BleepingComputer.com: Congress Approves Child Protection And Safety Act

Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Congress Approves Child Protection And Safety Act

#1 User is offline   Scarlett 

  • Bleeping Diva
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,479
  • Joined: 25-April 04
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)

Posted 25 July 2006 - 08:54 PM

<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/public/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 />

#2 User is offline   saint satin stain 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL and Greenwich Village

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:36 AM

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.

saint satin stain
All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That's his.
Oscar Wilde
www.leftinalabama.com

#3 User is offline   Animal 

  • Bleepin' Animinion
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Site Admin
  • Posts: 17,988
  • Joined: 18-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Location, Location

Posted 26 July 2006 - 12:57 PM

Quote

intended to confuse a minor
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
The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown

Posted Image
A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." — Douglas Adams.
Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#4 User is offline   jgweed 

  • Forum Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Global Moderator
  • Posts: 27,228
  • Joined: 11-April 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.

Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:03 PM

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
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users