"Label smut or go to prison" brings up a question, too. Should sites like Yahoo, MySpace, AOL, etc also be held to this sort of thing? People that have their own profiles are surely subject to a similar standard, right?
While none are promoting porn, it does leave a little room for written intent, too. I.e., will you get prison time for having the term "take it in the rear" for someone describing their delivery procedures for a restaurant? By the same token, it might help to weed out the guys who fake being girls, or whatever and make them more accountable for what they place on a site.
This is seriously a huge piece of legislation that will effect a wider scale of people than just the porn industry. Sites that specialize in modelling (either promotion or agency) will suffer devestating effects as well. It will continue to drive porn into a deeper hole, and will follow the path of Prohibition to make "speak easies" and "porn runners" prevalent, thereby driving the porn industry deeper underground and openning up a seedy black market.
The last I checked our descency laws were still governed by "what's acceptable in each municipality." And if porn is still that widely sought, it won't stop due to a label on a site that might have a wet bathing suit that shows the outline of a nipple or breast.
As to the degradation of women, I think that women are equally responsible for their actions in public, not just on a porn site. Characterizing porn moguls as exploiters, is permissable, but often unfair. I doubt very seriously that much porn is made with a gun to anyone's head. These are adults that choose to pursue the business, is my point. CP promoters are just that. They don't dabble in mainstream smut. They are driven by their depravity, and go to extremes.
Sexual predators aren't building many sites, either. They use the sites that support community interaction, and then strike from a cloaked darkness. They groom, and pursue their victims and do so in a manner that separates the weak from the strong. (The weak in this case are young folk without parental involvement). Isn't it funny? We can tell our children to stay away from the pool or stop them from driving without a parent, but "we" can't control their computer usage? Sad commentary on community standards, I'd say.
With that said, I don't want my women's sports features on a couple of the sites I maintain to be brought under the possibility that a female ice skater is conducting a potential lewd act while performing an aerial acrobatic.
Where is the line going to be drawn for things? And what is this really about? I think if you look deeper for Mr. Kyl, it's often about re-election, and not pragmatic sensability. I suspect he's like alot of my family that are reaching middle age and older, in that he has no clue about computer usage, implementation or the software available. He's likely taking advice from his secretary's husband who has a PC and "knows" how to use it.
Frankly, this stuff is ridiculous to me. Take care of your own, and like walking the streets, if you see a bad part of town, avoid it, and teach your children to avoid it, too, while you are actively watching what they do.
I know I've posted more than my 2 cents, and I apologize for that. I just want to remind people that our world has resorted to fear mongering. Marketers are selling based on fear (fear of security threats, fear of identity theft, and fear of the unknown), our mainstream media makes money off of fear tactics during Sweeps months, and our government is trying to legislate morality for the sake of the poor children and allowing our parental community the excuse that it "isn't their fault."
I admire the saving position of our minors, but let's start to have equal laws for parents that don't PARENT their children and permit the sexual predators to have a link to them. I say...ignore your child...go to prison. Maybe we'd have less MySpace victims to report about.