New US Link and Domain Law - Page 3

bj · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

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.

Um, we are in agreement with the Network Neutrality definition. What we are not in agreement on is what the Telecomms are doing. They wish the end of network neutrality so that they CAN packet sniff and discriminate. That's what this has been about all along. That's what they're planning on doing. They're trying to justify it by saying they're going to use that "fast pipe" to provide cableTV-like services, but once the door is open for packet sniff discrimination they'll just turn the internet into one big TV like entity, with everyone paying for access every which way, and the strong possibility that nobody on the receiving end will get what they wish. If I want to go to joe's pizza website I do not wish my dsl provider to send me to Pizza Hut since PH paid and the neighborhood guy couldn't afford to.

And the Giant Content Providers already PAY for their bandwidth no matter WHAT the Telecomm guys are saying. Google pays. You pay. I pay. Earthlink pays. Covad pays. In fact Tier 3, the backbone monopoly, gets everyone for blood money, when it used to be that the public peering points ran on reciprocal agreements. Bottom line is the telecomms just want us all to pay MORE.

Network Neutrality has been in place since the beginning. Everyone already pays for their bandwidth. The internet is thriving. Why do you think the Telecomm's fix for something that ain't broke is a good idea?

Keep in mind that we've ALREADY PAID for them to build the fiber network to the home. Do you have fiber to the home? I don't.

Chris · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 05:08 PM

some of you guys are entirely too black or white for discussions like this. DrTandem, no i do not think every adult site out there is trying "lure" kids... in fact, i remember from my childhood (before i was 18) trying to sneak peeks at any playboys or penthouses lying around. were those publications trying to lure me into a sordid pedophile ring (i think not)? or was it the person's fault who left the mag laying around where a young teen could get ahold of it (same as a parent that won't take the time to introduce filters and passwords into their children's internet use).

did you ever think that some of these under 18 year olds were trying to sneak a peek themselves by using the internet instead of dirty magazines? or are you still saying the only reason a kid (and yes, teenagers, especially those under 18, are still kids) goes to a porn site is because they were lured and not for the visual stimulation these sites offer ? most pedophilia internet offenses seem to iniate from forums and chat rooms anyways. the sites used by the scum pedophiles are usually private as it is.

the problem is you have internet illiterates trying to settle the biggest technological frontier in ages. and they are failing miserably at it. with that in mind, yes, warning pages for LEGITIMATE sites is all that should be required. going after internet pedophiles with standards that don't even address their methods of attracting victims is pathetic.

DrTandem1 · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

some of you guys are entirely too black or white for discussions like this. DrTandem, no i do not think every adult site out there is trying "lure" kids... in fact, i remember from my childhood (before i was 18) trying to sneak peeks at any playboys or penthouses lying around. were those publications trying to lure me into a sordid pedophile ring (i think not)? or was it the person's fault who left the mag laying around where a young teen could get ahold of it (same as a parent that won't take the time to introduce filters and passwords into their children's internet use).

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

the problem is you have internet illiterates trying to settle the biggest technological frontier in ages. and they are failing miserably at it. with that in mind, yes, warning pages for LEGITIMATE sites is all that should be required. going after internet pedophiles with standards that don't even address their methods of attracting victims is pathetic.

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

DrTandem1 · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Quote:

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.

Um, we are in agreement with the Network Neutrality definition. What we are not in agreement on is what the Telecomms are doing. They wish the end of network neutrality so that they CAN packet sniff and discriminate. That's what this has been about all along. That's what they're planning on doing. They're trying to justify it by saying they're going to use that "fast pipe" to provide cableTV-like services, but once the door is open for packet sniff discrimination they'll just turn the internet into one big TV like entity, with everyone paying for access every which way, and the strong possibility that nobody on the receiving end will get what they wish. If I want to go to joe's pizza website I do not wish my dsl provider to send me to Pizza Hut since PH paid and the neighborhood guy couldn't afford to.

