Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet Politics Your Rights Online

Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA" 221

Posted by kdawson
from the tubes-tied dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA"

Comments Filter:
  • Jeez... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) <nicho341@morris.[ ].edu ['umn' in gap]> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:25PM (#18025916)
    Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Senator Stevens needs his tubes tied.

    • Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:42PM (#18026180)
      Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon? I'm sorry to say... not until he keels over on the Senate floor. Up here in Alaska, he's known as "Uncle Ted." He brings obscene amounts of money into this state. The international airport in Anchorage is the "Ted Stevens International Airport." The man is still alive! His eleventh hour ads supporting Lisa Murkowski turned the election around and won her the junior seat in the Senate two term, popular former governor, Tony Knowles. This was the lady who was APPOINTED to the Senate by her FATHER when he was elected governor. Can we say nepotism? Most Alaskans hated her... right up until Uncle Ted endorsed her. In this state at least, the man walks on water (or tubes... or bridges to nowhere). But the people here have no choice. We have a population of around 700,000. We're constantly having to argue with government agencies for them to even have a presence here. To them, it's not worth spending money on services for such a small population spread out over such a large area. (Never mind the billion dollar oil, fishing, mining, and tourism industries.) So we have to have someone who can make our voices heard. Stevens has a lot of clout in Washington, which means Alaska has a lot of clout in Washington, and I doubt we'll give that up until we absolutely have to.
      • Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:54PM (#18026352) Journal
        Part of this is due to the committee system in the US government. Committee positions are where the real power lies, and these are awarded by seniority. This means that a state which replaces its senator will automatically have less influence on Capitol Hill, making it in a state's best interest to elect the incumbent unless they are acting against the state's interest.
        • by stomv (80392) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:39PM (#18027016) Homepage
          Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 for two reasons:

          1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.

          2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source [chicagotribune.com]). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years [bloomberg.com]), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.

          So, with Uncle Ted presumably bringing in less pork for the foreseeable future, will Alaskans react by electing a Dem, or will they re-elect Uncle Ted in the hopes that the GOP recapture the senate and Stevens' seniority becomes valuable locally again?
          • by alexhmit01 (104757) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @03:15PM (#18027622)
            I think you're a bit optimistic...

            1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.


            That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).

            The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.

            2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.


            Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.

            The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.

            I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.

            The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.

            Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and entertainment industry... which would cut off their funds.
            • by fotbr (855184)
              The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.

              But that is exactly what some very vocal and ver
              • if by "not very many" you mean 99.8% (with the 0.02% being the republicans in sheeps clothing we have in democratic seats), then yes.. youre right.

                Every single person i've met and talked to about bush, in "the people's republic of bush" (georgia) mind you, wants the man strung up, tarred, feathered, disembowled, and paraded on foot like the olympic torch.
                • Uh, 20% of the Democratic Caucus is conservative democrats right now... and Sen. Webb is a Republican, or at least was until he got annoyed with Bush and the Iraq war, and it's unclear where he'll stand after the Iraq war. Dean did an AMAZING job of turning the Democratic Party back into a national party (read Zell Miller's book for how bizarre they got at writing off the South -- don't attack him, he makes a LOT of good points), but it's not a 99.8% string up the Republicans party... if it was, it wouldn'
        • Just out of curiosity, and I agree that the committee system seems to be broken, how else should we determine appointments?

          My personal feeling is that it should be via some sort of single combat, or perhaps trial by ordeal (first one to the other side of the Potomac gets Ways and Means!) ... some sort of intelligence test would probably be best, but I'd be afraid they'd all fail.

