- Related Stories
-
Web labeling mandate surfaces in Senate
June 14, 2006 -
U.S. attorney general calls for 'reasonable' data retention
April 20, 2006 -
Silicon money
March 27, 2006 -
Your ISP as Net watchdog
June 16, 2005 -
RIAA: Child porn rife on P2P networks
September 9, 2003 -
House bans 'morphed' child pornography
June 25, 2002 -
Netscape to support Web ratings
June 15, 1998 -
News rating proposal rejected
August 29, 1997 -
Clinton: Technology is the answer
July 16, 1997
During a day of debate on a wide-ranging communications bill, the Senate Commerce Committee approved an amendment backed by the Bush administration that proponents claim would help clean up the Internet and protect children online.
It says that commercial Web sites must not place "sexually explicit material" on their home pages upon pain of felony prosecution--and, in addition, they must rate "each page or screen of the website that does contain sexually explicit material" with a system to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission.
"This will protect children from accidentally typing in the wrong address and immediately viewing indecent material," said Sen. Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican who is the co-founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus.
Burns said that politicians "have to take a bold step in this world of danger to our kids, and there are some people out there who prey on young children and they use the Internet and other methods to feed their sickness."
Civil libertarians have opposed the mandatory labeling proposal, saying it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Also, courts have taken a dim view of mandatory rating systems: In a 1968 case called Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Dallas' ordinance requiring that movies be rated was unconstitutional because the criteria for rating were unclear and vague.
Burns' seven-page amendment is virtually identical to a standalone bill introduced earlier this month by Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican. Both proposals follow from a speech in April during which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called on Congress to "promptly" enact such a law.
Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, had planned to offer a "very similar" amendment and Senate aides would combine the two before a floor vote, said Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who serves as the committee chairman.
Stevens also postponed discussion of what has proven one of the thorniest provisions of the massive telecommunications bill: Net neutrality. Senators plan to begin debate on that topic on Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET, with votes on a number of amendments expected.
The entire communications bill won't become law unless it receives final approval by the committee and, later, the full Senate. It must also be reconciled with a House of Representatives version that differs in many respects, including having no Internet labeling requirements.
See more CNET content tagged:
Conrad Burns,
amendment,
proposal,
senator,
Dallas
And how about clearly defining what needs to be labeled. Fat chance.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6085610.html?part=rss&tag=6085610&subj=news
"According to federal law and prior court decisions, the term "sexually explicit material" used in the Justice Department and now the Senate proposal covers not only various forms of sexual intercourse and abuse but also "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," even if clothed.
By that logic, "it would appear that the Victoria's Secret Web site may be sexually explicit," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union."
Sexual and adult images are in the eye of the individual. The government can't even define what is "obscene" let alone "sexually explicit". Here's what the vaunted law says on that:
A work is considred obscene if it meets all three of these criteria:
"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards," would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Get me 20 people and three porn tapes and I'll bet not half will agree on which ones are obscene.
Supreme Court Justice Douglas said it right when he wrote in the desent:
"Those are the standards we ourselves [* ?we? meaning the United States Supreme Court ] have written into the Constitution. Yet how under these vague tests can we sustain convictions for the sale of an article prior to the time when some court has declared it to be obscene?"
So consider, make a mistake, and don't put the label on, and welcome to being cell buddies with a convicted murderer or rapist for 15 years. Don't worry, your children can see you on Visitor's Day. Be sure to have them bring cigerettes.
Is this nothing but another bit of election year grandstanding destined to be over turned by the Courts. But then again, these politicians don't have to pay to fight an unconstitutional law, the public does.
Remember that next time your parents can't afford their persciptions because Medicare dropped them because of lack of money.
Vote this Fall. Vote these people out.
than most rapists and murders.
And where are we going to house all these people? I can't afford
the tax increases required to pay for all the new prisons we will
need to construct (construction to be provided by Haliburton), as
our Congress and this Administration seeks make more citizens
into criminals.
Welcome to new U.S.S.A. -- where your Constitutional Rights are
but a fantasy!
(and no, I'm not for child pornography. I just don't think this will
do ANYTHING towards stopping that. It is just a great cover
story while the government controls what you information you
have access to, what you say, and what you do!)
In fact, the jails should be sold to and operated by private companies. The private jail operators should pay the government on a per prisoner per month basis, and they get to do whatever they want to do with the prisoners that period (aside from killing them).
Maybe all these excessive prison terms are just a way for the far right to cut back on the growing tide of porn watching left leaning liberal voters.
Just a thought...
Gee if I was a kid that would be like a red flag in front of the bull. Oh boy oh boy oh boy....
I fail to perceive why such requirements are seen as a threat to our liberties. After all, we also have the liberty to choose what our kids get exposed to, and the liberty not to be assailed by offensive material.
The example of Victoria's Secret's website is quite telling : it is a sexually arousing website by any standards. What you can see on this website is more than enough to arouse most people (and we should therefore make sure that children cannot access it).
Once again, the ACLU shows its true nature. They are not interested in defending free speech and our constitutional rights (are they trying to ban MPAA ratings too ?), but rather in undermining the very foundations of our country, and corrupting the youth to serve their evil purposes (among other things, mass killing).
What does this legislation have to do with civil liberties? They're not banning porn, but simply making sure kids will be protected.
Best check that thought with actual case law:
http://news.com.com/Gonzales+calls+for+mandatory+Web+labeling+law+-+page+2/2100-1028_3-6063554-2.html?tag=st.num
"In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case, U.S. v. Knox, the Supreme Court and an appeals court ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. That suggests, for instance, that photos of people in leotards and bathing suits would have to be rated as sexually explicit if the commercial Web site owner wanted to avoid going to prison."
If she's cute and someone can argue she's sexy enough to turn them on, you best be labeling that site.
<<I fail to perceive why such requirements are seen as a threat to our liberties.>>
The threat is excessive punishment based on unclear and undefined criteria. The same with the MPAA ratings. They are subjective and ill defined. Get two people, let them watch a movie and see if they agree whether a scene merits a certain rating. Movie makers face this all the time. The MPAA censors are inconsistent with their decisions.
No one argues that children or people that don't want to see sexual images must be forced to do so. We argue that passing a law with such excessive punishments, especially with no clear cut definitions of what is or isn't a crime is wrong.
There are better ways to address website labeling but they don't make headlines in an election year. And passing yet another bill that has previously been ruled unconsitutional by the court, and wasting tax payer money fighting it again, isn't it.
<<What does this legislation have to do with civil liberties? They're not banning porn, but simply making sure kids will be protected.>>
This has nothing to do with protecting children but everything to do with squashing the right of people to live without fear.
Look again at Justice Douglas' comments. When a government makes an action a crime, yet doesn't define what that action is, it sends a chilling effect across all of society. When the choice is speaking your mind, which may carry financial ruin defending yourself in court (and possibly prison) or not speaking, the vaste majority of the public will not speak.
The First Amendment is not about the will of the majority, the First Amendment is about protecting the minority from the tyrancy of the majority.
"When even one American, who has done nothing wrong, is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."
Harry Truman
Of course, what can we expect from fruitcakes that think swimsuit catalogs are "objectionable".
This, sir, is most definitely about protecting individuals from the tyranny of the masses.