New US Link and Domain Law - Page 2

wmarr · #51 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 08:48 AM

I agree that regulations and enforcement with regards to internet preditors should be in place.
This is from my own experience while searching a site for graphics to use on a childs birthday card.
While searching, I clicked on a link for more graphics and a pornography site came up.
Now,,, this is a site for children, which has pokeman, digimon cards etc, it was titled Nikolodian if I am not mistaken. ( I may have mispelled it)But this was for kids!! And a porno link embedded in the page!! What if my son who is under the age of 13 were to go there on his own to look at stuff. It was by pure luck that I found it out first before hand. I think that all web sites should be examined for content and all links tested by an independent body.
If responsible and mature people whom have access to the internet could be hired by contract to search out sites and test them. I think that a lot of internet trash would soon be weeded out. But there must be a responsible governing body to report to that also has the power to shut those sites down that don't comply.

Peter (IMC) · #52 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

I fail to see what type of damage is inflicted onto a kid if he or she happens to see aspects of human sexuality.

Most kids up to about 10 to 12 years will probably not care/understand at all and close the window because they´re not interested at all. Most teenagers will understand very well what they´re looking at, and have some kind of interest as their hormones are mixing up their judgements big time. They are at a higher risk of damage but probably most won't be damaged at all.

However, you have just 2 choices: You either allow it or you don't. If you allow it, all kids can legaly see adult material online and, this is worse, if they´re allowed to see it, other people are allowed to present it, advertise it, etc. It shouldn't take that much imagination to realize that that is completely wrong.

Chatmaster · #53 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:11 AM

To be honest, It doesn't concern my country in ANY way what I do online. They have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do. So I have a huge privacy issue with that. I do as a parent have the responsibility to ensure that my kids has limited access or whatever is possible to ensure that they are brought up right. Since when is government responsible for my life yyyyyeeeeezzzz That is the lovely thing of living in a democracy. But these days it is easy for parents to just blame society or anything else for their possible failures! Sorry for the rant! Almost went bezerk there lol

DrTandem1 · #54 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:23 AM

This is no different than the government going after the tobacco industry when it marketed to kids with things like cartoonish "Joe Camel." The intent is not to keep kids from viewing porn. The intent is to keep kids from coming in contact with sexual predators.

For instance, if a child is trying to go to KidSites.com and they type "KidSite.com" the similarly named site better not be a porn site. After all, why in the world would an "adult" entertainment site call it that, other than to attract children?

If you read the article that was linked in the original post, you would have read that having the word "sex" and such in the URL would not be covered by this law. This law is more a truth in labeling law. It is not a free speech issue.

It would have absolutely no effect on legitimate sites and it would also have no effect on porn sites that did not try to lure children.

For those of you that don't think it can or will be enforced, I don't think you understand the worldwide hatred for pedophiles. There have been numerous arrests around the globe and cooperation between law enforcement of many nations as many of the perpetrators are outside the US.

bj · #55 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:36 AM

Tubby, you're right. Society should protect it's children.

BUT this law doesn't do that. It's just static and noise introduced by politicians gearing up for November elections by passing laws that push voter hot buttons without any substance within them that allow those laws to be enforceable.

Besides being unenforceable it's so badly written that the potential for abuse is just astounding.

It's amazing to me how anyone can think that a politician with no technical understanding, and no grasp of how the internet really works can write a law that WILL work for the internet. And if you don't think what I say is true just google "Senator Stevens" and see what you come up with.

greeneagle · #56 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:52 AM

bj:

Quote:

"It's amazing to me how anyone can think that a politician with no technical understanding, and no grasp of how the internet really works can write a law that WILL work for the internet. And if you don't think what I say is true just google "Senator Stevens" and see what you come up with."

Amen

Ken

**Tubby** · #57 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:54 AM

BJ - we do have some commonality here. I brought up my two sons while working, and I fought tooth and nail to only present them with the very best that was available to me. My youngest son is heading towards 19 years old, and he will be a child untill I tell him otherwise.
The feeling of pride my two sons give me is my greatest gift . . for a nation to find out as some time in the future it has no pride in its children would be the greatest loss.

children deserve only the best you can offer . . . pornography is not the best you can offer children.

P.S. When polititions draft a new law that is inefective, it is the same as not drafting the law.
(this to me is just a polititions way of pretending to do something - without real intent)

wmarr · #58 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The internet is young and the law requires updates in order to give the prosecuting power the tools to do something about criminal activities online.

If I understand it correctly all it says is that you can't link to adult sites saying it is something else. Seems to me that that has nothing to do with free speech.

These things never are a waste of taxpayer funding. Without laws we would still be living in the stone age. But of course, there are quite a lot of flintstones out there.. :)

I think that the latest responses are getting off the point a bit. Ok.. yes, you can have a porno site.
And Yes, you can "blog" or promote what you would like. But!!! here is the kicker that I feel that this law is attempting to counter. First let me state that I am not a pro web page builder/web programmer, but I do know this much. When you build a web page, and then create a "clickable link or button" you can have that link go to what ever place,page or documentation you would like. And you can NAME that button what ever you would like. This is what got me in the first place. If this "button/link" on the page was written to decribe more info for kids etc,and instead took you to a porn site. Does that not constitute some sort of fraudulent link? So in Response to you Peter, about my son learning and knowing and choosing, then you are a proponent of these fraudulent links and should be treated like all pedefiles out there. You have lost my respect for your "MCI" status and you personally. What I stated about a porno link embedded in page for children, was also just a glimps of what else is out there. Yes, of course when you are searching for something from a search engine, you will get toys -from kids to adults and sex stuff and you must then make your own choice. But you don't seem to get it. I already did my search, opened the page, and the embedded link, that this legislation is about was IN!! the page. But seeing as you are blind or just don't care, I know other readers (millions of them) who are on my side.