          • D'Hondt / Jefferson (Score:3, Informative)

            by Per Abrahamsen (1397)
            A better method might be the D'Hondt method (a.k.a. Jeffeson's method), I know it is used for committee seats in Denmark. It is hard to understand, rather messy, but rarely questioned, as the results are basically fair.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by soft_guy (534437)
        Great. Maybe you could talk to uncle ted about being less of an asshat.
    • I tried, in the last election :( Unfortunately, too many of my neighbors don't have any more clue than Sen. Stevens does....sigh.
      • by guaigean (867316)
        No, we do have a clue. We understand that Stevens runs these crazy ideas. The reason he is re-elected is because despite his problems, he brings much more funding to Alaska than any replacement possibly could. All we would do by replacing him is throw money away. Additionally, we haven't exactly had a better option. Basically it comes down to the evil you know vs. the evil you don't.

        Don't assume that just because the majority of people vote differently than you do that they're all ignorant... That t
        • The reason he is re-elected is because despite his problems, he brings much more funding to Alaska than any replacement possibly could.

          That's not necessarily a good thing. For example, as I understand, even the residents of Ketchikan don't want the "Bridge to Nowhere (disclaimer: I'm not from Ketchikan, nor have I discussed this with anyone who lives there, so I could be wrong--that's just what I've read in the ADN and other sources). Pork barrel politics are (sometimes) locally good, but (almost a

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rifter (147452)

      Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?

      It's not in their best interest. I mean, he's the king of pork (which means he has brought record breaking Federal dollars to the state), and he's on some important committees. He's been in Congress for a long time, has connections, and therefore Gets Things Done. Alaska has a very low population and therefore only 2 Senators and 1 Representative. But it is a very important state and there are a lot of issues which directly affect Alas

  • Not Online? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pi_rules (123171) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:25PM (#18025920)
    It's right here [gpo.gov] (PDF).

    Do the Slashdot editors not know how to find stuff on Al Gore's Tubes of Internets?
    • ...some sort of mechanism to have a computer automatically read the contents of a page that was in the Tubes of the Intarweb, and then create indexes on the words contained therein, and then allow users to access those indexes via another page on the Interweb, and look for pages which contain those words.

      I'll be back later, I need to go to the Patent Office.

  • by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdotNO@SPAMexit0.us> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:26PM (#18025926) Homepage
    ...he engaged his mouth before using his brain.
  • by Apocalypse111 (597674) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:26PM (#18025936) Journal
    Yeah, because the bandwidth from all these interweb pages is clogging the tubes. I mean, just yesterday, my staff sent me an internet...
    • Which of the internets did they send you?
    • by VJ42 (860241)
      Won't this bill block the tubes deliberately? And if they're blocked, how will everything else get through, or will they use a truck?

      You may laugh, but legislators in your country will probably using logic similar to that above to make law. The sad thing is my country (the UK) will probably follow suit at some point.
  • by Megajim (885529) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:29PM (#18025980)
    Well we wouldn't want anyone actually LEARNING but using the Internet, would we? I particularly find it offensive when non-porn, sexually-related material is blocked from the very people who could use that information the most.
    • Yeah. If you really want to promote learning and prevent communication, block POST packets at the firewall, and force the kids to learn scroogle instead of google.
    • by ArcherB (796902) *
      Well we wouldn't want anyone actually LEARNING but using the Internet, would we? I particularly find it offensive when non-porn, sexually-related material is blocked from the very people who could use that information the most.

      What have you learned from MySpace that has any value in an educational environment? Besides, this is only for schools and libraries. The case could be made that there is no valid reason for someone to be accessing MySpace from a library other than wasting time.

      However, I am assumin
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by morsdeus (1059938)
        What about people who can't afford to have a computer at home? You've applied regressive censorship - only the poor are prevented from accessing certain information.
        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          What about people who can't afford to have a computer at home? You've applied regressive censorship - only the poor are prevented from accessing certain information.

          Are you saying that MySpace is a right? These are public machines. No one is saying that they can't be used. The bill would limit these computers to what they are intended for.
          • by compro01 (777531)
            The bill would limit these computers to what they are intended for.

            which is what exactly?
            • by ArcherB (796902) *
              The bill would limit these computers to what they are intended for.

              which is what exactly?


