Politicians Target Social Sites For Restrictions 497
cnet-declan writes "Politicians are looking for reasons to convince citizens to vote in November, and polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet. Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries. The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites. House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims it's necessary to stop 'dangerous predators' out here on the Interweb."
Well that explains Murdoch/Clinton. (Score:5, Insightful)
Utterly fascinating - he's a powerful, ruthless, pragmatic man, normally the kind of person who gets along perfectly with the current republican administration - but it looks like the christian right's prediliction for censorship is starting to ruffle his feathers.
Anyway, for anyone unlucky enough to be using internet access in a library, I'm sure the circumvention techniques good for the great firewall of china [slashdot.org] will work inside the US as well. Maybe the BoingBoing guide to evading censorware [boingboing.net] will be useful too.
Oh - on a side note, check out the spoof Rupert Murdoch Myspace Profiles [myspace.com]
And this a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that time again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:
From TFA:
That's a rather wide range, and a quick perusal of the web (Google is your friend) gives ample reason why this is such a moronic idea:
And from Speaker Hastert's statement: Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Now, I'm not trying to deny that online predators exist and are a problem, but a better solution than a draconian ban on all discussion-type websites might be to actually educate your child about the danger...after all, the predator can't molest your child through the computer, and if a child knows better than to give out sensitive info, it's over before it begins. But of course, parents would rather have our legislature raise their children than take a little responsibility themselves, and the legislature is more than willing to pander to the irrationality of the general populace, especially in a year divisible by two. The problem with this approach is that everyone gets treated like stupid children that need to be protected, and that's unfair to those who still have their wits about them (although they seem to be in the minority).
More of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots.
Politics, sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
Great idea... (Score:1, Insightful)
Targeted at minors not adults (Score:4, Insightful)
Note the use of the word minors here. If you want to argue whether or not minors should be prevented from accessing sites like Slashdot, that's fine, but the article doesn't say at all that adults will be prevented from accessing those sites.
Dangerous indeed to politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
parents these days (Score:3, Insightful)
Brains say that laws are not a replacement for raising your kids. And teaching them the high-tech equivalent of "don't take candy from strangers" is a part of that.
So either do your job, or stop fucking around making babies if you can't handle them. There are also abortions for that.
Re:So the purpose of the government.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns. Lots of guns.
Just as guns can be used to repress people, they can be used to free people.
Of course, then the whole "throne of bayonets" thing comes into play...
Why does common sense stop when a computer is (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess this is yet another "save the children" campaign.
But guess what? Most people that abuse children are trusted friends or family members, not some slashdot geek in his mom's basement in Maine going after the poor children looking at websites at the library in California.
The problem is not MySpace or Slashdot, its that the US is full of lonely scared sick people that take it out of the easiest victims that they can, children. And although it is pretty common to do minor pedophilia, severe and chronic abuse is very rare.
So brilliant legislators, what is next? Outlawing telephones, children in public places, school, libraries, music, TV, well, everything besides the privilege of paying taxes?
Dipshits.
Keep taking our liberties, and you will understand what the 2nd amendment is all about.
Re:WTF? O.o (Score:3, Insightful)
Most 15 year olds consider not being handed cash by mom and dad to get the latest PSP or XBox title a big deal in life too. Not to say 15 year olds are not to be trusted but how is opening up a blog environment for them making these problems any better? Especially in a time and place where they are to be learning?
Just consider that if we set aside school time for your teen kids to get together for a group bitching session many people would be upset, this isn't that much different. While I find the blanket clause of any site that has a public forum a bit excessive at the same time I don't think that kids should be on MySpace when they're suppose to be learning basic computer skills.
Re:Targeted at minors not adults (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it also doesn't say how a computer is to know the difference between adults and kids. In some schools they might have individual user accounts that can be used. In libraries? I'm 99% certain they will be set to "err on the side of safety", i.e. reject access, and you have to jump through some hoops to get it enabled. Like, well, showing your new national ID card, maybe?
Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
Christian right's prediliction for censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
Murdoch knows that this is a pay-to-play, over-politicized, big-government country. If your business is of any size, you play all sides of the political spectrum. You keep all potential power brokers happy. This has NOTHING to do with Hillary's priciples, which would hardly vary from these Republican losers. Murdoch merely sees writing on the wall, sees how the Republicans have completely squandered their position in power, and is putting some money towards the other side. He is insuring that wheoever wins, he will be greasing their palms. He will also grease Christian right palms.
Does not compute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So the purpose of the government.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if it's China, that would be the US. If it's the US... hey, leave us alone... mind your own business... can we buy some more cheap goods?
Supposedly the arrangement is reciprocal: our government protects us form ourselves, and we protect ourselves from our government. Unfortunately, we Americans have gotten a little lackadasical in the upkeep department, and now we can't seem to throw out the bums when they do stupid things.
Censorship isn't motivating Murdoch, nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdoch's various media outlets cosy up to authoritarian parties wherever they go -- explaining the Fox-Republican mind meld, okay. He also happens to be quite satisfied with the regime in China, though, now you mention that "great firewall."
The People's Daily Online, March 16, 2005:
"In a meeting with Murdoch here Wednesday, Liu Yunshan, member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, and also head of the Public Department of the CPC Central Committee, thanked Murdoch for his "active efforts and strenuous work in advancing cooperation with China's news media."
Whatever's motivating him, Censorship ain't it.
Re:WTF? O.o (Score:1, Insightful)
The government IS the people. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
It's as simple as that.
Re:WTF? O.o (Score:2, Insightful)
We're just fostering good, old American values. Like putting sexual predation back in the home where it belongs.
KFG
Phoenix (Score:5, Insightful)
As another poster mentioned, this is the reason for the second amendment. It's just ironic that liberals might be leading the pack in wishing that it hadn't been all but repealed.
Where were the privacy rights guys when people wanted gun registrations? Now the government has lists of who could oppose, and they'll be the first to go when the red bird rises.
People have been so divided by this "Conservative" and "Liberal" false separation that they refuse to think about the implications of each. We're all guilty of unquestioningly accepting dogma that someone tells us is consistent with our particular "faith". The evidence is the apparent absence of "moderates" in America.
So here's the revolution: Stop thinking in terms of Liberal and Conservative. Stop letting other people speak for you and think for you. Re-think your beliefs, and know WHY you believe what you do.
I think most intelligent people would understand that disarming the populace is the first step of any dictatorship, and it's only now, when something that always seemed impossible in the U S of A now seems frighteningly plausible, that people will see the obvious. That's also when it's too late.
The irony is that liberals may have set the stage for a conservative dictatorship.
Re:The 2nd Amendment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's the other way around; maybe voting means nothing because 50% of the public is too stupid to take up their part of the process. Maybe it's these kinds of people who let things get bad because their too gutless to take 5 minutes out of their busy day and let their elected officals know what they're thinking.
Everyone who cries that they're screwed (by the government) and that there is no way to change things are right... as long as you keep sitting on your stoop and crying "poor me" you're not going to change anything.
Re:Predators, smedators (Score:3, Insightful)
This should NOT be enforced by the government.
It SHOULD be enforced by teacher/librarian watching the room and possibly filtering on the school level.
Extra legislation to make people do what they are already suppose to be doing?
This is a school-level issue. The school/district should make their rules and enforce them.
Re:WTF? O.o (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been this way since time immemorial. Teenagers are the great misunderstood masses. Their problems are hard for them to deal with because the shine of them being little kids has worn off, but their parents and other adults won't take them seriously.
And kids have been trying to talk about their problems in social groups forever. Now they have a place to do it that allows teens from far and away to share their feelings and try to make sense of their world, and maybe just maybe form some kind of lasting connection that will help them later in life.
Can't have that.
Listen, there have been sexual predators out for kids as long as all this has been going on. Does anyone honestly thing locking down MySpace is going to make them go away? They'll just go back to cruising the streets or hanging out around arcades, movie theatres, and convenience stores. If a sexual predator wants something, he/she will get it, Internet or no.
I think if we were better parents, talked to our teens, treated them like people and not possessions, we wouldn't have to worry about them hanging out in social networks. They might actually be able to take care of themselves. One thing I know: Congress can't run the country, let alone raise my children.
Proservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does not compute (Score:2, Insightful)
Politicians like this are an even bigger disgrace to the human race than usual. I can't wait for Hillary to get thrown out on her ass.
voting (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
A lot of good that did in Florida in 2000. And what about Deibolt's CEO boosting how he was going to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after they sold voting machines to Ohio in 2004? Yeap, he sure did, Bush won because Ohio's electoral votes went to him. I have nothing against evoting but the source code needs to be open source and there's a paper trail so people know the results are legitimate. I recall reading something back in 2000 on how Deibolt said it would be too expensive for voting machines to have printers or some such thing. That's funny, or NOT, because Deibolt is a maker of ATMs and I haven't seen one that does not have a printer. SImply if ATMs have printers I see no reason voting machines can't have one as well.
FalconRe:And this a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So the purpose of the government.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets face it though; in the end, you unfortunalty need violence. Honestly, do you really think power hunger people will care what some paper says?
Ask any battered wife how effective a restraining order is. My wife got one against her ex, but the cop advised her (off the record, of course) to buy a gun. You can NEVER rely on someone else to protect you, thats just the way it is.
Individual rights require individual vigilance (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want freedom, you must fight for it and defend it once won. Your rights exist only as long as you are willing to fight to defend them. The fight today is easier thanks to the efforts of those who have come before us, but the contest never ends. There will always be those who seek to oppress their fellow man. This sort of evil exists in all times and in all places. The only thing holding it in check is the vigilance of individuals working to protect their own rights and the rights of those around them.
The arguments that are being made by our would-be masters are of course lies. Whenever someone calls for something to be done "for the children," you can rest assured that they're up to no good. Censorship is always evil. The most that can be said about it is that sometimes it becomes a necessary evil. This is not one of those times. The only thing that can protect children from online predators is the same thing that can protect them from offline predators; parents. When parents look to the government to relieve them of their parental responsibilities all it does is empower the state. Government, being a necessary evil, should never have more power than absolutely necessary.
Some people are of course going to blame the Republicans and particularly the religious-right Republicans. In this case that is probably an accurate assessment. But don't forget that the other side of the aisle has been just as guilty of this sort of nonsense itself. When it comes to crap like this there are no good guys. Where the right wing is obsessed with "obscenity," the left is just as obsessed with "hate speech." Both groups are perfectly willing and eager to try to silence and censor the rest of us. The only thing that differs are the excuses they use in justification.
There are four boxes to be used, in the following order, in the defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. Freedom will only endure when these four boxes are properly used. Neglect them, and the tryants waiting in the wing will seize the opportunity.
Lee
Re:parents these days (Score:2, Insightful)
Both of my parents are teachers, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard this from them.
They've both taught in the inner-city and have had to deal with all sorts of parents.
There are quite a lot of parents who think their children angels and could never do anything wrong, even if they've been called in for the same thing five times. Not to be racist, but these "bad" parents tend to be single black women. Students with fathers in the home tend to behave better.
Parents need to learn to take care of their kids and not just dump them off at school and make them someone else's problem for a few hours. Fathers need to stay with the family. Be interested in what your kids are doing, but don't smoother them too much.
Just be a good parent, thats all that needs to be done.
Re:Does not compute (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing this country, it will take around 8 years and dozens of scandals.
Re:It's that time again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does not compute (Score:5, Insightful)
I would hate to see Hillary as a president. Leiberman may lose his seat soon in CT. I hope so.
I'm not a republican or a conservative... I just hate these 2 people, and want to see real American's elected to office. The kind that stand up for free speech, expression and have the fucking courage to tell Americans "NO" like the big babies we are. We need someone to remind us all of what AMERICA is about...
Tolerance... freedom... and a peaceful way of life... not dictated by religion, corporations, or wealth...
I'm tired of the two Americas... the one for the rich, and the one for the poor... Where the laws dont really apply to the rich... and the poor are looked upon as criminals by default.
Hillary and Joe are the kind of wealthy social elites that are disconnected from reality. Their idea of "America" is their happy wealthy communities, where they feel above those of us who enjoy violent movies, porn, and all kinds of language...
They feel they have to save us from ourselves.... they know better than we do.... They know what America should be for you and I...
No fucking thanks.