Peter (IMC) · #59 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmarr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The internet is young and the law requires updates in order to give the prosecuting power the tools to do something about criminal activities online.

If I understand it correctly all it says is that you can't link to adult sites saying it is something else. Seems to me that that has nothing to do with free speech.

These things never are a waste of taxpayer funding. Without laws we would still be living in the stone age. But of course, there are quite a lot of flintstones out there.. :)

I think that the latest responses are getting off the point a bit. Ok.. yes, you can have a porno site.
And Yes, you can "blog" or promote what you would like. But!!! here is the kicker that I feel that this law is attempting to counter. First let me state that I am not a pro web page builder/web programmer, but I do know this much. When you build a web page, and then create a "clickable link or button" you can have that link go to what ever place,page or documentation you would like. And you can NAME that button what ever you would like. This is what got me in the first place. If this "button/link" on the page was written to decribe more info for kids etc,and instead took you to a porn site. Does that not constitute some sort of fraudulent link? So in Response to you Peter, about my son learning and knowing and choosing, then you are a proponent of these fraudulent links and should be treated like all pedefiles out there. You have lost my respect for your "MCI" status and you personally. What I stated about a porno link embedded in page for children, was also just a glimps of what else is out there. Yes, of course when you are searching for something from a search engine, you will get toys -from kids to adults and sex stuff and you must then make your own choice. But you don't seem to get it. I already did my search, opened the page, and the embedded link, that this legislation is about was IN!! the page. But seeing as you are blind or just don't care, I know other readers (millions of them) who are on my side.

You totally misunderstood what I wrote.

In my opinion it is a good thing to make laws that make it ilegal to link to an adult page saying it is something else.

When somebody clicks on a link in a website he should know upfront where he will be taken. Deceiving kids to end up on adult site is criminal and should be prosecuted.

What I said was that the law needs to be updated so the prosecuters can actually charge people for this type of criminal behaviour.

My remark about free speech was to say that free speech does NOT protect the people that create these fraudulant links.

And making laws is not a waste of taxpayer money! We need laws to regulate society. A law that has the goal to prevent kids from seeing adult sites can not be a waste of money.

greeneagle · #60 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 11:22 AM

Peter,

To some extent, I see your point, but on the flip side, some laws do not amount to anything but political positioning just like BJ pointed out above.

Is anyone going to prosecute WPW for the link I posted earlier in this thread? Abjectly not!, it's information, not porn.

"Accidentals" are a very small part of the problem here... Let's all understand that loud and clear, especially when we can't even legislatively determine what pornography is.

There's your real loophole!

The kids all know certain keywords to look up, because they all whisper them to each other when the hormones start raging...

Blame it on the food additives or God, it really doesn't matter more than a couple years anyway!

"Accidentals" just don't stack up more than 1 or 2% probably, in face of the real issue here!: Straight out access to anything they want to see is at the real core, most of the time without parental restrictions or guidence.

"Respect" and "Wisdom" are almost archaic words in the English language anymore. I guess parents can't teach their kids what they don't know themselves though, can they?

The lax approach by some parents, whether it comes by lack of knowledge or a blind eye can't be legislated, and those kids are always going to be popular with their secret whisperings in their own little community.

That's just a fact of life that cannot be regulated by any law.

It still comes down to the parents primarily here, not legislation by unknowing lawmakers.

Ken

Pogaevik · #61 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 11:23 AM

This new bill is simply another tool that law makers can use to protect children. It will prove to be useful if it is used properly.

The biggest reasons I am posting this are to put my insignificant two cents in the mix, replies to two points of opinion.

The comment about 'prank links' reminds me of another law that was passed. It prohibited someone from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater as a prank. This was a result of incidents where people were getting trample and killed in the aftermath of a poorly thought out prank. A prank that results in murder is not prank, it is simply murder.

Now this does not mean that every time you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater someone will die. The fact that the chances are greatly increased that someone will die is enough to pass the law.

I don't think that law makers should use this law to go out and find every prankster out there. I do believe it should definitely be in place so that law makers can have a tool to prosecute with when abuse and even death does result. Some of the slime that are involved in child exploitation have used so many loopholes to escape their demise. This law simply shrinks another one of those loophole. I say Hurrah!

As for the freedom of speech, an obviously abuse right, is yelling fire in the theater a freedom? NO!! Endangering lives of others, especially children, in any form should be punishable. I did not say punished, only punishable. Why this technicality in semantics? As humans, there is always room for error. A parent that accidentally injures their child would not be punished. This obvious clarity should be stated for those idiots that think freedom of speech is a blanket for many violations.

My least favorite violation is the whole adware/spyware issue. They say it is freedom of speech to load the software and other junk on my private computer. Junk that results in crashes and loss of data and is very costly in damages. I know, I repair the computers on a weekly basis that have such damage.

If this 'graffiti' on my private property is freedom of speech, then allow me into the private homes of those unscrupulous advertisers to put my own graffiti on the walls of their bedroom that suggest where to go during their intimate moments. Allow me to put my advertising on their dining room walls to suggest where to shop for dinner ware. Allow me to sprawl on the kitchen walls where to buy their groceries. Lets see just how much they really think of the freedom of speech wild-card!!

Please, take my opinion with a grain of salt as they are merely the opinions of yet another unimportant geek that spends his life on the web.

Life goes on.

greeneagle · #62 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 11:26 AM

Welcome aboard WPW Pogaevik

Your opinions are welcome here.

