and take a page from Dick Cheney's public vocabulary: "fuck off".

half a dupe... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207524)

this is the other half of the article that is already on the front page... mind you, it probably makes more sense to discuss it as two separate articles

Well, if this passes... (5, Insightful)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207548)

No more public discussion on American servers on the Internet.

Seriously, who would risk running a public forum in the face of fines like that? Even major players like Amazon would most likely be forced to take down public comment sections lest something slip through. Slashdot, Fark, Kos, Pandagon, Redstate, LGF, whatever your online bitching kink is, it's going away.

And suddenly Americans would have to go onto foreign servers just to find a forum to exercise their free speech rights.

See, here's what REALLY pisses me off. McCain isn't stupid. He's many things (repeating many of which, at this point, could possibly get me jailed), but stupid is not one of them. Either he's offering up this bill with no intention of seeing it passed, or he recognizes the death of free speech on the American internet as an acceptible price to pay for his rise to power.

Every time I see a bill like this, I grow a little less convinced that there's any way we'll be able to reclaim our government from these assholes.

Extension of McCain/Feingold (4, Insightful)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207578)

Not satisfied with his first assault on our First Amendment rights, he's doing this to undermine the blogosphere. By imposing commercial-style constraints on bloggers, he makes it likely many of them will shut down, reducing the amount of criticism he has to face.

What a scummy little man.

Actual Bill (5, Informative)

Changer2002 (577488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207624)

While I still think this is a bad idea, the bill is directed towards child pornography, not obscenity in general. Also, according to the bill there would be a duty to report if the administrator obtained actual knowledge that child pornography was posted online. I didn't read the bill over in great detail but I didn't see anything about an affirmative duty to monitor, just report when something is brought to your attention. Still it sets a bad precedent and I'm disappointed in McCain who I've always supported.

Re:Actual Bill (1)

punkr0x (945364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207816)

Mod parent informative! It's still a slippery slope, but the summary makes it sound a lot worse than it is. The proposed bill would require reporting child pornography images. Not swearing, death threats, nudity, whatever other stuff you people are into.

If you can count on one thing... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207632) is that right wing politicians come up with laws concerning the 'net that are unenforceable and when they are, they hurt the US revenues from the 'net.

Key question: How the hell do you want to enforce that? Can't post fu.. and suck my ... in an US blog? Zip goes my blog and moves to ... Iceland is fine this time of the year. Or Russia, they also have better things to worry about than fu.. and shi.. in a blog. Of course, I'll dump my money onto the carrier there instead of the one in the US, but who cares? If the politicians don't give a fu.. (whoopse, may I still say that?) about the country, why should I?

The 'net is big, it is great and most of all, it's international. And it doesn't matter jack whether the server I blog on is in the US or in Uzbekistan.

Don't count on it. (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207778)

The 'net is big, it is great and most of all, it's international. And it doesn't matter jack whether the server I blog on is in the US or in Uzbekistan.

Right up until they build a National Firewall. Which of course, is the only way to keep our children safe. And to keep out the terrorists. And Mexicans.

When a law doesn't work, the politicians don't just give up and say "well, hey, that was a really dumb idea! Let's never do that again!" No, instead they find a way to make it enforceable. Which is why you always have to be concerned when someone is passing an unenforceable law. Look at what it would take to make it enforceable on everyone, and that's what they're going to be asking for next year after it gets passed, and falls flat on its face.

Re:If you can count on one thing... (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207860)

The 'net is big, it is great and most of all, it's international. And it doesn't matter jack whether the server I blog on is in the US or in Uzbekistan.

This is true, and I thank you for pointing that out. An ISP can be anywhere on the planet. However, I doubt the nice ISPs in Uzbekistan have the kinds of infrastructure required to handle a slashdotting of your blog. I think I can safely say that without looking it up.

I think it would be fun to setup ISPs in other countries. Sysadmin for hire, inquire within!

Here's my prediction (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207690)

It will cause a legal [] battle similar to the one over whether porn in the browser cache counts as possession. I predict that within a few years of this becoming law, some prosecutor will argue that you are responsible for the content that is moderated down by your spam filters. For those that don't know, in WordPress, Movable Type and probably others, spam is not by default automatically deleted. It's stored in the database with a flag on it that keeps it from being published when a page is sent. Why do I make this assumption? Because prosecutors are probably the ultimate assholes in law enforcement, who make a career often out of using every nook and cranny of a law to exact the maximum punishment they can get to advance their career.

