New Internet Regulation Proposed 429
bumgutts writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has suggested a mandatory website self-rating system. The system, very similar to one suggested under Clinton's administration, would require by law all commercial websites to place 'marks and notices' on each page containing 'sexually explicit' content, with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment." From the article: "A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive 'words or digital images' in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen 'absent any further actions by the viewer.'"
What happened to that freedom thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Four rules for political appointees to live by. (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The US is not the world, so your laws can go hang.
2) Your views of what is sexually explicit are screwed up, so your rating system would be as well.
3) The real problem are the spammer and scammers stealing millions from the public. When I don't receive 100s of spams a day - then you can start getting worked up over boobies.
4) We don't trust you, we certainly don't trust you enough to let you do something this. Earn that trust back first.
Re:Four rules for political appointees to live by. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Misguided legislation (Score:1, Interesting)
The key difference is that while violence is not socially acceptible under any normal circumstances, sex IS. This removes a very important barrier for emulating the behavior from impressionable minds (again, that's ALL of us, to some extent) who view the material. What you see in pornography is generally about as true to actual life experience as spectacularly exploding a car on the freeway using only a handgun, and then getting into a 10-minute fistfight with the driver who pulled himself from the wreckage.
I can see why parents wouldn't want their children learning by either of these examples, because it takes experience to separate fantasy from reality. The only difference is how likely their children are to actually go out and try to gain that experience using the examples they've seen. And again, not only is the general push of society going to wean you off of violence, but most people have an ingrained distaste for violence, whereas their bodies are actively promoting sex.
That said, the "violence is worse, so why are we talking about sex" argument is incredibly disingenuous, as shutting down the discussion of one problem doesn't fix the other. If the problem is too much crap, of one type or the other, inundating our entertainment, and finding its way to those we'd rather it didn't, harping on any progress is hampering it all.
I'm not saying these laws are a great idea, but let's try and stick to why they ACTUALLY suck.
Metatags and Homepages are now censorship? (Score:3, Interesting)
Requiring a MetaTag does not rise to censorship, because it does not limit content. It's truth in advertising. It's also is trivial to implement. Requiring a home page with a enter button (that would set a cookie or session to signify acceptance for the rest of the site) also does not limit content. It too is trivial to implement. It would also probably withstand challange in court since it is no more restrictive than the brown paper cover over a magazine, which is already required in many places.
If this proposal limited content or imposed an onerous burden, then I too would call it censorship. But it does neither.