And the Giant Content Providers already PAY for their bandwidth no matter WHAT the Telecomm guys are saying. Google pays. You pay. I pay. Earthlink pays. Covad pays. In fact Tier 3, the backbone monopoly, gets everyone for blood money, when it used to be that the public peering points ran on reciprocal agreements. Bottom line is the telecomms just want us all to pay MORE.

Network Neutrality has been in place since the beginning. Everyone already pays for their bandwidth. The internet is thriving. Why do you think the Telecomm's fix for something that ain't broke is a good idea?

Keep in mind that we've ALREADY PAID for them to build the fiber network to the home. Do you have fiber to the home? I don't.

Your argument, telcos want you to pay more, would be more convincing, if the telcos hadn't lowered prices to consumers to below the cost of dial-up in many areas.

As far as IPTV (if that's to what you are alluding), its their (telco's) product and on their own network. They don't have to charge themselves for that. If that was really the issue, don't you think the cable companies would be fighting the telcos too?

Maybe you want to pay for 500 cable TV channels and only watch seven of them. Personally, I'll be paying ala carte when it's available and saving a ton of money.

Don't worry, the competition with cable TV will ultimately cause your cable rates to decrease dramatically, as did long distance.

Also, if what you say is true, how does Vonage stay in business?

Competition is the key, not socialism. Don't just jump on a cool-sounding bandwagon. Think. If you won't think, "do it for the children."

bj · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Competition is the key, not socialism.

This is where your argument completely falls apart. There is no competition because Telecomms and Cable Companies are protected by Government Regulation and Consumers don't have choices.

Oh, and I don't buy cable. I could not care less what's on TV or how many channels you or anyone else has. And I don't think I should have to pay more for my broadband so you can watch more TV. And I and everyone else WILL pay more if the Telecomms and Cable Companies have anything to do with it.

DrTandem1 · #**106** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bj

Quote:

Competition is the key, not socialism.

This is where your argument completely falls apart. There is no competition because Telecomms and Cable Companies are protected by Government Regulation and Consumers don't have choices.

Oh, and I don't buy cable. I could not care less what's on TV or how many channels you or anyone else has. And I don't think I should have to pay more for my broadband so you can watch more TV. And I and everyone else WILL pay more if the Telecomms and Cable Companies have anything to do with it.

More obfuscation. The US is far larger and its population more widely dispersed than its densley populated cousins. Alos, the telecom industry in the US is not owned by the government. Nice try.

begabloomers · #**107** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 11:28 AM

Posted this on another related thread but feel it is pertinent to any discusion about "rights" "morals" "protecting children".

Children do need to be protected Tubby but when did we decide that the "gubberman" ( to use a a negative indigenous australian expression for the government - just ask THEM how the gubberman protected their children )take the role of parent?

They may be "society's children" but we all know how children brought up by the state in the past have fared. There is no substitute for parental control. But even John Howard isn't going to tackle this one head on, which is why the govt. took the easy option of providing every household with children in Oz with free internet filter services/software. Schools provide lesson in safe computer use to children, educating parents is also needed not just heavy handed open ended legislation.

How Draconian, child abusers only get a few years and state sanctioned violence is condoned, in fact it is extremely big business, but heaven help a lonely consenting adult.

I will read the topic thread but as a parent and an adult I find violence, in movies, on TV and especially real life far more obscene than any sexual act ( excluding violent acts - because of the VIOLENCE).

As you no doubt can tell its getting very late at night over here and I have had a gut full (Australian coloquialism) of the carnage we are seeing every day on TV and the lack of political will to stop it - but a few right wing religious nuts can wield great power over things that by comparison do not matter and are not their business.
And if ASIO and the CIA are going to archive this post well they can damn well give me a back link for it.

By the way what's different about Methodist marriages? Last time I looked the Methodists were extremely conservative? Or have I missed the point. And to add my last rant, if we had gone to a referendum on gay marriage I would have voted Yes.