Ken

Seminole386 · #63 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 11:38 AM

I read your reply and looked at your website. If you can't see the problem you are part of the problem. We are in a war because the kids are taught to hate at an early age. The kids are young and their minds can be molded. If you think kids living in an abusive home are affected your nuts. If you think kids that live in a loving home arent' affected your nuts. Actually you haven't learned to think.

Peter (IMC) · #64 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 11:39 AM

I understand that politicians will try to set up laws just for the purpose of gaining popularity. But if there is no law to prevent an act that is looked at by society as a criminal act, then we have a problem I think.

Luckily a law needs to be approved by more people than just the one that made it up,. :)

Wmarr didn't read my posts very well and got the impression that deceiving kids into visiting adult sites is not a problem. Obviously I never said that.

texxs · #65 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 12:46 PM

The last thig any of us wants (hopefully) is a governemnt that forces it's version of "morals" on us. Example; Marriage, today it's just gay marriage, but what if it was just Catholic marriage or (more likely at the moment) Methodist marriages? Where would that leave the rest of us?

As for sexual images themselves, isn't it up to me what and when my children can see?
Personally, porn is how I learned about sex as a child. Yes, I said as a child. (A young teen to be more specific). My parent woud only say it was something married people do and that it was bad unless you were married. Thank goodness for porn!

greeneagle · #66 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 01:15 PM

LOL texxs, Thank God someone stepped up to the plate here!:

Quote:

"Personally, porn is how I learned about sex as a child. Yes, I said as a child. (A young teen to be more specific). My parent woud only say it was something married people do and that it was bad unless you were married. Thank goodness for porn!

Unfortunately parents just don't know how to deal with their kids forthright and straight out about Sex. They are not taught respect for themselves or partners. That's the real crime here!

God made sex.
It wasn't intended for procreation only!
It was/is intended to accomplish multiple goods including bonding, stress relief and much more...

It's a damn shame we all want to stick it in a closet and let our kids find out about it on the Internet and in the back seat of a car!

Most of the "Free World" lives in a litigous society that can squarely place the blame on someone else, day or night!

We, are at fault, as parents for not knowing how to deal a square deal with our kids here.

Let's put the blame where it belongs!

Time to buck-up and pull it out from that little pseudo-christian folder in the bottom of that file cabinet in that dark back corner of the closet. - IMO!

If we honored it as intended, everything else would fall in order!

Ken

bj · #67 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 01:38 PM

greeneagle, you hit the nail on the head.

When my son was growing up, I think he was maybe 9 or so, he once did, while I was working nearby, stumble upon something he maybe wasn't ready to see. I heard his gasp, and saw what was up (pun intended!) and we ended up talking about it. He was a lot more embarassed than I was, but the end result, from that and other talks, is he is a well-adjusted young man who respects women and is in a stable healthy relationship with a gal we're both crazy about. He's now 24, has only had three serious girlfriends, and is still very good friends with his first two.

When I compare that to how my parents dealt with me . . .

Parents do need to deal with their kids honestly and forthrightly, and teach them. You can't let your kids embarassment or discomfort stop you. You can't let YOUR embarassment or discomfort stop you. You, as a parent, can't let teachers, or the internet, or the TV, or the guvmint do it for you.

Do there need to be laws in place re child predation? Yes. But there's also a slippery slope with the writing of laws for the internet, since other agencies in the government will USE our fear of child predators to gain ground in getting ALL of us to give up our privacy. This is a very complex area of the law, one most of us can't understand and can't see the dangers in for all of us.

Parents are the first and best protection, the "firewall" that keep children safe, provided that parents TAKE responsibility, and don't pass the buck.

bill@wtholmes.com · #68 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 02:25 PM

Like most others, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is yet another statute to get Congress persons re-elected. The government seldom prosecutes people for violating its laws. No new laws are needed. Misleading links, spoofing and most spam is fraud. If governments prosecuted fraud, there would be no problem.

We libertarians believe that prosecuting fraud, the initiation of force and the failure to compensate for property damage are the only valid functions of government.

We own ourselves. To sustain oneself and ones posterity, each individual must have the freedom to defend their property and use it as they please as long as their property does not damage the property of others or its value, or infringe on the equal right of others to use their property as they please without just compensation.

Imagine how simple the legal system would be if all statutes, including rape (property trespass), murder (property damage) and fraud (property misrepresentation) were based on property rights. Imagine how much better the environment would be if pollution were treated as a trespass, and all public lands, fisheries, mating grounds, hatcheries and herds, flocks and pods of migrating animals were auctioned to private owners for protection and cultivation for consumption and tourism. Imagine how much better transportation would be if all roads, railroads, airports and the FAA were privately owned. Imagine how much safer you would be if police focused on property rights. Imagine how much wealthier you would be if government were limited to protecting property and the liberty to use it. Imagine the businesses, services, charities, research and scholarships you could fund, and the environments and species you could protect with the consequent leisure time and discretionary wealth.

greeneagle · #69 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 02:32 PM

Bill,

First of all;
Welcome to WPW!

I understand how this conversation could have touched off a Libertarian nerve, I lean that way myself in some respects. However, I don't want to see the thread stray off-topic.

Ken

texxs · #70 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately parents just don't know how to deal with their kids forthright and straight out about Sex.

Well I do know the importance of it, but I do have to admit it wasn''t (isn't) easy to talk with my teenage son about sex, women and love, but I try. Soon it'll be my daughter. I'm really dreading that one!

jmiller · #71 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texxs

The last thig any of us wants (hopefully) is a governemnt that forces it's version of "morals" on us. Example; Marriage, today it's just gay marriage, but what if it was just Catholic marriage or (more likely at the moment) Methodist marriages? Where would that leave the rest of us?

Woo! *turning my head and shaking it*

That was gutsy. I've half-expected things to go pear-shaped after that one...but no forum bombs have yet ignited...