              Information and research. MySpace qualifies as entertainment and socialization.

      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:11PM (#18026616)

        What have you learned from MySpace that has any value in an educational environment?

        I learned:

        • introductory Web site design and examples of what not to do.
        • the sociology of cliques
        • the psychology of conformism and subcultures

        Besides, this is only for schools and libraries.

        Federal funding means responsibility to act constitutionally, including upholding free speech/expression for adults. The government judging that posting to MySpace is less valuable than posting to Slashdot, or some purely educational forum, is an unconstitutional act. The government should never be making these decisions, individuals should. It is called freedom, even if it is the freedom to waste an hour writing about how cute your poodle is and publishing it.

        The case could be made that there is no valid reason for someone to be accessing MySpace from a library other than wasting time.

        The case could be made that doing anything other than praying to Allah is a waste of time. The case could be made that reading literature instead of car repair manuals is a waste of time. The point is that it is not the government's responsibility or right to make that call, it is the right and responsibility of the individual.

        However, I am assuming that by "schools", he is not including universities and colleges.

        Public schools are one thing. The people there are children who are assigned by our society a subset of rights and responsibilities belonging to other people. In that case it is up to the parent's to decide, possibly through the democratic process of the government, subject to some limitations. In public libraries, however, there is no justification. If people actually went to said libraries and read the constitution as well as the essays of the founding fathers, maybe they'd understand why.

        • Upholding free speech does not mean facilitating it, as occurs in a library.
          • Upholding free speech does not mean facilitating it, as occurs in a library.

            For an individual or private organization to facility on type of free expression is fine. For the government to facilitate one type of free expression while intentionally going out of their way to limit other forms, is something else entirely. Suppose, for example, the government decided to pass a law that says only materials approved by the Republican party can be carried in libraries. Assuming they had a large enough majority t

        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          The government should never be making these decisions, individuals should. It is called freedom, even if it is the freedom to waste an hour writing about how cute your poodle is and publishing it.

          Should I demand a nVidia 8800 GTX be installed at the library so I can play World of Warcraft? It won't run with the crappy integrated video at my library's computers. Has the government limited my freedoms by not installing a good 3D card?

    • Schools and libraries have access to real encyclopedias. Stop overreacting.
  • Great Idea! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:29PM (#18025986)
    Hope it passes. After someone adds an amendment stating that it only applies to Alaska.
    • by gnarlin (696263) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:51PM (#18026302) Homepage Journal

      Hope it passes. After someone adds an amendment stating that it only applies to Alaska.
      Don't you mean Nebraska?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by rovingeyes (575063)
        WTF did Nebraska do? Do you even know that one of the original developers of Apache was from Nebraska? No more corn for you!
        • This is a bit OT but surprisingly, Nebraska has seriously good telecom infrastructure despite being out "in the middle of nowhere". Especially around Omaha.
          Now, think back and wonder why that is. Give up? Because of SAC [wikipedia.org]. Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, the US Strategic Air Command operated in Omaha.

          Nowadays, since SAC is shutdown, a lot of that infratructure is part of Level 3's network. To this day, they still have several fiber rings running around Omaha.
    • Hope it passes. After someone adds an amendment stating that it only applies to Alaska.

      I'm an Alaskan, you insensitive clod!
  • Stevens introduced S.49... on the opening day of the legislative session.

    Yes, because it's just that important. There really is no other crisis or issue which needs legislative attention before this. At least someone is thinking of the children. *rolls eyes*
  • by cdrudge (68377) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:31PM (#18026012) Homepage
    It will be the end of Flash advertisements, javascript and other "interactive" tools. Heck, I won't have to waste hours and hours learning AJAX for Web 2.0 because I would want my sites to be able to be seen in schools and libraries.

