Slashdot Log In
Illinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Feb 14, 2007 02:38 AM
from the including-Obama's dept.
from the including-Obama's dept.
AlexDV writes "Library blogger Michael Stephens is reporting that an Illinois state senator, Matt Murphy (R-27, Palatine), has filed a bill that 'Creates the Social Networking Web site Prohibition Act. Provides that each public library must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Provides that each public school must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to students in the school.' Here is the bill's full text."
This local effort harks back to an attempt last May to get federal legislation banning school and library use of social networking sites (Wikipedia summary here). The DOPA bill passed the House but died in the Senate.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: No Space for MySpace? 272 comments
conq writes "BusinessWeek looks at the flaws in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives that would block access to social networks and Internet chat rooms in most federally funded schools and libraries. One big problem with their bill is it is much too vague, it 'could rule out content from any number of Internet companies, including Yahoo! and Google.' What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it. That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections." This is analysis of a bill we covered yesterday.
[+]
Deleting Online Predators Act - R.I.P. 132 comments
elearning 2.0 writes "It looks like the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) has died a slow death. DOPA was proposed during the height of last year's moral panic around the issue of child safety and sites like MySpace. The legislation would have banned the use of commercial social networking websites in US schools and libraries which receive federal IT funding — therefore undermining much of the pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space."
[+]
Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA" 221 comments
DJCacophony writes "Ted 'series of tubes' Stevens has introduced a bill, going by the interim name S.49, that aims to block access to interactive websites from schools and libraries. The wording of the bill is vague enough to apply to Wikipedia, MySpace (and other social networking sites), and potentially even to blogs. The bill is apparently so similar to the failed Deleting Online Predators Act of last year that it has been termed 'Son of DOPA' by some." Stevens introduced S.49, the text of which is not yet available, on the opening day of the legislative session.
[+]
New Apps Enable Social Network Snubbing 68 comments
beafpeat writes "Both The Boston Globe and NPR are reporting on new apps such as Enemybook and Snubster that parody the social networking phenomenon. 'Tired of bogus online friendships... [the creators] hope to encourage people to undermine, or at least mock, the online social communities sites such as Facebook were designed to create.'" Relatedly News.com wonders, with the opening of the Facebook API and the ensuing app frenzy, how much is too much of a good thing?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
think of the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of the Geeks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Think of the Geeks! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've just nailed (accidentally or not) what I see as the second biggest problem here (after the blatant unconstitutionality of the proposed legislation)...
What does count as a "social networking" site? Would SlashDot count? Would most blogs that allow comment posting? Would USENET, for that matter? The full text of the bill basically sounds like it violates Free (online) Assembly rather than Free Speech.
The concept of "social networking", as used here, really has no meaning except by example. When you outlaw meaningless ideas, you open the door for overly aggressive AGs and DAs to start creatively interpreting the law to apply in areas not even the most paranoid of the beanie-wearing crowd could have predicted. Case in point, the DOJ (in)famously held a series of lectures on how to apply the patriot act and subsequent antiterrorism legislation to your friendly neighborhood weed dealer. Riiiiiiiight, protection from Osama.
But, but, but... Think of the children!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:think of the children! (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless, the current tests for applicability of the 1st Amendment would not find anything wrong with the law being proposed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
That is not valid legal theory. The bill of rights only applied to the states after ratification of the 14th Amendment and many lawsuits later.
It still doesn't apply in full. Read about the Fifth Amendment [wikipedia.org]. Grand Juries are only required on a Federal level. States don't need to use them to indict somebody for trial. Those states that do (New York is one of them) do so by choice or because their own state constitutions require it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, for one thing, we pay for public libraries. They are meant to provide a service for us. And if enough people are using public library computers to visit social sites, then clearly that's a service for which there is demand. As someone who's on the board of a foundation that's trying to get computers into the hands of people who can't afford them, I can tell you with certainty that there are people out there who don't have the money to buy a computer or pay for broadband. If a social site is valuable enough for YOU to use then it's of value to them as well. And, believe it or not, we build public libraries for poor people to use, too.
Your argument is like saying that if people are requesting that the library carry a certain book or magazine, the answer is that they should just go out and buy the book themselves. That sort of defeats the purpose of public libraries, though, no?