Chris · #**108** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

as may you want to pay attention to what you write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

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

now, if you are talking about pedophiles, then yes, that's the nature of that sickness. but it also reads much like porn in general is actively pursuing kids. again i iterate that pedophiles aren't known for using a known domain, even if it is redirected, to lure children. this is still done in the chatrooms and forums (AND MYSPACE). besides, unless you have an active live chat on your site, what good does it do if a child just visits? are you going to ask him to sign up for a newsletter in order to keep track of him/her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

i never said the site was being banned, just that this law, like most every other one the US government has drafted for the Internet is completely and arachiacly behind and so full of holes that it won't so much as slow the pedophile process, let alone stop it.

and who's to say the redirect or jump link was designed to attract children? because of the domain name? so now your domain name MUST match your content? hardly. if domain names are the problems, then another, probabaly much more effective fix would be to require all legitmate US porn sites use the .xxx suffix... ah but then, what do you do when the site originates from a foriegn country?

much like the dyke getting ready to burst, there are a great many holes that need plugging to effectively combat pedophiles and the net rings they use... but if you think this redirect edict is actually going to help in anyway shape or form, i can only say i hope you are right.

DrTandem1 · #**109** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 03:16 PM

Your selection of a quote of mine is taken out of context. "They" in this case referred to those that are using deceptive URLs and/or links, not all purveyors of porn. As the topic was regarding a law prohibiting deceptive links and URLs that portend to be children sites, but actually lead to porn, not a law against all links to porn.

Your thoughts on law are novel. In other words, you don't think there should be laws unless they can be enforced 100% of the time. Many times it is the seemingly insignificant violation that leads to the larger crime. It can also increase the consequences, just as using a gun in the commission of a crime increases the penalty.

Also, you seem to think that simply because one does not understand the technology, they are incapable of writing a law that restricts certain behavior. There are probably an unlimited number of ways to murder someone. A lawmaker does not need to know all the mechanics of how a person can be murdered to write a law making the end result illegal.

We still need laws that establish limits. Without such limits, whether or not they are enforced 100%, we will not have a society, we would have anarchy.

Lastly, the law did not say that the link nor the URL must match the content. It said that is must not be a link that a child would assume is for them. In fact, the law made it very clear that words that were sexually explicit would not be covered by this law.

For instance, if it is SexToys.com leading to porn, this law does not ban it. If it is Toys.com and leads to porn, then it would be in violation. If it said AutoParts.com, and led to porn, again no problem.

If it was anchor text or an image that had connotations of being for children, regardless of the actual URL, and it leads to porn, it would be in violation, assuming that these were found on a site where children could be reasonably likely to visit.

I really don't find this oppressive nor unreasonable. Again, I think it's the messenger, not the message. If it had come from Nancy Pelosi saying do it for the children, I doubt the same people would be challenging this law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.

as may you want to pay attention to what you write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

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

now, if you are talking about pedophiles, then yes, that's the nature of that sickness. but it also reads much like porn in general is actively pursuing kids. again i iterate that pedophiles aren't known for using a known domain, even if it is redirected, to lure children. this is still done in the chatrooms and forums (AND MYSPACE). besides, unless you have an active live chat on your site, what good does it do if a child just visits? are you going to ask him to sign up for a newsletter in order to keep track of him/her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.

i never said the site was being banned, just that this law, like most every other one the US government has drafted for the Internet is completely and arachiacly behind and so full of holes that it won't so much as slow the pedophile process, let alone stop it.

and who's to say the redirect or jump link was designed to attract children? because of the domain name? so now your domain name MUST match your content? hardly. if domain names are the problems, then another, probabaly much more effective fix would be to require all legitmate US porn sites use the .xxx suffix... ah but then, what do you do when the site originates from a foriegn country?

much like the dyke getting ready to burst, there are a great many holes that need plugging to effectively combat pedophiles and the net rings they use... but if you think this redirect edict is actually going to help in anyway shape or form, i can only say i hope you are right.

