<img src='/images/misc/eye.jpg' style='float:right' vspace='8' hspace='8'> <b>The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content on their sites.</b><br /><br />By Declan McCullagh<br /> Staff Writer, CNET News.com<br /> Published: July 25, 2006, 1:48 PM PDT <br /> <br /> Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.<br /><br /> <div class='newslinks'><img src='http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/style_images/1/cs_page.gif'> <b>Link: <a href='http://news.com.com/Congress+spanks+naughty+sex+sites/2100-1028_3-6098325.html?tag=nefd.top' target='_blank'><font color='red'>CNET Article</font></a><br />

It is another case of big brother government aiding and abetting parents who wish to avoid realtime parenting. Parents want methods, formulas, plans, software, and laws that will do, they believe, the parenting for them.
It is simple. Your children's compute is in the livingroom, familyroom, or other common room where the parents may monitor what they do on the computer. Routers may be (this I approve) be configured to only allow them on the internet certain times. But the best child protection is a parent or parent surrogate parenting in realtime. Some provisions of this bill are unconstitutional and stupid.

That one statement right there, just shows how ludicrous this bill is. This bill does not have any "teeth" in it whatsover. This will only make civil liberties lawyers that much richer. Proving intent, is nearly impossible with a good lawyer on your side. How many lousey lawyers do the purveyors of sexual content keep on retainer?

I also have to agree it is a placebo for parenting that member saint satin stain, states very well.

Be (Get a real Law) Safe

Da Bleepin AniMod, Animal

I just wonder how long it will stand up under judicial scrutiny, since it relies on very vague criteria.
I am always extremely worried when the government, all for the best of reasons at the time, makes yet another attempt to interfere with free speech, and further regulate our lives. Each precedent (and who would object to keeping minors safe?) erodes our privacy and freedom just a little more, until at the "end days" we do not object to putting on our own chains.....
Cheers,
John