*knocking on wood*

russellcole38 · #72 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 05:52 PM

All you are introducing to the discussion is the same opinionated chorus consisting of, 'children should be protected.' However, you never mentioned what precisely is the damaging effect from kids looking at 'obscene graphics.' Furthermore, we live in a Constitutional Democracy where the rights of the minority are protected from philestine popular reactions to what I consider to be art, for the most part. Simply arguing that the majority of people are opposed to this nebulously defined crime does not persuade me much, because the Nazis were also a majority for some time in germany.
R cole

lanthus · #73 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 07:39 PM

Misspelt ... misspelled ... burned burnt ... dived dove ... heaved heaven ....

Is our country "stiled" the United States of America, or "styled" ...?--

Who decided that stile?- Not the US Constitution ... It was the Articles of Confederation ...!

I just finished a report on the early gods, --you know, Adam, Eve, Shw, Ra, Enos Anu, Cainan Enki Ea Aos, An Anshar Ansar Wsr Ausar Azur Ashur Asar Aser Osir ... Asari Assoros Osiris ... to mention a few spellings ... And found that Marduk killed great grandma Jehovah and used her body as a map ... You mean you didn't know?-- Where do you get your spelling information, if you don't know your own gods...?

Half the world uses alternate spellings ... not only in all the classic literature, but across the table: modern spellings (ninth ninthe nignth nineth, through thru), jokes and pronunciation indicators (ghoti fish), user handles, indigenous languages, pronunciation-based writing (clientele).

Domain names are restricted to nonspaced spellings, compounding the occasions: Both "digitallyimported" nice music, and "digitalyimported", another, exist.

The big trouble is going to be these webhosting servers that use a faulty version of LZW-compression that sometimes spits-out garbage ... or MSIE itself that boggles on simple phrases like +90-90 used in lieu of ±90 which does not work on all browsers. [You may not see the trouble right here: It's a wipeout]

We should petition the US Government for an Internet Fontset that indisputably spells words ... if we can find the Office For Redress Of Grievances ....

Ban emceeescher ...?

Ray.

lanthus · #74 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 08:48 PM

PS.

George Bush and Dick Cheney's FEC 3P submittals all say "17 = 11(a) + 11(b) + 11(c) + 11(d)" ... Can't spell?

Now, you may laugh, but, when I tried to submit a correct FEC 3P, I was told by the FEC that my submittal did not fit their exact inch-specifications and font-faces ...

Now, you may laugh, but, Did they fix it in 2000 ... No ... nor in 2004 (but their "friends" assault-2nd'ed me with their beer bottles on 0100 2003-04-05 0600 EST ... and you thought 9-11 was the big event?- It was a cover) ....

Ray.

DrTandem1 · #75 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texxs

The last thig any of us wants (hopefully) is a governemnt that forces it's version of "morals" on us. Example; Marriage, today it's just gay marriage, but what if it was just Catholic marriage or (more likely at the moment) Methodist marriages? Where would that leave the rest of us?

As for sexual images themselves, isn't it up to me what and when my children can see?
Personally, porn is how I learned about sex as a child. Yes, I said as a child. (A young teen to be more specific). My parent woud only say it was something married people do and that it was bad unless you were married. Thank goodness for porn!

Again, this is not about morals. It is about luring children to where they should not be. It would be the same as having a store with lots of pictures of colorful, cute cartoon animals and kid stuff on the windows and sign that said "Toy Store," but when the child enters it's a night club with alcohol and strippers.

No one is saying you can't have porn. They are saying you can't lure children into viewing porn.

Off-topic:

By the way, it isn't illegal for gays to marry anywhere in the US. It is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in most states. No one questions whether the opposite-sex couples are gay or not, and there is no law prohibiting it.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of a more equally fair law than traditional marriage. For every male that gets married so does a female and vice-versa.

**Tubby** · #76 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:34 PM

russellcole38
Quote;
"All you are introducing to the discussion is the same opinionated chorus consisting of, 'children should be protected.' However, you never mentioned what precisely is the damaging effect from kids looking at 'obscene graphics.' Furthermore, we live in a Constitutional Democracy where the rights of the minority are protected from philestine popular reactions to what I consider to be art, for the most part. Simply arguing that the majority of people are opposed to this nebulously defined crime does not persuade me much, because the Nazis were also a majority for some time in germany.
R cole"

Russell, pornographic material is harmfull to children. If you yourself consider Pornography to be art, Or do not know the difference between art and pornography this is not a problem for me, your opinion is something you are entitled to have, I do not wish challenge your opinions . I merely wish to state my own.

Pornography is harmfull to children, I can recognize no argument otherwise.
How far do you take your argument Russel. Would you Show your fifteen year old child a photo of a woman with her face absorbed in oral sex while having objects inserted analy . . or would you inspire your child to better more valued future and aspirations. Or don't you have children.

Pornography - (Art as you call it?) has its place, It is not for young formative minds. It should not be available to children as easily as accidently clicking a link .

DrTandem1 · #77 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 09:56 PM

In this case, it isn't just the viewing. They are trying to keep pedophiles from luring/meeting real children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

russellcole38
Quote;
"All you are introducing to the discussion is the same opinionated chorus consisting of, 'children should be protected.' However, you never mentioned what precisely is the damaging effect from kids looking at 'obscene graphics.' Furthermore, we live in a Constitutional Democracy where the rights of the minority are protected from philestine popular reactions to what I consider to be art, for the most part. Simply arguing that the majority of people are opposed to this nebulously defined crime does not persuade me much, because the Nazis were also a majority for some time in germany.
R cole"

Russell, pornographic material is harmfull to children. If you yourself consider Pornography to be art, Or do not know the difference between art and pornography this is not a problem for me, your opinion is something you are entitled to have, I do not wish challenge your opinions . I merely wish to state my own.

