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)
Re:What's that smell in the air? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hahaha (Score:5, Informative)
Tell me again how the public loves far-right ideas? On issues without broad public support, it's our responsibility to lead social change. The Dems don't pander to the base. They're to the right of the fucking majority of Americans on many issues!
Re:hahaha (Score:4, Informative)
That's not to say that polls and surveys are useless, just that our media's interpretation and reporting of them usually is. Proper interpretation requires precision, and our MSM is not equipped to deal with that. And that pisses me off. The MSM may or may not be biased left or right, but what's far worse is that they tend to be biased toward vapidity and bad logic.
It simply a matter of... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most elected officials already have a set philosphy in place when they are elected. Unless something drastic happens, their views won't change.
However, it's more of the public's fault since we elect these people to represent us in the first place. So if your poll is true... American's are some of the worst voters out there.
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.
Re:hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage was around long before any of the major religions of today (Islam, Christianity) and served as a political bond joining property and fortune well before Christ, Mohammed, or Zeus. Religion may want to co-opt marriage (and I can certainly understand why, it's a control mechanism similar to, and related to, sexual control) but history doesn't support the claim that marriage is religious.
As for the government's interest, this is relatively natural: When you join in property, medical and fiscal responsibility, residence, and income, only a perfect government would be able to keep its hot little hands out of the pot. And hoo boy, is our government not perfect!
Religion's no better. As soon as sexuality and joining come into it, next thing you know there is some person trying to tell you exactly how you should be managing your affairs. One wife, not two. Opposite sex partners only. This age disparity, and no more. This color, and not that. This religion, and not another. History supports a much wider set of joinings, and for very good reason -- they're perfectly natural.
So to your idea of religion having all there is to say about marriage, I say, "take off, eh?" Marriage should be what the partners (2...n) say it is, and the rest of us should respect that. It should not be subject to Christian or Muslim or even ancient Greek sensibilities. When people want to join together and seek their fortune and lives together the rest of us have only one job: Get the heck out of the way.
Re:Little Nit (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is very clear what it should mean. A declaration of partnership based upon serious, long term commitment by individuals who are both capable of understanding that precise commitment up front (the classic definition of intelligent, informed consent) and able to represent that fact in a legal and comprehensible manner. Such declaration may be public, or not, and it should -- not does, but should -- carry with it such legal obligations as the participants have agreed upon, and no others. Socially, it's dead obvious: "This is my partner, please treat them as you would me." Simple, easy to deal with, no worries.
When people say "we're married", that's what I think of. As to the specifics, these only matter when legal issues come up; and that is why paperwork stating the terms is such a good idea in today's world. Otherwise, some idiot could tell you you could not have a say in the treatment of the love(s) of your life if they were in the hospital, or that you could not have a say in the schooling of your offspring. Marriage, in the end, is a state that is intended to benefit the individuals involved. Not the rest of us as onlookers. If they wanted our opinion, surely we would have been invited to the ceremony, or made signatory on the paperwork.
Yes, however what you are arguing for here isn't "specific" meaning, it is canned meaning. I would argue that every human partnership involves different stakes, different foundations, different preconceptions, different commitment, and therefore just as when forming a specific type of business, you'll want a specific type of agreement tailored to your union. What those specifics are matter primarily to the members of the union, and are otherwise not much of anyone else's business until such time as a question of parenting or hospital visitation or the like comes up; at that time, you whip out your paperwork, point to the appropriate clause, and you're done.
Communications about what a union means would be vastly enhanced by a thorough hammering out of what one is agreeing to, it seems to me. Opportunities for improvement abound: No wife would find she had unwittingly become a dishwasher or drudge; no husband would find that his wife's last day of interest in sex was the day before they were married; no child would find itself stripped of a parent. Services to assist in hammering out such agreements would become widely available; sounds optimum to me.
Oh, I'm being perfectly honest. And honestly, what you want for anyone's marriage but your own and your offspring's is completely irrelevant to me. What I say is marriage for me, is marriage. Period. You don't have even a fraction of a say. Honestly. :) When it comes to you telling me what marriage is for you, then I'll listen, and I'll respect that, all the more so if you can make it clear. Marriage isn't religious to or for me, because religion doesn't intercept with any part of my life. Consequently, I don't give a flying hoot what any religion has to say about my marriage, or lack thereof, any more than I would if an astrologer tried to tell me I should live in some particular fashion. Superstition isn't a solid enough foundation for any fraction of a relationship I enter into, I can assure you. If it is for you, that's something else entirely, and I encourage you to have it your way. And I promise not to bother you about it; if that's the way you and your partner(s) roll, by all means, have at it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly this isn't limited to homosexual relationships- heterosexual marriages often (usually?) end in divorce, and often the participants in the original
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As in most expensive, or best value for what you get?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's that smell in the air? (Score:5, Informative)
You're really better off writing your senators about the measure yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
But his Senate Office will not directly correspond with people residing outside Arizona other than sending a perfunctory "Thank you for your concerns. I have forwarded them to your state's Senators." response.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Even a FedEx overnight envelope is not guaranteed to reach the office of a Member of Congress the day after it's sent.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:2)
Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean Kowtow, not cow-tow... nothing to do with towing cows at all... see here. [wsu.edu] Kowtowing is making a grand abasement to a superior officer... [wikipedia.org] prostrating yourself touching your forehead to the ground
Re: (Score:2)
Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:5, Funny)
I would rather vote for a dog. At least I could pet the dog.
-Eric
Re: (Score:2)
Re:John McCain loses more of my respect every day (Score:4, Insightful)
When will Democrats stop trying to play on the Republican's field? GET THE HOME COURT ADVANTAGE, FOLKS! Run on your issues, make them *your* issues. Stop trying to look like a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hate Is NOT A Good Family
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Anti obscenity laws? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(Although neither George Carlin nor I understand why "tits" is there)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Lew saw this coming.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What obscenity? (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Wtf (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
Eh? Say what you will about sex offenders, but isn't this a little too much?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 se
Re:Wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Sex offenders are generally tracked for a long time out of fear of recidivism, which has a very high rate among sex offenders. Prison as punishment does a lousy job of treating them, and their crimes are more driven by personal issues than murder or theft.
It's not necessarily useful to keep them in jail forever, not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics [usdoj.gov]:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I shouldn't have a choice.
What about support sites? (Score:2)
No, not that! Serious sites.
A few years ago a local city learned that somebody was planning to establish a group home for sex offenders on parole. The community freaked and demanded a law that unrelated sex offenders couldn't live together.
The professional (and some sex offenders) said that was a Really Bad Idea since the offenders didn't encourage each other or share tips. They offered support to each other when temptation occurred, the support that only somebo
Just to help Senator McCain here (Score:5, Funny)
And if that's obscenity for you, have your eyes, sorry, your brain checked.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now, I don't know about obscene, but this proposal does sound a little kinky to me...
;)
The more is censored... (Score:5, Insightful)
Give people their free speech. If you don't like what they say, don't listen, but respect their rights.
And it's both sides... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
Pure, unadulterated... (Score:2)
he wants obscenity reported? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [sexuality.org] until the santorum [spreadingsantorum.com] 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.
sideway into regulating satellite (Score:2)
half a dupe... (Score:2)
Well, if this passes... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yes, it's really censorship: some corrections (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The likely scenerio is to force everone into a two or three blanket carriers with the resources to deal with the paper work. All of these bloggers like truthout have been embarrassing to governments used to controlling three or four broadcasters. It won't put a stop to kiddie porn or the other four riders of the infopocalypse but it will make it next to impossible for forums in the world of ends. It is crap like this that will turn the internet into something that resembles webTV more than a flourishing free press.
Thanks, Zonk, for posting what I think is a very important issue, but I have a big correction to the summary. I made up the bit about "personal common carrier," and did not intentionally attribute it to the EFF. I was unable to find anything outside of the article about their stance on this and why they consider the bill unconstitutional. I'd love to hear more from them, but quoted everything I saw in the journal entry which I submitted [slashdot.org]. The part about "personal common carrier" comes from my own sense of justice, as expressed above, and views on freedom of press.
The article seems to have been updated, so I'll quote everything from the EFF here.
Privacy is important and necessary for real free speech, but it's freedom of speech and press that is my primary concern. It's my opinion that recent obscenity laws have were made to crush porn sites through expensive reporting requirements because the authors were unable to directly outlaw what they consider objectionable material. Now that they have accomplished that goal, they are moving on to other content that bothers them. The obvious net result of this proposed law would be to run every forum off the net.
Others have pointed to my greatest fears: abuse by trolls and extortionists [slashdot.org]. Given the new Air Force mission to dominate cyberspace, various departments of missinformation and other funny business, I can also imagine government employees themselves abusing forums they want to shut down. No slippery slope is required for sites to be shut down this way. If this bill flies, it will be virtually impossible to host a site where people can post images and movies. The bill contains a "negligent failure" clause that's ripe for abuse.
Extension of McCain/Feingold (Score:5, Insightful)
What a scummy little man.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, Senator, what do the words Congress shall make no law mean to you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And that's a bad thing, because?
Actual Bill (Score:5, Informative)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Every now and then, somebody would set up a website on their system and upload kiddy porn.
He tried being a good citizen and reporting it. Several times. The authorities didn't follow up, they simply made angry threats to arrest him.
His company now silently deletes kiddy porn sites.
Playing devil's advocate, though, how is this proposal different from the existing legislation that requires health care providers to report suspected child abuse?
If you can count on one thing... (Score:2)
Key question: How the hell do you want to enforce that? Can't post fu.. and suck my
Don't count on it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 al
Re: (Score:2)
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 wi
Re: (Score:2)
For the ignorant among us (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As for it passing or even getting voted on, not much of a chance, not many Republican would vote for it to far reaching and consider him to be a liberial who says he is a conservative because it is the only way he can keep being elected. Democrates are now in power, and looking for revenge, so are very unlikly to support anything where the sponseror is a Republican. The only way it has a chance
Re: (Score:2)
Since he's a senator to the national Congress, it'll be a national law. The Federal government doesn't have the manpower to enforce every Federal law, so the level of actual enforcement will probably be up to state and local police. Obscenity has also been deemed by the Supreme Court to be defined by local social mores, so what's obscene in the South isn't necessarily so in NYC. And vice versa.
-b.
Interactivists (Score:2)
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
Fuck (Score:2)
Oh, fuck! (Score:2)
Gee, Senator (Score:2)
President McCain! (Score:2)
Apparently some people want this guy as the next "President of the United States, Leader of the Free World"...
--Rob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
McCain doesn't seem nearly as bad as Bush.... yet. He's steadily getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If his actions result in people who have done little if anything wrong getting stiff jail sentences, I'd say that it *would* have been better had he never come back. Unjust jail sentences in total could easily amount to more than one man's lifetime.
-b.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider myself a moralist, but I don't even want to be put in the same company as your average evangelical censor.
MOD PARENT UP! +1 Amusing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's precedent for it to be defined by local community standards. Does that mean that a gay (all models over 21) porn website can be visible in NYC but not in, say, Texas? Should we implement geographical IP blocking? (Hey, possibly more $$$ in my pocket working on implementation!)
-b.