Chris · #**110** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 05:10 PM

so now the idea is the have the content match the domain? that's pretty impossible when you consider just how many domains have nada to do with their content. yahoo.com, anyone? ahh, i get you. only punish the porn purveyors who may or may not be trying to "lure kids". that sounds a little discriminatory.

and no, i will not support a law that is little more than grandstanding for the press and soccer mom voters (who, once they hear about something like this, will assume junior is safe to play on the internet again), especially when it will do nothing to stop the intended target, the pedophiles.

greeneagle · #**111** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

"and no, i will not support a law that is little more than grandstanding for the press and soccer mom voters""

WOW! - That's a mouthful:)

And on "Net Neutrality":

My wife "armchairvet" became a telecommuter for a big telecom company in Houston a few months ago...

They are being forced to reduce costs at every level including sending faithful employees home to work, cutting high priced office space rental.

Between that and Mountain Eagle Marketing we run 2 businesses out of 2 rooms nearly 24hrs/day.

This is the trend in business these days, and IMO - It's way past time we cut down unnecessary hydrocarbon consumption and learned how to become more competitive on a Global basis, business wise, as a culture and as a society.

We give up quite a bit of living space with 3-5 computers on 24-7, phones, wires and wireless networks everywhere you turn. You become your own IT, you pay for the office space and in return they get more dedicated time without the commute and free office space.

When played well, that whole game is better at every level;, personal, business, social and cultural, and even spiritual.

Unlike BJ, we do not have cable or fiber available out here. The best we can do when we want to grovel before the tube after 12-15hr days each is rely on an old mechanical antenna on a 25ft pole outdoors or go with satellite TV, which is unreliable also. We chose option #1.

We do live within a quarter mile of the local switching station and knock down on DSL HARD, day and night.

We already pay $80/month for DSL and home phone, and $80+/month on 2 cell phones. Yeah we burn up DSL and have dial-up as backup. Communications are around $200/month, said and done without the garbage tube included. I am not willing to pay more than that for those limited communications.

As far as the perv's, go they are getting busted right and left with all kinds of stings going on at all levels of local GOV. The FEDs and Local governments run all over each other all the time.

The FED seems out of control, they need to back off from what is better handled by local experts, including businesses members in the free enterprise system and local authorities they empower, and focus on cutting their own budgets instead of slowing the economy with multiple interest rate hikes! Marching on, with antiquated formulas based on traditional inflation indicators severely skews reality in times of exceptions such as the recent gas hikes that have reverberations at all levels of the economy.

I am not willing to pay another cent for communications right now in light of what we have all had to bear in the increased prices across every single consumer sector, including food, for transportation! It is at it's market value, they are working it out.

Every single previous empire including Greece ...Roman Empire? Hey my fellow Englander's, what happened?... I have driven on the "wrong" side of the road in Asia Pacific... What happened there? (No Offense Intended)

What happened to all the "big picture" thinkers? Where did they all go?

That's my Rant here.

Ken

greeneagle · #**112** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

"What happened to all the "big picture" thinkers? Where did they all go?"

They all walked out of "Dr. DoGreens" little factory in perfect synchronous motion, following each other off the cliff, without looking back.

That would be a scenario based on the business psychological phenomenen referred to as "group think".

LOL - History does repeat itself, doesn't it?

Ken

greeneagle · #**113** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 10:33 PM

I honestly didn't intend to crush this thread!

If I had really gotten into history, cultures and pedophiles, WPW would probably have been as badly hacked as this Directory Site by now:

http://www.searchpurple.com/

Make sure and turn up the sound and listen all the way thru!

There are English translations also.

Ken

MikeinFlorida · #**114** (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 11:20 PM

Sure the intent of the law is great! But isn't it about time people realize you can not make a law for everything. The internet is still in it's Wild, Wild West Days and it will be for many years. There are all sorts of kooks in this world! That's not news. What's really amazing here is that Congress really thinks it can make a new law to control the World Wide Web at all. It's World Wide just not in the US.

greeneagle · #**115** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 01:49 AM

Looks like they are in the process of recovering from that hack.
LOL
Ken

I had no intention of hijacking this thread and still don't...The fact remains though that "The Free World" is and has always been more concerned about this issue... and subsequently paid more due diligence in it's administration!