Pornography is harmfull to children, I can recognize no argument otherwise.
How far do you take your argument Russel. Would you Show your fifteen year old child a photo of a woman with her face absorbed in oral sex while having objects inserted analy . . or would you inspire your child to better more valued future and aspirations. Or don't you have children.

Pornography - (Art as you call it?) has its place, It is not for young formative minds. It should not be available to children as easily as accidently clicking a link .

**Tubby** · #78 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 10:04 PM

DrTandem1 Quote"In this case, it isn't just the viewing. They are trying to keep pedophiles from luring/meeting real children."

Yes. but this thread I thought was about links to pornography being disguised. . If I ventured into pedophiles, my opinions might well blow this whole thread apart . .

greeneagle · #79 (**permalink**) 07-28-2006, 10:23 PM

No one likes pedophiles and links are what we are discussing here, particularly in relation to the new US laws.

That doesn't exclude related rants as long as they maintain focus - IMO.

Ken

DrTandem1 · #80 (**permalink**) 07-29-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

DrTandem1 Quote"In this case, it isn't just the viewing. They are trying to keep pedophiles from luring/meeting real children."

Yes. but this thread I thought was about links to pornography being disguised. . If I ventured into pedophiles, my opinions might well blow this whole thread apart . .

Yes, I agree with what you said. However, read the article linked in the original post. They are talking about links that are disguised as something children would find enticing. The danger is not solely the viewing of porn, but the fact they are enticing children. Those sites want children. Not for viewing porn, but for abusing them. They are concerned with pedophiles, not the viewing of obscene material.

MekhongKurt · #81 (**permalink**) 07-29-2006, 06:04 PM

It's hard for me to criticize the politicos over their *apparent* intent in this instance.

A long time ago, I worked a little while in public law enforcement, then a much longer while in the much more satisfying (if not financially) private sector.

But just over a quarter-century ago, I hung up the ole badge and gun for the last time, in no small measure because of a call I answered during which I pulled a father off his daughter -- then found out the laws were so screwed, due to "lawyer language/legalese" the police and prosecutors had zero choice other than to let . . . well, I have to keep my language clean. "Had to let him go" -- uncharged, unpunished.

His victim committed suicide a short time thereafter.

Tough anytime. Probably really tough at 8 years old.

And last I knew -- admittedly many years ago -- that . . . um, "gentleman" . . . was still walking free.

What I would like to tell our legislators is to stop worrying about fancy language. Someone rapes anyone, especially a minor, it's an offense. And "rape through deception" -- misleading URL's, in the current contxt, qualifies, IMHO -- ought not be so obscured.

I guess I should say I'm no better than the average guy next door. And, I hope, no worse. But this stuff, and our politicians' groping attempts to deal with it both make me turn a bit green. With ill, not envy.

Chatmaster · #82 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 05:07 AM

Living in South Africa and also working in law enforcement I saw pretty much everything you can imagine. The fact of life is there are plenty of sick people out there. If you look at what television is up to society has degraded with it I guess. I remember a time where a kiss in a movie was a huge discussion these days even soaps are of limits to my children. It is all just getting to sexual. The point? That is the responsibility I have to teach my children the wonderfull things in life, not the responsibility of government.

The fact is however that the US government has passed a law that makes absolutely no sense at all. This is a cause for worry as it seems like politics and positions of power are more important than the actual purpose government is there for. If you look at Senator Stevens and all the publicity he has been receiving it is absolutely shocking that a senate veteran like him has lost the perspective of what he is actually doing there, representing and serving the public.

If you look at the online gambling law (HR4777) that has received the same standard of ignorance and was clearly also compiled by non internet literate people it seems that the internet has become a political playground for the missinformed.

I say again the intention is noteworthy but applying this new law is impossible, it was clearly written for votes and not to accomplish anything.

Terry D Clark · #83 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 10:08 AM

I knew this day would come when directing folks to a bogus site would be a crime. Like others here I wonder how it can be enforced and feel it is another example of our legislators making political points while enacting laws "for the kids" which cannot be enforced and only serve to sway voters without actually protecting anyone.

As far as BJ's comments about parents being parents, it is true that the government will not protect them for you, and all the laws in the world will not relieve a parent's obligation to protect their kids. It is my belief that the time to confront porn in your child's life is when they are young and impressionable. Clicking on the link to the embarrassing site while the child looks on gives the parent the opportunity to discuss porn and sex in general. Although this may be uncomfortable for the parent, it is something they need to address and not something to be pawned off on the rest of us. It doesn't matter if both parents are working, the obligation is still there. Deal with it.

jon1my · #84 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 08:23 PM

As usual, the Government is guilty of trampling the Constitution, again. When are the citizens of this once great country going to demand that proper oversight of the 3 branches of Government is restored, and the guidelines laid out to provide checks and balances are properly followed? Do Americans as a group still have a backbone? I'm having my doubts, and being proven correct with every Bill we allow our Representatives and Senators to pass on our behalf. Do you people remember how Government is supposed to operate. We elect our representation, who is supposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituants. When was the last time you were polled about your feelings towards a particular Bill making it's way through Congress? I am 55 years old, and have been a registered voter continuously since I turned 18, and I have never been asked my opinion, though I regularly contact my elected officials and voice it.

Of the people, for the people, by the people. Let's get it back in line!

As for the recently enacted Law; it would be so much easier to just require a "safe page" stating that material not suitable for minors would be displayed if you continued on this site. How simple is that? Two thirds of the Law is impossible to enforce, and there are already Laws on the books that deal with the issues of Morality.