    Wait...my local library has an interactive catalog. Would they have to block themselves? They probably should already turn themselves in. They have a subscription to Playboy and I'm sure there are countless books that have "porn" in them teaching kids about sex.
    • by Shadow99_1 (86250)
      by the time their bodies function well enough sexually kids know about sex... I happened to be in a 8th grade class room the other day and overheard a class discussion including who was knocking up who and why one girl in particular (in 8th grade) wanted to get pregnant (she thought she'd look cuter pregnant).

      We seriously don't need to teach them anything on the subject, I'm sure some of these kids no more than a lot of adults from a generation ago...
      • Yeah, those eighth graders talking about sex know all they need to know. Why, if they already know how cute being pregnant makes them look, what more could we possibly teach them?
        • by Shadow99_1 (86250)
          So you somehow think I like the idea? Uh No.

          I was trying to imply that some other twisted view of sexuality (from porn or similar) wasn't going to be 'damaging' them anymore than they were already damaged.

          I'm all for open discussion on sex and sexuality, but so many law makers aren't because we have to many warped people who think sex==bad.
  • by eno2001 (527078) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:35PM (#18026060) Homepage Journal
    ...under the guise of protecting children. Bloody typical. The fact that anyone can walk into a public library and post their uncensored views of the government, politicians, policy, business, etc... is "dangerous". This is why the internet is destined to become just another medium like television where you only consume and are limited in what you can produce and how many hearts and minds you can reach. Unless you fight things like Son of DOPA. This is the typical approach in many segments today. Take something that you REALLY want to enforce on people that they would likely balk at if they really understood it, then attach it to some "noble cause". Make sure that the noble cause is something that makes it easy to paint the opposition as "pro-evil". And you win.
    • by Captain Sarcastic (109765) * on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:04PM (#18026520)
      Bullseye.

      We get web censorship by explaining that we are protecting our children from the evils of pornography, and in their defense, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll ban sites at the schools and the libraries, and leave the potential open for banning them in homes.

      You balk at this idea? What are you, some kind of pervert who wants kids to have open and free access to porn?

      We get personal tracking by explaining that we are protecting our children from the dangers of child molesters, and to prevent that, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll put GPS collars on convicted child molesters and other sex offenders, and leave the option available for putting them on everyone.

      What? You don't like this? Why are you standing up for perverts, anyway?

      We are good. Un-we, then, are un-good. Mini-love will see they become un-persons. This is plus good.

      <irony=0%> (Oh, for crying out loud, did I forget the <irony=100%> tag again?)
    • by monkeydo (173558)
      I don't understand. When they want to take away my guns "for the children" people stand up and cheer. But God forbid they want to take away the be all end all of freedom, MySpace.

      I haven't read the bill yet, and if anyone has specific objections I am very interested in them. But all I have read so far is objections to the general idea of limiting children's access to information. That's as extreme a position as saying that any American, regardless of psychiatric or criminal history, should be able to ow
    • This is why the internet is destined to become just another medium like television where you only consume and are limited in what you can produce and how many hearts and minds you can reach.

      Laws like this one are illegal throughout much of the world, so I wouldn't worry about the Internet turning into some kind of television-like medium.

      Eventually the situation will get bad enough in the US that true Americans will stand up and say "enough is enough." When they see the rest of the world constantly o

  • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:37PM (#18026100)
    Return of the son of Deleting Online Predators Act.

    Nice to see the feds aren't immune to the same bullshit stunts Illinois and Georgia tried to pull.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:40PM (#18026132)
    ...when politicians come up with laws restricting... well, anything.

    I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:54PM (#18026346)
      > I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?

      It got rewritten and nobody told you.

      Republicans are the party of Big Daddy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your bedroom to make sure you're not having sex the wrong way, because pornography is a national epidemic.

      Democrats are the party of Big Mommy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your kitchen to make sure you're not eating the wrong kinds of food, because obesity is a national epidemic.