On the other hand though... Should they have prosecuted my father-in-law for taking my-mother-in-law at the tender age of 14 as his wife? There is a 5-6 year age difference there. That would have been prosecutable now under our current law in most states!

They have been happily married now for over 50 years. Mine didn't make it that far, did yours?

Watch the pendulum of public opinion swing and then cast your own independent vote!

Is that possible?

Let's be careful for what we judge and how we judge it. I am damned glad that I was fortunate enough to have found the beautiful, intelligent, loving, caring wife/partner/friend that I found from what would be judged as an illicit or ill-begotten relationship these days. Thank God, Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet back then!

I haven't read the law verbatim, and don't care to. If they wanted to put any real bite in it though, they would have attached appropriated funding at the State Level for the Sting operations already in process and those that are planned. Did they? That might be a "dividing line" whether it was politically motivated or "real". It doesn't take a fricking "witching stick" to understand that, does it? Surely this is a more culturally important issue than bovine flatulence studies and it's effect on the environment... Don't you think?

I apologize for running all over this thread, if it is perceived that way and welcome any comments.

Ken

DrTandem1 · #**116** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 10:10 AM

Ken, you didn't crush this thread. The arguments against this law lacked substance. Their actual agenda has nothing to do with it.

Simply stated, this law pertained only to porn sites. It wasn't banning nor censoring the sites or their content. Like the tobacco industries "Joe Camel," the porn sites have used children-attracting links and URLs that hid the fact that they were porn sites.

Children have been kidnapped, raped, tortured and even murdered by pedophiles. Like it or not, pedophiles are directly related to pornography. I'm not arguing a cause-and-effect theory. I'm simply saying that they gravitate towards pornography.

When children are enticed to visit a porn site by the use of misleading links and/or URLs, you have to wonder why the porn site wants children to visit.

Many here have argued that the law is not enforceable or that it intrudes on their freedom of speech. They have also tried to say that congress doesn't understand the technology and have no business making such laws.

All of those arguments are empty. If you want to look at freedom of speech, there are many areas where our speech is limited. For example, the yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, racial slurs during the commission of a crime, inciting riots, etc.

Regarding enforcement, we can find many laws that are difficult to enforce, but they do add weight to a related crime. As I mentioned, hate-speech. Using a gun in the commission of a crime is another example.

One does not need to understand the technology to understand the end result. Hence, making a law against the end result a crime is very logical. I don't need to know the mechanics of how a gun works to understand that shooting a person can kill and therefore I make a law against murder.

That brings us back to enforcement. Of course, it doesn't matter how many laws we have, there will still be murders. Does that mean we should make murder legal?

Yes, mores change with time. While most today would frown upon a bride of 14, it is still practiced in many parts of the world, and there may be states in the US where the parents can give permission for such a union. I think the age of the groom would factor into the equation.

I doubt your father-in-law met your mother-in-law at myspace.com while pretending to be another 14 year old. Furthermore, back in their day, pornography was less prevalent and much more taboo than today. I also doubt that many pedophiles received a trial then either. They were most likely beaten or killed on the spot.

As I said, mores change with time. Now, we give pedophiles a trial, a little prison time, then worry how they must be psychologically scarred and need more understanding from us. Then they are released only to repeat their crimes or worse.

No, the anti crowd here have a different agenda. If this law was proposed by Nancy Pelosi, they would be behind it 100%. What's scary is what they will allow to advance their political agenda. Some are aware of the agenda and others just blindly follow thinking they are somehow the enlightened ones. Maybe they should look at one of their own, Tipper Gore, but their memories are short:

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

Specifically, her role in popular culture.

greeneagle · #**117** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 10:43 AM

DrTandem1:

Quote:

"Yes, mores change with time."