I agree with about everything "bj" has espoused, we aren't doing our children any favors by letting the Government "raise" them. In addition, any parent that has stooped to the level that they have allowed their child to be "chipped" under the guise of providing a degree of safety, ought to be rendered sterile so they won't be able to be that guillible again.

Now let's see how this forum feels about "freedom of speech".

Jonathan

bj · #85 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 09:07 PM

Gee, thanks for the support, guys!

Quote:

We elect our representation, who is supposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituants. When was the last time you were polled about your feelings towards a particular Bill making it's way through Congress?

I just wrote to Senator Santorum to ask him to support Network Neutrality. The Response (and my response to it) says it all.

I'm going to add just one more bit of fuel to the fire. In the past, the parents I heard most loudly coming out in support of laws like this (most times without even reading them, just catching a two minute blurb on the evening news) and complaining that 2 working parents already had too much on their plate to police every action of their kids were the ones who lived in huge houses in upper middle class neighborhoods with mortgage payments that required those two incomes, instead of a more modest home in a lesser but still decent neighborhood that could be supported on less. The "toys" in that McMansion were not ones just for the kids-- the huge bigscreen tv with the rest of the state of the art home entertainment system hooked to it, the dvd, the tivo, two car payments on better model cars, etc etc etc. Anyone who chooses to live like this, often at the max those two incomes will allow, is mortgaging their kids' future, trading time that could be spent with the kids for "things".

DrTandem1 · #86 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1my

As usual, the Government is guilty of trampling the Constitution, again. When are the citizens of this once great country going to demand that proper oversight of the 3 branches of Government is restored, and the guidelines laid out to provide checks and balances are properly followed? Do Americans as a group still have a backbone? I'm having my doubts, and being proven correct with every Bill we allow our Representatives and Senators to pass on our behalf. Do you people remember how Government is supposed to operate. We elect our representation, who is supposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituants. When was the last time you were polled about your feelings towards a particular Bill making it's way through Congress? I am 55 years old, and have been a registered voter continuously since I turned 18, and I have never been asked my opinion, though I regularly contact my elected officials and voice it.

Of the people, for the people, by the people. Let's get it back in line!

As for the recently enacted Law; it would be so much easier to just require a "safe page" stating that material not suitable for minors would be displayed if you continued on this site. How simple is that? Two thirds of the Law is impossible to enforce, and there are already Laws on the books that deal with the issues of Morality.

I agree with about everything "bj" has espoused, we aren't doing our children any favors by letting the Government "raise" them. In addition, any parent that has stooped to the level that they have allowed their child to be "chipped" under the guise of providing a degree of safety, ought to be rendered sterile so they won't be able to be that guillible again.

Now let's see how this forum feels about "freedom of speech".

Jonathan

Well, your solution, a safe page, has failed. They are not only not doing that, but they are actively pursuing children.

Your Constitutional rights are not being trampled. On the contrary, they are not banning sites beyond child porn. They are simply requiring truth in labeling a link to prevent the enticing of children into visiting a porn site under false pretenses. To quote you, "How simple is that?"

DrTandem1 · #87 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Gee, thanks for the support, guys!

Quote:

We elect our representation, who is supposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituants. When was the last time you were polled about your feelings towards a particular Bill making it's way through Congress?

I just wrote to Senator Santorum to ask him to support Network Neutrality. The Response (and my response to it) says it all.

I'm going to add just one more bit of fuel to the fire. In the past, the parents I heard most loudly coming out in support of laws like this (most times without even reading them, just catching a two minute blurb on the evening news) and complaining that 2 working parents already had too much on their plate to police every action of their kids were the ones who lived in huge houses in upper middle class neighborhoods with mortgage payments that required those two incomes, instead of a more modest home in a lesser but still decent neighborhood that could be supported on less. The "toys" in that McMansion were not ones just for the kids-- the huge bigscreen tv with the rest of the state of the art home entertainment system hooked to it, the dvd, the tivo, two car payments on better model cars, etc etc etc. Anyone who chooses to live like this, often at the max those two incomes will allow, is mortgaging their kids' future, trading time that could be spent with the kids for "things".

You are being misled on Net Neutrality or you are being misleading. You should pay for the level service you want, not make others who don't use your service pay for you.

Why should grandma pay $200/month for internet access to send emails, so someone else can watch videos? How about grandma paying $9.95/month and the big bandwidth users pay the for what they use?

Keep the government out of regulating the internet. Look how high cable TV prices went when they got involved in that to "protect" the consumer.

bj · #88 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 10:16 PM

Paying for the bandwidth we use is a DIFFERENT issue from being told what we can access quickly and what we might not be able to access at all. You've bought into the Telco Lie. Both content providers and people who access content already pay for the bandwidth they use.

But Network Neutrality is offtopic. I know I brought it up but I did so just to illustrate other points about the politics of politics, and when politicians write laws without doing their homework or paying attention to what their constituents really need.

jon1my · #89 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Well, your solution, a safe page, has failed. They are not only not doing that, but they are actively pursuing children.

Your Constitutional rights are not being trampled. On the contrary, they are not banning sites beyond child porn. They are simply requiring truth in labeling a link to prevent the enticing of children into visiting a porn site under false pretenses. To quote you, "How simple is that?"

So, if that soulution failed, it was because of the inability of Law Enforcement. So how do you think they will enforce something that is so much greater in scope than that which they have failed to enforce in the past? Do you really want more of "Big Brother"? Because the only hope they have to enforce this Law, is to use more invasive methods than already in use, and that is something I neither feel is necessary or desireable.
Jonathan

DrTandem1 · #90 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Paying for the bandwidth we use is a DIFFERENT issue from being told what we can access quickly and what we might not be able to access at all. You've bought into the Telco Lie. Both content providers and people who access content already pay for the bandwidth they use.

