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.
Stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
So now my house has less privledge than a public place.
I guess its not my "castle" anymore. Its just a nuisance to this numbskull.
Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I show pictures of breasts, am I
Worried about number one (Score:2, Interesting)
looking at extremeties:
What if you're worried about your babysitter not treating your child right.... Does that mean you can't videotape their behavior because their in your own home?
What about all those "worlds worst employees" video tapes too...
Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Good for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
And are you REALLY believing that your ISP will choose simply not to resolve those type addresses? Sure they will. Same reason why stuff like alt.binaries.erotica.teen exists still.
I say let's do it. As for the video taping, that was bound to happen. Good thing, too! If it's not for security, it's mounted (wireless connected) to a remote-control car to run around the office and annoy people.
Haven't the courts already ruled... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a TLD specifically for porn is a good idea, just like we have r- and x- rated movies. (Of course, those are run by industry groups, not mandated by congress.)
Re:Thought it already was.. (Score:3, Interesting)
.prn type sites adult-verify anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
From the District Court CDA decision [epic.org]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Sounds good if done RIGHT (Score:2, Interesting)
.prn is a silly idea (Score:2, Interesting)
So what about porn sites that do business? Are they
All this categorizing and nitpicking sounds ridiculous, but the point is that this is what we would have to deal with if we started forcing TLDs based on website content. It just IS NOT PRACTICAL.
And don't even get me started on how we would go about deciding what constitutes "material harmful to minors".
Re:.prn is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
The second part is unacceptable (Score:3, Interesting)
Something similar already happened with the movie industry in the US. The rating for 18+ (i forget it) is considered pronography so nobody is willing to make movies that will get rated that way even if they are serious movies. If some one does make a movie that is rated adult it will be treated as porn and not shown in most theatres even if it is not porn but a serious adult movie.
Thus the US in the embarrassing position where most if its movies, and thus a big part of its culture is made for adolescents.
Protecting children is fine, but it is really sad if the whole cultural discource is reduced to adolescent level in order to protect children. Then it is the adults that suffer - they do not have a chance to grow up mentally and spiritually.
If you think that an adult can lead a full life while only participating in culture that is suitable for children conside that even the bible is not really suitable for children.
And if you think that this law will prevent a child that really wants porn, you are mistaken, there is always a way to go around circumvension measures - all you need is a friend on the outside that can access the adult site and send it to you encrypted, so no one sees what it is.
won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
So under your system when would they forced to give up the
Ooh, sorry, someone else already owns slashdot.com, a company which sells razors to sadist cartoonists, guess Taco & Co. can kiss their branding goodbye. Oh well, if people are really interested in them, they can find them through Google.
What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
.prn (Score:3, Interesting)
I would rather it was
It would behove the legitmat Adult film industry to push for there own domain as well. It makes them look good, it does not prevent people over 18 from viewing them, it gives parents an easier way to prevent there under age child from seeing something there parents don't want them to.
To put an adulkt mgazine behind the counter, but still let people know where they are, doesn't impact free speech. The publishers to publish and there readers can still buy there mag.
For propriety sake, I would also like to say that I like adult sexual entertainment, Believe it should be allowed. It has problems, but so does the non-sex entertainment industry.
Re:.PRN domain would be like NC-17 (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as there are people in power (such as store/theater managers/district managers/corporate policymakers) who are without a clue, NC-17 will never work. I expect the same fate will befall any "adults-only" TLD: "It's just porn, so we block it all."
Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:2, Interesting)
What they don't realize is that you can't control the internet. This is a bottom-up phenomenon. It was not given to us with restrictions, like television, radio, or driving. No, it was given to us without rules--and rules evolved from the people.
Let them struggle for control because the only way they can truly control the internet is to take it down--which is impossible. They can struggle to restrict certain protocols, domains, whatever, but they can't turn off the internet.
Re:Why do it backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you propose is a step in the wrong direction. And please don't assume that people think in "such convuluted ways" just because they've been elected.
Re:.prn is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
What if a non-profit become for-profit? What about the other way around? (Yes, both happen). And
Anyway, your whole plan is stupid, because drawing these lines is extremely difficult. Especially the
What about Martin Luther? Remember that
Yeah, categorizing is too hard.
(BTW, what makes you expect a government site at whitehouse.com?)
Re:Why do it backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
But it doesn't need an act of congress to set it up. All it needs is for the DNS servers to agree. Or even just some of them. AOL could probably do this all on it's own, certainly if it collaborated with Earthlink and a couple of others big names.
Getting congress involved at all is proof that something else is up.
this is weird, I know Mary (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Prosecute thin air! (Score:3, Interesting)
In Louisiana tresspassing is not illegal?
The house was being rented. The owner was the videotaping sleezebag.
This is an important law to pass, but it's one that should be passed by the states. The federal government has very little authority to govern what I do in my own house.
Re:What about (Score:5, Interesting)
By whose definition? The tyope of material I would not want my child to see is:
Somehow I very much doubt that this is the type of material that congress considers harmful to minors.
What this really comes down to is that the Republicans are affraid that their children might ask them awkward questions they don't want to answer. To which I say tough titties, how do they think we all feel when we have to explain GWB to our kids?
Re:You got egg nog in my goat's milk (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm. For example?
It's pretty easy to censor at the TLD level. As long as you also require that these sites IP's properly reversed, legal ones are in a box and illegal ones will be shut down by anyone who doesn't want law enforcement up their butt.
I'm curious to see just how far the Supreme Court will let them go in regulating free speech. Is creating
Hoplessly retro-active! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm looking forward to the future of cheap, tiny and pervasive video recording devices. This bill is raising "privacy" expectations where there are none. It's already illegal to publish someone's image without their consent. Making it illegal to create such images in your own home is the thin wedge of outlawing such devices in public places, except for "official" or "impartial" and "privacy protecting" government devices. Fight this now.
Get it straight people, if you don't want to be embarrased of your behavior DONT DO EMBARASSING THINGS! People have memories, video devices are simply memory enhancers. Right now, I can tell anyone I want about the expressions you make on your face and other sensations no video device will ever capture. Telling others makes me a cad, remembering might make me happy, forgetting is impossible.