I guess no matter how affluent the United States gets, there will always be people who think that poor people shouldn't get things like access to health care, access to public libraries, access to government. It's a pretty fucked up way to think.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
And regardless, they're not impinging on your "right" to use myspace, they're just saying you can't do it at a public library. Since i think that public libr
Re:think of the children! (Score:5, Informative)
States can have laws that ratchet freedom further, but they can't decrease your rights any more than the federal government Constitutionally is able to.
Parent
Federal vs. state (Score:4, Informative)
That idea did get turned upside down less than a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.
Parent
No, it's not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly, even if there was a definitive definition of social networking, just how on earth would you be able to block all sites that fit that profile? A gigantic black list? I'm happen to be the network admin for a small Illinois library, so if this becomes law, I'm one of the people who's going to have to deal with the mess. I'd be very interested in knowing exactly how the heck Senator Murphy thinks this would work. My guess is that he really has no idea what he's talking about, but thought that this would play well with the "think of the children" crowd.
Parent
Re:No, it's not. (Score:5, Funny)
And that would be porn, with a few slides of usable content.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's most likely intended to give the librarian the authority to tell someone who is using the library computers to surf myspace.com to get off the computer and let someone waiting to do their homework have it.
We are talking about libraries, after all...
Re:No, it's not. (Score:5, Informative)
It is not "universal" - it only applies to schhols and libraries - but it is mandatory blocking.
It's most likely intended to give the librarian the authority to tell someone who is using the library computers to surf myspace.com to get off the computer and let someone waiting to do their homework have it.
Librarians already have the authority to do that.
The Fine Article has a link to the text of the bill. This bill explicitly says libraries and schools " MUST PROHIBIT access to social networking websites on all computers made available to the public / students". It contains enforcement provisions by which the Attorney General or any random idiot citizen of the State may initiate a court action if they are personally "not satisfied" with the school or library.
-
Parent
Constitutionality and feasibility (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, in my opinion the librarians do a pretty darned good job balancing such issues, and I hate to take any control out of their hands. Furthermore, there is no "save
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did "freedom of speech" enter into it. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you desperately need to use MySpace then go across the street and pay $1 an hour in the cybercaf like everybody else.
Parent
Re:Where did "freedom of speech" enter into it. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about holding the opinion that my time on MySpace is worth just as much as your time on Google? I'm not a big MySpace user, but you are putting values to the way people spend their time. If your community feels that people shouldn't use library computers to get on MySpace, then campaign to make it a policy of your local library, but don't support some bill that will make it a requirement of every library. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there isn't some community that only uses their libraries to access MySpace.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Posting on Slashdot?
Why shouldn`t kids use Myspace? Maybe we should get rid of all Fiction books as well - I mean they`re
not for legitimate research.
Libraries are for everyone - don`t be such a snob.
Parent
But (Score:4, Insightful)
And to the extent that, in good slashdot tradition, I didn't read the article, this statement should be intrepeted as broader than this specific instance. I.e. I don't know what the actual suggested "consequence" of violation would be, so MMMV here.
Parent
better altenative (Score:4, Insightful)
Not helping emo kids whine about their girlfriends.
Emo kids, whining, and girl friends is mostly what literature (i.e., the stuff that belongs in libraries) is mostly all about. Think of MySpace as interactive, participatory fiction.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that I'd still say this bill is absolutely ridiculous. A better solution would be implementing blocks on a few clearly labeled computers, or allow librarians to use their judgment to give serious users preference over frivolous users if necessary. For some reason I doubt it will pass anyway.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
I work for a public library, and this is exactly what we do now. Every day when school gets out, we're inundated with junior high kids coming in to monopolize our computers for their daily MySpace, RuneScape, and AIM fix. The solution that we've come up with is to reserve one third of our computers for "non recreational use." Specifically, this means no social networking sites, recreational IM, MMORPGs, or games of any kind. Basically, it's at the discretion of the staff to determine when this policy is being violated, and to discus it with the patron.
In short, we've already solved this problem without any help from our meddling "representatives" in Springfield. Same goes for porn. We don't filter our Internet access, but we do reserve the right to ask people to avoid sites that include explicit content, because the computers are all in a publicly viewable area. This is part of our own Internet Use Agreement, not some piece of legislation dreamed up by Senators with nothing better to do. In other words, we're perfectly capable of handling most of the perceived problems with public access computers without any interference from the government.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. However, shouldn't this be at the library's discretion rather than a state law? That is, libraries that feel that this is a problem can set up a proxy locally that bans access to myspace, and libraries where this isn't a problem (because they are too far away from a school) wouldn't need to.
I work for a public library and, yes, we are perfectly capable of handling this without crazy legislation being shoved down our throats by clueless politicians. The simple solution is to reserve a portion of our computers for non-recreational use and locate them far enough away from the ones that noisy teens frequent so that people can get real work done in peace and quite.
Wow, that was simple! We even managed to come up with that all on our own, without any help from Big Brother. We librarians are mig
First, define "social networking". (Score:5, Insightful)
By my reckoning, this leaves you with FTP sites that have no upload facility, the few remaining Gopher servers, and maybe the local taxi cab company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
*scratches head* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
-jcr
Re:*scratches head* (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty, if they read newspapers. Here's some trolling by Combs, published in my local paper.
http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons
How would _you_ mod that as a slashdot moderator? Me: -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait -1 Stupid (if only) -1 overrated (so it can't be taken away in metamoderation).
--
BMO
Parent
R-27, Palatine (Score:4, Funny)
Fucking legislator larvae. (Score:3, Insightful)
-jcr
Proposal to ban People (Score:4, Insightful)
(Global proposition 999)
People are responsible for the most dangerous and irresponsible acts that can be committed against other people. I propose we ban "people" all together. Stop repeating a history of mistakes and destroy the worlds problems in one fell swoop. End people. They rape, torture, kill without regard for themselves or others. All over the world people are forced to jail people in order to protect themselves, yet the problems continue. They have children, abuse the children, who intern have more children with no end of abuse in site. Their is no way to ensure a person will never mistreat another person unless all people are banned from existence.
So in conclusion, the only way to provide a safe loving environment for the future of our world is... the immediate and complete removal of all people from the face of the earth. Please support proposition 999 for a people free planet. "Get rid of the people, get rid of the problems."
(Yes I've been drinking.)
flamebait headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No social network... no job networking either? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about people (for example some small bands) who maintain their websites through services such as MySpace, because they can't get, afford, or know how to do the coding to set up a website of their own?
Or users of services like Facebook, where a school organization or club may be hosted mostly or entirely on the service, because the tools are extremely convenient to use and FREE? All of a sudden, those tools become off limits - neither club officers nor the members can communicate until an alternate (and probably more expensive) method is set up.
Someone is being paid way too much money to come up with these ridiculous bills.
A case study in sucky Internet regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill goes on to define the key terminology it uses: administrative unit, computer, public library, school, and school board.
All well and good? Well, they never define what constitutes a "social networking website"! Which of these do you think would qualify: Slashdot? Reddit? Digg? Evite? Delicious? Blogger? We could debate this to death. (In fact, it probably is being debated at some Web 2.0 conference.) Without a clear definition of the most crucial term in the bill, how are schools supposed to know how to enforce it? How are the rest of us supposed to know what's allowed and what's not?
If a legislator took the effort to become knowledgable about the Internet, understand how it operates, and then proposed some carefully-crafted regulation, I wouldn't get so emotionally angry about it. Instead we get Ted Stevens' rant about tubes, and crap like this, because people don't take the time to understand what they're talking about. We should expect more out of our elected officials. They wield significant power, and it's ridiculous that they choose to use it without thinking.
Ryan
Should be up to the librarian (Score:3, Insightful)
Terminological confusion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Example of poorly implemented legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
Contact information (Score:3, Informative)
Censorship, smenshorship (Score:3, Informative)
It's NOT the job of the government to give out free internet access as though it were an "inalienable right." If you want to go to those sites, and the library doesn't give you that permission, then go buy a computer and do it on your own.
Ban totally? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can debate all day long about letting children have access to this stuff when a parent isnt around, but removing it from adults as well, who pay for the library with their taxes? Ummm something is a miss here.
Poorly written law = bad law!! (Score:3, Insightful)
They just want to ban Myspace.com (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to judge the social or moral "worth" of a site like MySpace.com, but I will give the opinion that there is a place for access to such sites, and schools or libraries may not be that place. Providing free access to the Internet doesn't necessarily imply unrestricted access.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which was Luke Skywalker again?
W