That's all I am going to take you to task on here:
"mores" vs "morals" and I disagree with Wilipedia's definition of "Mores".

"Mores" indicate an engrained specific stopgap value as opposed to a learned "moral". We need to specify the divide or chasm there between "instinctual" and "learned" - IMO.

Ken

Chris · #**118** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Ken, you didn't crush this thread. The arguments against this law lacked substance.

as do the ones for it (not to mention, the law itself).

and i'm not sure why you keep bringing up tipper gore. labeling music and penalizing a site for content not matching a domain (because that's all this comes down to) is a completely different ballgame, no matter how much you write.

greeneagle · #**119** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

"I haven't read the law verbatim, and don't care to. If they wanted to put any real bite in it though, they would have attached appropriated funding at the State Level for the Sting operations already in process and those that are planned. Did they? That might be a "dividing line" whether it was politically motivated or "real". It doesn't take a fricking "witching stick" to understand that, does it? Surely this is a more culturally important issue than bovine flatulence studies and it's effect on the environment... Don't you think?"

Or are we talking "apples and oranges" here? Where's the meat?

Pink Floyd: "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding"

Surely our lawmakers understand fundamental rules of reality, don't they?

Come on now... Don't tell me they skirk by that easily these days!

Is there "federal" meat on the table, or not?, or does it even really matter to anyone?

LOL
Ken

DrTandem1 · #**120** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 02:04 PM

That's my whole point, Ken. If it's unenforceable, then why worry about it? If one thinks it's a free speech issue, then argue it with examples and logic.

As to Chris saying the analogy with tipper Gore isn't correct, I think it is directly related on the free speech facet of the argument. The sticker did nothing to the content of the record as this law does nothing to the content of the site. The only difference was the messenger, which Al made sure to keep her mouth shut for eight years.

At worst, this law does nothing. At best, it will dissuade purveyors of porn from attracting children who would otherwise not be attracted to their sites.

greeneagle · #**121** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 04:49 PM

DrTandem1,

A main point here is that the locals brought up the issue in the first place and had already started enforcing it before congress drug their chalky caucASS up around the table and said "Me Too, Elections are around the corner!"... and then they didn't even do that right! They couldn't, and can't know how! Half of them probably went running to Al Gore for advice since he invented the mess anayway!

I don't think the term; "pork-barrel" would have been an issue there, do you?

On second thought though.... maybe all they have to do is go to the SEs that seem so ready to turn over info and just command them to hand over every URL that has those kind of misleading links... Hell maybe, they already have!

Maybe it's just that simple now.

Ken

**Tubby** · #**122** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 07:16 PM

begabloomers.
My concerns are basically personal, I have a niece and she comes around and plays on my computers sometimes. I simply do not want her accidently confronted with pornography. If you ask any one of my children, nephews, nieces, What the most dangerous animal to ever exist in the universe they will quickly tell you "MAN" (and it is true)

Most parents I know have an 'Ever Vigilant' outlook towards their children. . I think the lawmakers should simply back up this attitute. . no messing about. . just reflect our values. protecting our children is as close as anyone can get to a universal value. it is basic. skimming around the edges catering for minority values is week and pathetic.

If a child has to click past warning signs, Then We know it is the childs curiosity . . But if a child clicks "my favourite Teddy bear" and is confronted with Anal sex. This is Very Very BAD! and society should jump on the offender

DrTandem1 · #**123** (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

begabloomers.
My concerns are basically personal, I have a niece and she comes around and plays on my computers sometimes. I simply do not want her accidently confronted with pornography. If you ask any one of my children, nephews, nieces, What the most dangerous animal to ever exist in the universe they will quickly tell you "MAN" (and it is true)

Most parents I know have an 'Ever Vigilant' outlook towards their children. . I think the lawmakers should simply back up this attitute. . no messing about. . just reflect our values. protecting our children is as close as anyone can get to a universal value. it is basic. skimming around the edges catering for minority values is week and pathetic.