Tolerance and Freedom... Tolerance comes first
Re:So the purpose of the government.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are not. I don't generally run around blowing up children nor make excuses for those (including my gov't) who do. When my gov't is doing evil things I work my ass off to stop it and hold the idiots responsible. In a democratic society, there are plenty of peaceful mechanisms for doing so. And even in non-democratic societies, folks like Ghandi, MLK, and Desmond Tutu have shown that change can happen without resorting to violence.
Do you really think that the immigrant busboys who worked at the restaurant at the top of the world trade center were responsible for US policy and deserved death? Do you really think that the Iraqi kids who have died at the hands of Zarqawi inspired suicide bombers deserved death?
you really need to gain some perspective.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Re:Does not compute (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I want to be tall, dark and handsome. Just like my want, yours is not going to happen, so stop being a baby and get over it.
Your ideals are not shared by the "average" person. When the UK was thinking about installing blackboxes in cars so that Police could monitor where you'd been, my sister's (a smart graduate running her own marketing business) thoughts were "well if you don't have anything to hide what's the problem ?". Trying to raise her awareness of personal freedom and expression was like watching water flow of a ducks back....
Most people just don't care...
richard.
Re:Does not compute (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally, I'm a pretty conservative guy... but I see different things in "liberal" and "conservative" than most general people do. To me, the worst thing GW Bush has done (besides making piss poor executive decisions) is given the impression that conservatives/republican folks are conservative as a result of religious beliefs. And for many, that's true... but that's just not the case across the board. Not nearly so.
The biggest issue I have with the typical liberal camp is that they seem to operate with the concept that the general population are a bunch of imbiciles that don't know what they want, and cannot take care of themselves. Al Gore and John Kerry just spoke with such a patronizing tone that seemed to indicate that they wanted people to just go to work, and the gov't will spoonfeed them and shelter them. I always see Slashdot as a pretty liberal group... but many of us forget that we're also quite well educated compared to average, and generally quite capable of planning for retirement, finding a job with health care, and looking after our children's online activities.
On issues like MySpace, you see people in certain political parties coming full circle... so left they're right, and vice-versa. Nobody wants to give the opinion that they're not taking action against people that prey on kids... but nobody wants to infringe on free speech. So you get a complicated mix of "everyone fend for themseles/parents make sure you're doing your job/don't be naive and use common sense" and the typical ignorant crowd that always screams out "This is an outrage! Someone ought to make a law! What's being done to protect me!" It's difficult to actually label which choice is liberal, and which is conservative, 'cause it just isn't clear anymore... it's always tough when free speech/expression is used by a criminal. You can take the gun from the potential killer, but can you take the speech from a potential social offender?
Unfortunately, when you leave things up to individuals, there are always people who drop the ball. But when the latter group screams out "someone else ought to do something" you end up with a lot of stupid laws.
Lieberman is my senator... and I've never voted for him, because in the years I've been old enough to vote, he seems to have lost direction and given into the passing political outcries. He's a smart guy, but now he's just blowing in the wind.
Slight correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't worry too much (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does not compute (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. That has never left my mind, the whole PMRC shit.. Its insane.
A liberal should be for liberty, and that i consider myself a liberal in that light.
Hillary, Leiberman and Tipper Gore are liberal in the sense that they are at liberity to use her power to dictate their world view.
They do not respect true liberty. They have their idea of how we should live, in a "fuckless" world, meaning nothing offensive to them, or those that give them power.
So they pander to the fears of child molestation, and bad language, linking all of our worst fears together under the guise of "for the children"
Like it or not, every child in America will come home from school with a new word or two.
Raise the kids right, and dare i say, they wont be talking to horny adults online. They will of course be talking about sex to their peers... like it or not.. tough shit, thats the way to game goes in life.
How they DEAL with that... is the product of your parenting.
Democracy = bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this is a problem. The public should NOT be given the right to vote. Governance is an actual skill, and voting is part of that. Governance does not come naturally. Voting should be a PRIVELEDGE, and NOT a right. Like drivers licenses. You should be qualified about the issues you are voting for before you are allowed to vote one it.
