Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: phranque
Operators of commercial websites with sexually explicit content would have to post warning labels on each offending page or face imprisonment under a new proposal in the US Senate....
...Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, who joined eight members of his party in introducing the bill on Tuesday, said: "The increase in internet use has given sexual predators new ways to prey on children. This bill, among other things, is intended to shut down these opportunities, and severely punish the degraded individuals who are involved in the sexual exploitation of our youth."
US Senate proposals: Label smut or face prison [management.silicon.com]
<snip>Please, let's steer clear of the politics here. Thanks</snip>
[edited by: trillianjedi at 7:39 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
joined:June 2, 2003
What am I missing?
Won't this work? Can't a PC be set to block the launching of specific file types? I'll be there's already products or simple settings that can accomplish this. "Hey, there already is a solutions that works better than your proposed legislation will ever work!
Even if an "all image blocking" solution will only work marginally, for the reasons everyone else has stated - the obvious camel in the tent - image delivery will simply move offshore in response to this law. Phooey.
[edited by: Webwork at 3:08 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
[edited by: trillianjedi at 7:41 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
There does need to be something in place, but without international co-operation it's not too likely anything will work.
I know it's not easy in a thread like this, but we either need to keep it that way, or nuke it.
Politics has no place on WebmasterWorld.
Apologies for the mass of editing and lack of stickies in the circumstances ;)
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. I tend to agree with the idea that it'll just help the 13 year old boys find their boobs faster. I'd have welcomed such a thing at 13 on my slooooow modem. (loading... loading... OMG is that a boob?)
The "problem": Kids are looking for porn. Last I checked human males wanted to see naked pictures catering to their sexual preferences starting at about 10 and ending at about death. I think more parenting and less legislating is in order here. I may be reading too much into this but it almost feels like the people who want the government to stop the pr0n might be so after the legislation so they can avoid having a proper frank "The Talk" with their kids.
if this is the case -
In practice, however, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly - in one case courts ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear.
then god help the lingerie retailers
[edited by: jatar_k at 2:06 am (utc) on June 21, 2006]
[edit reason] no politics thanks [/edit]
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.