AT&T Tech Support 360
- Related Stories
-
Gonzales pressures ISPs on data retention
May 26, 2006 -
Podcast highlights: Is Web labeling the answer?
April 21, 2006 -
Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law
April 20, 2006 -
News rating proposal rejected
August 29, 1997 -
News sites worry about filtering
July 24, 1997
Caving to
"The increase in Internet use has given sexual predators new ways to prey on children," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, who joined eight members of his party in introducing the bill on Tuesday. "This bill, among other things, is intended to shut down these opportunities, and severely punish the degraded individuals who are involved in the sexual exploitation of our youth."
Called the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act, or
The bill would also create a new crime out of "using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful material on the Internet." Conviction would carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. A similar sentence would apply to anyone who knowingly embeds words or images in the source code of their sites with the intent of deceiving minors into viewing "harmful" content.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales originally called for the new laws while speaking at an event at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in April. He said a mandatory rating system is necessary to "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet."
At the same event, Gonzales also raised the possibility of requiring Internet service providers to retain records on their subscribers for a set period of time to aid law enforcement in investigations. The Justice Department has since
No such mandate made it into the Internet Safety Act, though other members of Congress have floated proposals bearing those requirements in recent months.
Criticized as ambiguous
The latest proposal drew criticism from civil liberties advocates, who said it presents enough ambiguities to prompt self-censorship of Web content.
"Whether artistic works or political commentary or any type of images that may arguably come close to this category, people may not publish them for fear of being sent to jail for 15 years," said David Greene, director of a free-speech advocacy group called The First Amendment Project.
It's equally unclear how to draw the line between "commercial" Web sites, covered by the regulations, and "noncommercial" sites, which appear to be exempt, the bill's critics said.
"They may sell T-shirts or do things that are unrelated to the image or the content that is labeled," Greene said. "When their commercial transaction doesn't relate to the image, to the sexual content, there's a great danger in these laws."
To some extent, it was the
The Internet Safety Act pulls its definition of sexually explicit material from
In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case,
The Senate proposal grants just one reprieve: Sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large Web site do not have to be labeled.
Also problematic, they said, is that, in addition to the labeling requirement, Web site operators would have to ensure that "any matter that is initially viewable" does not contain sexually explicit content.
"What if someone deep links to an image, and someone clicks on that image, and it's the first one they see?" asked Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Has the law been violated?"
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
bill,
proposal,
Alberto Gonzales,
law,
Internet Service Provider
This is all about pandering to the Religious Right for the upcoming election. They don't seem to be able to get meaniful immigration reform, can't do sqwat about oil companies gouging the public like a $2 prositute, and won't rein in the massive abuse and outright bribery by paid lobbiests, but they can pass a few laws against porn and think that will make the bible thumpers happy.
Hope the Far Right sees thru the hypocricy. I can.
2. To protect children
The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then pass more laws taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.
2. To protect children
The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then begin taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.
This is all about pandering to the Religious Right for the upcoming election. They don't seem to be able to get meaniful immigration reform, can't do sqwat about oil companies gouging the public like a $2 prositute, and won't rein in the massive abuse and outright bribery by paid lobbiests, but they can pass a few laws against porn and think that will make the bible thumpers happy.
Hope the Far Right sees thru the hypocricy. I can.
2. To protect children
The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then pass more laws taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.
2. To protect children
The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then begin taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.
Only problem, web searches don't work that way any more. Haven't for years. The major search engines, like Goggle have algorythmns set up which detect imbedded or hidden images and text meant to artificially inflate or influence your rank on their searches. Big No-No. It will automatically get a website blacklisted from the search engines. People haven't done this in a long time.
Where's an "Office to Check to See if That's Actually A Problem Before We Right A Stupid Law" when you need it?
Is it too much to ask my representative to actually check their facts. Remember this boys in the beltway, I remember lame attempts to look good while wasting my taxpayer bucks, and I vote.
So do millions more of us. Enjoy your retirement come December.
Only problem, web searches don't work that way any more. Haven't for years. The major search engines, like Goggle have algorythmns set up which detect imbedded or hidden images and text meant to artificially inflate or influence your rank on their searches. Big No-No. It will automatically get a website blacklisted from the search engines. People haven't done this in a long time.
Where's an "Office to Check to See if That's Actually A Problem Before We Right A Stupid Law" when you need it?
Is it too much to ask my representative to actually check their facts. Remember this boys in the beltway, I remember lame attempts to look good while wasting my taxpayer bucks, and I vote.
So do millions more of us. Enjoy your retirement come December.
This law sounds pretty broad and in places outdated. Why not push the .prn domain names through then make a law forcing all pornographic sites to that extension. Then you could allow parents to block all .prn domains. Granted that will not fix all of the problems, but it is a much better start. It also keeps people out of jail that would never intend to harm a minor.
And what about the violence on the net. I find a naked body less offensive than a beheaded person. It is a naked body. BDSM and full on sex I get. But to get upset because a breat is on your page, In clothing no less is a bit extreme. I mean the old Sears Catolog by federal law is porn. Bikini and underware... Hell the K-mart flyer I get weekly is porn.
A bit broad and scarey if you ask me. Maybe that is the point. It seems like if you do not surf the way they want you to, to where they want you to, they want a fine, or jail time.
What does it matter anyway. If net neutrality isn't put in place they can ask 5 compaines to just block offensive sites throughout the US.
This law sounds pretty broad and in places outdated. Why not push the .prn domain names through then make a law forcing all pornographic sites to that extension. Then you could allow parents to block all .prn domains. Granted that will not fix all of the problems, but it is a much better start. It also keeps people out of jail that would never intend to harm a minor.
And what about the violence on the net. I find a naked body less offensive than a beheaded person. It is a naked body. BDSM and full on sex I get. But to get upset because a breat is on your page, In clothing no less is a bit extreme. I mean the old Sears Catolog by federal law is porn. Bikini and underware... Hell the K-mart flyer I get weekly is porn.
A bit broad and scarey if you ask me. Maybe that is the point. It seems like if you do not surf the way they want you to, to where they want you to, they want a fine, or jail time.
What does it matter anyway. If net neutrality isn't put in place they can ask 5 compaines to just block offensive sites throughout the US.