To illustrate, consider that a dumb retard in Alabama is gonna vote for a president about issues like economics and diplomacy. Now, how is that retard supposed to be any more qualified in economics than a PhD economics professor in Chicago? Why SHOULD that alabama retard be given ANY influence over society? Just because he's alive? Being alive does NOT qualify you influence over other people. Heck, most people don't even have the capability to control their OWN lives.
The failure in a voting public is apparent here. You people have been bred to believe that voting is somehow 'good'. Unfortunately, it results in the most average of political leadership: the candidate with the most mass appeal will win. And, mass appeal doesn't mean success. The public is going to vote for the guy with the prettiest hair, or is "like them", which has nothing to do with how sound their economic policies are. Policy and pretty hair have nothing to do with each other, no matter how hard conservatives try to their correlation.
Democracy is no better than any other system. It GUARANTEES that your leaders are, at best, average. At least with a monarchy or dictatorship, it's possible to come up with a leader that's above average.
Democracy is a horrible idea. In addition, representative democracy is a horrible idea. In our system, we elect a representative on issues like economics and diplomacy. Why are we defining ONE reprsentative to handle EVERY issue? Does a PhD in economics automatically qualify you as an expert diplomat? Does the fact that you own a pest-removal company or run a baseball team mean you're going to also make the best decisions about free-trade or human rights? Of course not.
The idea of a single unified government is a suck-ass idea. It's why we have things like "lobbyists", because independent issues are hijacked on top of other issues. There really should be a mechanism for seperating powers. We really need a seperate government on each issue. Government is just a simple legal agreement between people. We need one government to handle the interstate highway system. We need another government to handle social security. We need a seperate government to handle coal trade between states. And so on. Possibly hundreds or thousands of seperate governments, with independent representatives and leaders and enforcement mechanisms. Each government funded independently by local governments.
Europe does this. Although it's a continent, many Europeans identify with each other. But, there isn't a central European government. It's a system of anarchy. They have various legal agreements between states, to handle things like coal trade, currency, military, etc.. America also needs to do this. We do need to do the same in the US, and break up the federal government. Let the 50 states be their own seperate countries.
Voting for Dems and Repigs solves nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
* Global trade that screws both American workers and third world workers
* An increasingly aggressive imperialistic foreign policy, can you say Hilary Clinton threatening Iran I knew you could...
* Passive acceptance of policies dreamed up by elite think tanks that only serve the top 5% of the population. So called centrist Dems are vowing NOT to investigate Bush for his crimes even if they retake the house:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
* Increasing intrusion into our private lives supported by both parties
* Increasing censorship of video games, music, and DRM supported by both parties
What real choice do I have other than at the local level where a few Greens or Libertarians squeak in? Does voting for Repigs and Dems at the state and national level solve ANYTHING? I think not. The ONLY issues Dems and Repigs disagree on are minor issues like abortion, the ten commandments on public buildings, flag buring, etc. And yes I will step on some toes here these issues are MINOR compared to global war, the abrogation of the constitution, our long term sustainable survival on the planet, and decent living wages for our working people. Get over your lifestyle issues and thinking voting for mainstream politicians solves anything. As Colbert so nicely put it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenberg
Re:Proservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
We're not talking about Democrats, who have their problems. Not among them are the destruction of America's government, treasury and global reputation. Democrats' problems are at least sustainable, unlike Republicans.
But everyone knows that. You know that. You're just offering the lamest apology for Republican crimes. "Slightly different from Democrats." "Not as bad as Saddam Hussein." "But Clinton."
My calm description of the mechanics of suckers who vote for cheap Republican refund checks at the expense of the country's fate was no rant. Nor was focusing on the Republicans, subject of the story we're discussing and the other unprecedented crimes against the country, "ignoring the Democrats". I'm ignoring Canadian government corruption, too - because it's outside the scope of this discussion. Though no doubt you'd prefer to drag it into the debate to dilute the guilt of the Republicans you're covering for.
Let's drop the pretentious "intellectual dishonesty" buzzwords and just say that I'm honestly, and accurately, discussing the topic at hand - Republican guilt - while you are trying dishonest tricks to protect Republicans by tarring others with the same brush.
Republicans control the government, which is out of control and causing daily catastrophes. Let's talk about how to get rid of them, rather than wallow in your preferred smokescreen irrelevancies.
Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)