But Network Neutrality is offtopic. I know I brought it up but I did so just to illustrate other points about the politics of politics, and when politicians write laws without doing their homework or paying attention to what their constituents really need.

This is why I say you have been misled. You don't understand what the backbone builders and maintainers have said, which is they want the status quo, "pay for what you use, not what some one else uses. By the way, these are not just the telephone companies, but the entire cable industry as well.

Bandwidth providers want unlimited bandwidth at no extra cost. They are twisting the noble idea of Network Neutrality, which was simply to allow you the user to connect with any legal software and equipment you chose and access any lawful site.

Think of the internet as a road. You want to take a semi loaded with 80,000 tons on the road? Well you better pay the fees at the scales. Why? Because your heavy load is hard on the road, which needs to be maintained.

You want to ride alone? Better rent or buy a car, otherwise take the bus. The builders and maintainers of the road are not going to pay for your vehicle. You need to pay for the use of the road. The more of the road you use, the more you pay.

The internet is no different.

While I agree that many politicians and lawyers have no clue about technology, that is not what is at issue with the original point of this thread. It is simply saying, "Don't disguise links and URLs that lead to porn as links to children sites."

I would assume that you have no problem that the FDA does not allow lead in food. It doesn't outlaw lead, it just tries to make sure it isn't ingested.

What if you went to fuel your gasoline powered car and the pump marked "Gasoline" really dispensed diesel? According to some here, it's "Ho Ho Ho! Buyer beware! Too bad. We have the freedom to do what we want..."

DrTandem1 · #91 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1my

So, if that soulution failed, it was because of the inability of Law Enforcement. So how do you think they will enforce something that is so much greater in scope than that which they have failed to enforce in the past? Do you really want more of "Big Brother"? Because the only hope they have to enforce this Law, is to use more invasive methods than already in use, and that is something I neither feel is necessary or desireable.
Jonathan

You haven't made a case for not doing it. So, what you are saying is that you have no problem with someone luring children to pedophiles. Do I think that this will completely stop pedophiles from preying on children on the internet? No, but it won't hurt.

What I see in all of these responses is a bunch of arguing with no substance. I suspect your real agenda is with the source, not the actual law.

I wonder how many of you remember Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife) wanted to put stickers on record albums and audio CDs as a rating system to keep children from buying certain ones? Yep, and ol' Al Gore, who "took the initiative in creating the internet," was behind her 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4279560

jon1my · #92 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 08:43 AM

DrTandem1, I am not arguing a point in support of pedophiles and deviants. I disdain them as much as you. The problem I have with the new Law, is that any of us could face fines or jail time for a simple spelling or grammatical error. How many times have you made a typo in links you have posted? Would you be willing to spend time in jail if your simple error pointed to one of those sites? If you argue that it is a simple error, then why can't anyone else, as well?

I stick to my original cure ie: the safe page. If a site operator doesn't have that, they are clearly in violation, no mistakes. If a person is directed to that site by any means, they are warned before going further. At that point, it becomes their choice, not the perpetrator's. Of any options I've seen enacted or proposed, this seems to be the most enforceable and least contestable. It is as black and white as can be had, either you have the page posted or you don't. No argument, guilty or innocent. It then becomes the responsibility of enforcement to find a way to effectively enforce it. That is all that is necessary.

Jonathan

bj · #93 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 10:20 AM

Dr. Tandem. You're the one who's been misled. Everyone pays for their bandwidth, the guys on either end and the bandwidth providers in the middle through peering agreements.

Did you know that the internet used to be made of PUBLIC peering points until the telcos bought them up?

And to keep this on topic, I agree with jon1my. Laws that are currently on the books haven't been enforced vigorously, why would you think this one would. And if you had read this law you'd clearly see that it's badly written and that the opening for possible abuses of it is one you could drive ten 18 wheelers through.

DrTandem1 · #94 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Dr. Tandem. You're the one who's been misled. Everyone pays for their bandwidth, the guys on either end and the bandwidth providers in the middle through peering agreements.

So, why do you want to change that with Net Neutrality? The average user would pay an incredibly high price for access to the internet. That's the whole point, everyone pays for what they use, now.

Every time the government gets involved with regulating communications rates, the price for the consumer goes higher. Every time they deregulate, the price goes down. Long distance is a good example. As soon as the telcos were allowed to be on an even playing field, long distance costs are a thing of the past.

Let the market drive the prices. Adding things like Net Neutrality is a grassroots-sounding name that hides a thief.

Truth in labeling is a different story. A link to porn should not be disguised as a link to a child's site. Please tell me you don't disagree with that.

DrTandem1 · #95 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1my

DrTandem1, I am not arguing a point in support of pedophiles and deviants. I disdain them as much as you. The problem I have with the new Law, is that any of us could face fines or jail time for a simple spelling or grammatical error. How many times have you made a typo in links you have posted? Would you be willing to spend time in jail if your simple error pointed to one of those sites? If you argue that it is a simple error, then why can't anyone else, as well?

I stick to my original cure ie: the safe page. If a site operator doesn't have that, they are clearly in violation, no mistakes. If a person is directed to that site by any means, they are warned before going further. At that point, it becomes their choice, not the perpetrator's. Of any options I've seen enacted or proposed, this seems to be the most enforceable and least contestable. It is as black and white as can be had, either you have the page posted or you don't. No argument, guilty or innocent. It then becomes the responsibility of enforcement to find a way to effectively enforce it. That is all that is necessary.

Jonathan

I have never made a typo that, for example, spelled "child" instead of "porn." Please cite an example of what you mean.