For the ignorant among us (2, Interesting)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207712)

So, for the ignorant Europeans here that don't know how much a senator can affect: What's the chance that this thing will get through and actually become law? And would it be just a local one for a state, or for the whole country? (and by extension, the whole Europe since the US seems to like enforcing its laws on other countries as well).


Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207780)

This country is just going to keep getting more and more strict, until we have no rights at all. I've had just enough of this fucking bullshit. If this bill passes, I'm fucking out of here. I'll go live in Costa Rica and post obscenities on the Internet every day. This is fucking outrageous!

Interactivists (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207786)

Politicians (and the lawyers who love them) mostly don't really get the total difference between mass media, broadcast like TV, and interactive media, returned on request. They try to regulate by brand name, like "email" or "the Web", but those apps have different kinds of media among their subtypes, with different risks.

Spam and other unsolicited email (UCE/commercial and otherwise) looks like a good target for regulating content, but instead only its sending should be regulated to enforce consumer choice to receive or not. Without that kind of requirement, spam is not interactive, but maillists are. It also might look like maillists should be forced to adhere to a self-published description of their scope and kinds of content. Who wants to subscribe to a "trojan horse" list about something innocuous and then get unrelated obscene pitches (requiring actual Trojans)? The Web is exactly the same: all request, and a problem only when the offer generating the request is deceptive, then the reply to the request arrives inappropriate to the offer and the reques.

But the power of individual choice in receiving or not is much more powerful than government regulation. The massively parallel, distributed Net "flasher" industry totally overwhelms any conceited government attempt to stand up to it. But Net consumers are an ever larger, more complex, and more powerful group - or the flashers wouldn't make enough money off us to stay in business. When we can choose never to receive "inappropriate" messages, as we decide for ourselves, we can choke off the entire creepy business.

Spam laws requiring opt-in, or even requiring opt-out force spam to be interactive. An effective version working just within that scope might work (so far, my obscene spam receipts have doubled every 3 months for 5 years or so). But that's as far as government can go without worthlessly spinning its wheels, even inviting contempt by "outlaws" who can't be caught. The government could go further in requiring OS makers (Microsoft, Apple) to include facilities that offer at least hooks to automating opt-out, like addressbook whitelists. Or better yet, develop at government labs (like Mosaic was) or encourage development (by investing some of our $3.5T US or other, foreign, budgets) of whitelist social networks. Maybe put some basic, easily enforceable laws on the books to occasionally make examples of the biggest abusers, inhibiting people from expanding the industry with risky investments. Especially if abusers get actual jailtime, not just fines as a "business expense".

Not too many politicians even use email themselves. They usually have a staffer print out their email. Especially a national mediamonger like John McCain - he can't be seen even thumbing a Blackberry without the mass media (and probably some interactive, too) tagging him as a "nerd", which might get some Slashdot votes, but would turn off the anti-intellectuals needed to win elections in America's "specialist" society. I've seen only a couple of politicians who might really instinctively understand the human dynamics behind the "online obscenity" problem. Howard Dean, who freaked out the national "campaign finance" industry by raising unprecedented money on the Internet from individual small donors. And Al Gore, known for (taking the initiative in [] ) creating the Internet. Funny enough, they're both probably running for president in 2008, too. Haven't heard them trying to censor you yet, though.

What is obscene? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207866)

Indecent acts like sodomy or sex with an goat? How about a picture of someone doing something we all do like urinating or taking a crap?

What about images on sites hosted outside the US?

I'll tell you what's obscene, this bill is obscene. If John McCain can scan it in and post it on some interweb tubes we can all report him. He was good in Die Hard but if this bill endangers scat porn, he's denying someone else that opportunity.

How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17207920) about a picture of John McCain having anal sex with his neighbor's dog?? Is that really obscene!!?? Or is it the truth!!!....that fucking disgusting bitch fucker!!!

Fuck (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207904)

Well, fuck you, John McCain.

Oh, fuck! (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207932)

Oh, fuck! You mean we can't be obscene on the Internet anymore? Fuck that!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?