Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal 880
happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.
Free speech (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stupid. (Score:2, Informative)
This prevents you from legally being able to blackmail visitors with things that supposedly occured in privacy. Imagine a sex-toy shop - costomers want to feel safe knowing that they are not being taped as they enter and exit the store.
Really, I'm still worried about public places - I mean, I don't like the idea that "insert bank name here" knows every time I walk by (not into) one of their machines, which they could do with face recognition.
Infringing Free speech my ass (Score:3, Informative)
TLD's were originally MEANT to separate entities on the internet. Then along came the big bad internic who decided what a great idea it would be to WHORE out TLD's to anyone willing to pay the price. Remember when.
.org was for non-profit
.com was for companies
.edu was for schools
.net was for network providers
It's not a free speech issue as much as it's a zoning issue. I don't mean DNS zones, i'm referring to the type of zoning cities do that dictate what kind of businesses go where. You have your industrial zones, your retail zones, your suburban zones, and yes, there are even zones for strip clubs. This kind of zoning doesn't infringe on anyone's right.
One more thing, the Internet is like our public roads, their use is a privilege, not a right. Anyone that abuses that right get's reported to their upstream provider and they disappear off the net faster than you can say "goatse.cx" I'm all for regulating these sites because Iâ(TM)m sick and tired of being tricked into a ZILLION popup ads from these fruity porn sites. Their methods have become more sinister over the years and they need to be put in check. Just because I accidentally or purposefully click a link, it's not a license to take over my computer with popup after popup.
Re:Thought it already was.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:.PRN domain would be like NC-17 (Score:3, Informative)
It was created because the MPAA had lost control of the X rating to the porn industry, which had been labelling its own stuff with 'X' and 'XXX' for years without respect to the MPAA ratings board -- that is, the vast majority of stuff labelled 'X' had never passed through an MPAA review. So the MPAA created and trademarked -- or copyrighted, or whatever -- the NC-17 label. I don't think the MPAA was much concerned over whether the new rating became associated with porn -- which would clearly fall under an NC-17 rating -- just with regaining control over its ratings.
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, you don't need a sign if you are taping in your house, as long as it is not for "lewd and lascivious" purposes. Read the article.
Do you really think you are not being taped when you enter an adult shop? Why would it be any different than walking into a drugstore or convenience store, etc. Most stores have security cameras of some sort.
Re:Uh (Score:1, Informative)
ACLU v. Reno (Score:3, Informative)
The idea of using a PRN domain was probably motivated by that concurrance. Whether it would survive Supreme Court review is another matter. Justice O'Connor was only joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Read the article first (Score:1, Informative)
Read the article again, or maybe for the first time:
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
Re:What about activists and undercover reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:consider the implications. (Score:1, Informative)
Sorry, from the CNN article:
'a bill that would make it illegal to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent.'
Usually you wouldn't have a nanny-cam for a lewd or lascivious purpose
Re:What about (Score:4, Informative)