      Once upon a time, Americans valued "freedom to" over "freedom from". The past 40 years of "every life is precious" and "you are a unique and valuable snowflake" rhetoric has changed that; as a nation, we've pretty much decided we'd rather be safe than free. Kinda sucks for us oldthinkers who unbellyfeel amsoc, but that's our problem, not New America's.

    • by gnarlin (696263)

      I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?
      What? Didn't you get that memo?
    • The scary thing is, its not actually an election year. It seems like it though doesn't it?
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:24PM (#18026844)

      You know it's an election year... when politicians come up with laws restricting... well, anything.

      When do politicians ever come up with laws that don't restrict things? When was the last time a politician ran on the platform of repealing all our stupid, useless, counterproductive laws? Americans do not value freedom very much anymore. It is no longer an important cultural value. Most people see the government and laws as a battleground where they try to force other people to conform to doing things their way rather than the way the other party wants. Very few people want to take a stand in favor of personal choice.

      Ever talk to a die hard "pro choice" advocate? They say it is every woman's right to make choices for herself, not have them forced upon her by others. I agree. My opinion might be that abortion is unethical, but it is not up to me to make that choice and force others to agree with me; it is up to each individual to choose. The problem is most of the people I talk to are a lot less in favor of the right to own a firearm or the right to hunt some non-endangered animal, or in some cases the right to eat meat. It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice, while they advocate taking other choices away from people. Is it any wonder so many children these days don't even think freedom of speech is an important right?

      Freedom in the US died as a cultural value and is dying in our legislature as well. People don't even see it as an issue or concern. They just want to tell other people how to live at gunpoint, whether that is "worship Jeebus" or "don't shoot bunny rabbits."

    • by soft_guy (534437)
      Except that it isn't actually an election year. And according to an earlier post Ted Stevens would be re-elected to the US Senate regardless of proposing ass-hat legislation.
  • No t-shirt (Score:4, Funny)

    by dylan_- (1661) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:44PM (#18026204) Homepage
    I can't find a "Ted Stephens blocked my tubes!" t-shirt on Thinkgeek yet.
  • Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment [cornell.edu], Ted? Just goes to show that the GOP is no longer the party of smaller constitutional government.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576)
      Just goes to show that the GOP is no longer the party of smaller ^W constitutional government.
      There. Fixed that for you.
    • by monkeydo (173558)
      What does the Tenth Ammendment have to do with anything? The Constitution specifically grants Congress the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. While I think that recent commerce clause jurisprudence is way past the mark, I'm eagerly awaiting someone's explanation of why the Internet would be covered.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fluxrad (125130)
      When were they the party of smaller constitutional government?
  • People Dont read (Score:2, Insightful)

    by majortom1981 (949402)
    This wont be mandatory. The article states that only if you get money from the government would you have to do this. Some Libraries (like the one i work for) dont get money from the government or the state government so it wont apply to us. please read the article before going crazy.
    • by dabraun (626287) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:02PM (#18026494)
      Are you serious? This is an old standby to get laws passed that would otherwise be considered outside the juristiction of the federal government. Go look up how the 55mph national speed limit was enforced (hint: it didn't apply to ALL roads, just ALL roads in states that wanted funding for interstate highways)

      The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion.
      • The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion.

        Heyyyyy.. here's an idea. There must be some way to apply this logic to citizens. Perhaps increase the federal tax, and provide credits for various forms stating that you will behave a certain way. For example, the republican tax credit. If you vote republican and can p

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by vwjeff (709903)
        The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion. The "national" drinking age is yet another example. No more funding if your state's drinking age is less than 21.
    • by Shadow99_1 (86250)
      It however would apply to almost every school library that isn't completely privately funded. The charter school I work for, for example, would be required to enforce this through the current wording as it receives funding from the federal government with regard to certain programs.
  • by Grashnak (1003791) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:53PM (#18026328)
    I understand a lot of child molesters use public washrooms to attack kids in, so we should ban access to public washrooms. Come to think of it, most kids are molested by members of their own families, so clearly we should ban families. Heck, I once heard that a molester drove a volkswagen, so hell, lets ban them too.
    • by Knara (9377)

      Goddamn Mongolians! Get away from my shitty wall!