DrTandem1 · #96 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

DrTandem1 Quote"In this case, it isn't just the viewing. They are trying to keep pedophiles from luring/meeting real children."

Yes. but this thread I thought was about links to pornography being disguised. . If I ventured into pedophiles, my opinions might well blow this whole thread apart . .

It is. Why else would someone want to lure a child to porn?

bj · #97 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

So, why do you want to change that with Net Neutrality? The average user would pay an incredibly high price for access to the internet. That's the whole point, everyone pays for what they use, now.

Net Neutrality doesn't CHANGE anything. It's been the law since the beginning, until the FCC mucked about with things (at the behest of those same telecomms who lied to us in '96 to scam the taxpayer out of billions of dollars.) Net Neutrality has been in place since the beginning, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying.

DrTandem1 · #98 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Quote:

So, why do you want to change that with Net Neutrality? The average user would pay an incredibly high price for access to the internet. That's the whole point, everyone pays for what they use, now.

Net Neutrality doesn't CHANGE anything. It's been the law since the beginning, until the FCC mucked about with things (at the behest of those same telecomms who lied to us in '96 to scam the taxpayer out of billions of dollars.) Net Neutrality has been in place since the beginning, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying.

If it doesn't change anything, why are they pushing it so hard? All Net Neutrality originally said was that the end user should be able to access the internet with their choice of legal software and equipment and not be blocked from legal web sites. It was to enhance competition from service providers.

It was not today's twisted form of providing unlimited bandwidth for everyone at no cost, which would slow the internet to a crawl. No one would invest in the network without a return on investment possible. In other words, it would be equally miserable for everyone.

It should be called Network Mediocrity. Socialism, it's failed everywhere it has been tried.

bj · #99 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 03:21 PM

NO ONE has a problem with paying for amount of bandwidth used. What Network Neutrality is about is protecting against censorship and discrimination and continuing to grant the internet common carrier status.

Quote:

If it doesn't change anything, why are they pushing it so hard?

So you can put this in perspective as to who is doing the pushing, The telecomm and cable company lobbyists have spent $500 for every ONE dollar spent by the grassroots groups. Now, tell me this-- Why are the telecomms pushing so hard to change the status quo? (and it HAS BEEN the status quo) Don't you think that they have SELF interest in mind? They wouldn't be spending millions of dollars lobbying and making campaign contributions (both my senators have been funded by Comcast) if the end of Network Neutrality wasn't a permission for them to mint money and boost stock prices, with the blessing of congress?

Quote:

It was not today's twisted form of providing unlimited bandwidth for everyone at no cost, which would slow the internet to a crawl. No one would invest in the network without a return on investment possible. In other words, it would be equally miserable for everyone.

It should be called Network Mediocrity. Socialism, it's failed everywhere it has been tried.

If this is true then why is it that the US lags behind many other countries in fiber optic deployment? Why do US consumers already pay more for less, despite all the billions of dollars in tax incentives the telecomms have received since '96 to build out that network? Which, by the way, they never did. We US taxpayers have already paid the bill to contractors who reneged on the deal. Why do you believe them now? If they manage to push this through they'll just do what they've historically done-- take the money and run. They may throw a couple bones to a couple places as a PR ploy, but the majority of the network buildout will still be neglected AND we'll be paying even more for less. What's amazing is that it's already been proven that their packet sniffing proposals are not cost effective, and will actually hamper and slow down the very network they will be charging more for. It will cost less money to just build the damn FI network for increased capacity-- and free up that last mile, open it up to TRUE competition. Those same companies who are saying there should be no internet regulation are the ones who benefit from last mile regulation.

By the way, there you go again with the untruth-- everyone pays for bandwidth, it's NOT free. What the Telecomm and Cable Companies want is the ability to regulate the traffic by whose packet is travelling the pipes. In other words-- discrimination.

You seem to think network neutrailty will increase prices. That's not so. Your argument (or rather your parroting of the Telecomm party line) just does not hold up.

You've also bandied about that we should let the market determine things. The telecomms and cable companies are NOT a free market, they're regulatory whores. How many broadband choices do you have? I only have two, and one is so oversubscribed it's as slow as dialup during peak times. Oh, and in order to get that one I would have to pay for cable tv, even though I don't even own a tv. That's called bundling, and the telecomms and cable companies are both guilty of it to differing degrees. Many of my friends are limited to one bandwidth choice (in some cases satellite only) and this is in a relatively affluent but predominantly rural area just 50 miles from NYC.

I also find it interesting you simply talk without backing up what you're saying with any links or statistics. And what you say sounds like it could have been written by one of Mike McCurry's staff. In other words-- where's your credibility on this?

DrTandem1 · #**100** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

By the way, there you go again with the untruth-- everyone pays for bandwidth, it's NOT free. What the Telecomm and Cable Companies want is the ability to regulate the traffic by whose packet is travelling the pipes. In other words-- discrimination.

Yes, again, while you obfuscate by throwing everything irrelevant under the Sun at this, everyone pays for the amount of bandwidth they use. Please answer the question directly, why do you want to change this?

No one is discriminating content. How much data do you want to send? The more, the higher the cost. If you pay $15 for 1.5 meg downstream, is it discrimination because you must pay $49 for 6 meg?

It's really not that complicated. If a company doesn't want to pay for the amount of bandwidth they use, they don't get the bandwidth. No one is saying that specific packets aren't allowed to traverse a backbone. I realize that's how you are trying to paint this.

Pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses. Use whatever legal software and equipment you want. Access any legal site on the internet. That's true Network Neutrality. Not having some giant content providers trying to legislate free bandwidth for themselves while forcing average users to pay for the extra cost.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode