Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists 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."
What's that smell in the air? (Score:5, Interesting)
John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
-Eric
This would bring my lists underground. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice job, McCain. This will help, big time. and by help, I mean help me decide who else I'm voting for in 2008.
-BA
Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:5, Interesting)
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:This would bring my lists underground. (Score:3, Interesting)
For the ignorant among us (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
hahaha (Score:5, Interesting)
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:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wtf (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics [usdoj.gov]:
I don't know about the rest of you, but 5.3% recidivism doesn't sound awfully high to me. Am I reading that wrong?
Or, perhaps more likely, do the scare tactics about sex offenders simply have no basis in reality?
Re:hahaha (Score:4, Interesting)
Simple. It works.
If the other guy wants a background check when somebody buys a gun you don't want people to think about how or whether this might be done to minimize the impact on gun owners' rights. You want them to feel that your opponent is a stupid evil, stupid traitor wants to take your guns away.
Obsencity is a topic in which this kind of Manichean "thinking" is on both sides. Everybody is getting worked up, preparing to battle Evil. In reality, it's a tempest in a teapot no matter which way things go. According to the Miller test, and obscene work must depict sexual acts in a way that is both patently offensive AND has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific merit. The vast majority of blogs have nothing to do with obscenity, and those that do could be argued as engaging in reasonably serious critique, even if the works in question have titles like Backdoor Teenage Cheerleader Virgins IX.
Now, personally I think there is a ninth amendment right to enjoy offensively obscene material that has no redeeming value other than the pleasure it gives you. I also think you have a right to shoot targets on your property during normal waking hours, and screw the militia. To hell with redeeming social value: private pleasures shouldn't have to be justified by serving a public purpose.
So long as that obscene material is not delivered in a way that is intrusive, I don't think there is Constitutional authorization to restrict it. If it is possible to use your email account or web search without having to wade through a pile of obscenity, if parents have the means to regulate their dependents' use of such materials (whether they should is nobody else's business), in short if obscene materials do not intrude on those who does not seek them out, then you cannot restrict these materials because they create revulsion in some or even most people. What is left is a paternalistic state interest in the development of private character. Some believe this is a high public purpose, like protecting troop movements in a time of war, or protecting the individual's right of privacy.
But even if a paternalistic concern for public morality is a legitimate public interest, I think prohibition has been shown sufficiently ineffective that it must be considered overbroad. Historically the weight of decency laws often fell on meritorious, but controversial works with little or no effect on the availability of obscenity. I've never heard of a place or age where obscenity was easy to produce yet hard to obtain, but you shouldn't have to patronize a shabby peddler of raunchy contraband if you want to read Huckleberry Finn.
In any case virtue -- as those who have read St. Augustine are aware -- is about choosing the greater good over the lesser. A public interest in virtue is best served by fostering the availability of good choices, not the ineffective prohibition of bad ones, which is mere posturing. Ken Burns' Civil War has done more to elevate the public character than all the public decency laws combined ever have.
But, having argued that obscenity laws are ineffctive and positively harmful to non-obscene expression, I don't think those who enjoy obscenity for its own sake have much to worry about. The bluenoses are not evil people who are going to take your porn away. They're misguided folks who at most will end up making you go through the motions of taking a dose of artistic merit along with your porn. You'll just learn to adjust. Possibly, that's why God created the fast forward button.
It's people who are actually interested in sex related that have merit, particularly political merit, who should be worried.