      (your idea was explored humorously in a South Park episode)

    • What about vans down by the river?

      And free candy?

      Are we going to get rid of them, too?
  • Halfway there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) * <lajollahomeless@hotmail.com> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:54PM (#18026366) Homepage Journal
    The library here in La Jolla is already halfway there [slashdot.org] thanks to a little program called CyberSitter. 90% of everything I click on results in "IE cannot display this page" though, sometimes, if I click reload enough times I'm able to recieve enough page text and click stop before CyberSitter receives whatever part of the page it is which causes the page to be dumped.
  • Poison Placebo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:55PM (#18026376) Homepage Journal
    Every time this old crank or any of his fellow Senators wastes time with these fake "child protection" systems that screw adults instead of actually protecting children, they leave children actually exposed to the real threats. And their sneaky smokescreens using children as "human shields" from criticism of their sweeping attacks on American liberty makes it even harder to trust any plan offered to actually protect these people.

    All they do is damage everyone. Delete Stevens and his technocrat cronies.
  • Job Corps (Score:3, Informative)

    by jrwr00 (1035020) <(jrwr00) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @02:00PM (#18026470) Homepage
    I'm in a Government Program Called Job Corps, I'm in Comp Tech to get my A+ Cert, so i can get a good job, thing is that bill is insane! that would block our main info for computer parts, try finding (in the same place) what the 8086 was and the meaning to DDR2..... Oh well, Proxys around here are so common, i can just use those
  • This is none of Congress's business. Butt out and let my state and local officials make the decisions I've elected them to make rather than a meddlesome and idiotic Senator from Alaska.
  • Most news sites have polls, blogs, comments, and messageboards. This bill would block students form going to their local newspapers site or the big sites like cnn and msnbc. Politicians are stupid.
  • block Ted (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...i think i will send a letter to my state senator asking he draft a bill blocking Ted Stevens from introducing ANY legislation regarding the Internet.
  • In true /. fashion I did not RTFA or the text of the proposed legislation, but it's probably moot on this point anyway: I cannot imagine a way to define "interactive sites" that would yield consistent rulings when these things inevitably end up in the courts.

    Does emailing blog entries to WordPress count? Reading RSS feeds of interactive content? Google groups? Google answers (may it rest in peace)? Experts-Exchange? Fedora Forums?

    This is infeasible to implement, really. They'd have to start by, uh, I dunno.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geoffspear (692508)
      That's ok, neither did the submitter. The phrase "interactive site" doesn't even appear in the bill.

      `(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
  • Perhaps they should call it "Little DOPA" which could be shortened to L-DOPA, which would be so invasive as to cross the blood-brain barrier.
  • DESESE (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oohshiny (998054) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @04:15PM (#18028794)
    I'd vote for the DESESE (Deleting Senile Senators) act, forcing mandatory retirement for people who behave like this [youtube.com]. I mean, the guy is incapable of even reading out a speech prepared for him by his handlers. People like Ted Stevens shouldn't be in politics anymore, they should be in an institution.
  • Already in effect (Score:2, Informative)

    by piGeek31415 (1054990)
    I'm not sure if this has been said already, but I attend a high school that blocks wikipedia, myspace, gmail, hotmail... the list goes on. Even the teachers can't access these sites. I assumed it was already standard procedure to block pages that might contain something "bad" (what's ironic, however, is the fact that we can get to nazi-propaganda sites...)

    Is it me, or are our tubes a lot stricter than others'?

    /first slashdot post ever
  • Ted Stevens is a voter confirmed failure.

    And due to the political power of blogs I suspect most members of congress are now smart enough and motivated enough to see right through this and kill it in short order.

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...