If a child has to click past warning signs, Then We know it is the childs curiosity . . But if a child clicks "my favourite Teddy bear" and is confronted with Anal sex. This is Very Very BAD! and society should jump on the offender

I agree. Also, the child could be sitting on your lap when you decide to click the colorful friendly clown banner with cute puppies that says "Kid Fun!" and it takes you to a porn page. I doubt an adult trying to entertain a child would have knowingly clicked on a link to porn with a child present.

The point is the criminal intent involved with the deception. If an adult wants porn, they are not going to click on a link that is disguised as a children's site, unless they are a pedophile. Since children shouldn't see porn, there really is no reason to have such a deceptive link.

Give me a reason why such a deception should be allowed? I won't hold my breath.

begabloomers · #**124** (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 12:36 PM

Tubby and Tandem ,

No I am not advocating deception.

Deception is pretending to fix a problem that may be unfixable, pretending to be a moral guardian , pretending to have the welfare of the whole community at heart rather than that of big business and minority lobby groups, deception is pretending that every aspect of our society can be fixed by legislation, deception is pretending that there is always an evil "other" to blame for own own lack of care and diligence.

Neither am I advocating lack of parental control and responsiblity.

The idiots out there will ALWAYS find ways around any new laws. Yes a few will be prosecuted, the less savvy ones.

I am not saying do nothing about the problem but the point I was making is that we need to be very, very careful about what we are willing to trade off to achieve this "perfect" net environment.

Don't trade off civil rights and hand more power to governments unless we are sure what the true cost is and that it will be worth it both now and in the future. My example to Tubby was one which we are all very familiar with in Oz and the consequences of government intervention is still being felt through several generations of aboriginal families.

Personally, my children did not use the internet for entertainment and only used the net in their school library etc. where the filters were such that researching senior biology became a problem. I have closed down the school library's whole bank of computers myself whilst researching something for my daughter's HSC biology project. How emabrrassing was that for a teacher.

Personally, I don't think the net should be a source of entertainment precisely because of its "feral" nature.

I would preview and bookmark any sites prior to opening them with a child on my lap.

But that's just me.

And yes we did not watch too much TV as a family and the kids have grown up to be wonderful, intelligent drug free adults.

I sympathise with parents who have to contend with these probelms and must admit that I have never personally encountered something as described by Tubby. I am sure it happens.

Legislate away but I don't think it will fix the problem.

And I maintain the true obscentity is violence - but violence IS big business so we won't see an end to that in movies or on TV or in REAL LIFE while big business has an interest in it. And no, i usually try not to watch the TV news because although I listen to radio news and read some newspapers I don't like seeing graphic images of dead and dying people used as sound bites and visuals for entertainment's sake. Call it a hang over from my childhood ( so yes children can be scarred )seeing the young vietnamese girl running down the road with her skin hanging off after a napalm attack. That image was on the six o'clock news.

If you don't like it there is always an off button.

Once a law has been passed it NEVER gets rescinded. Just look at whether it is actually illegal to sing Christmas carols in England? etc. All the old puritanical laws are still on the books. It's your country and if you wish to take another step to the right that's your concern but be sure exactly just where you are dragging the rest of the world with you to.

DrTandem1 · #**125** (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 12:46 PM

I guess I just don't see the "trade off." If it's the "freedom" to deceive children into finding porn, I don't find that an infringement of the First Amendment any more than being required to lock my stored firearms an infringement of my rights under the Second Amendment.

begabloomers · #**126** (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 01:58 PM

Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to deceive. I agree. But surely existing trade practices acts cover the issues relating to deception?

The trade off is in the implementation.

AS jon from Ohio wrote

"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? "

Unless you are in Louisianna the principle of innocent until proven guilty still applies doesn't it (as in the rest of the English speaking world). Is this principle being watered down or being made redundant in relation to certain crimes? How can the new law supercede any existing laws relating to deception and fraud and obscenity unless the method of implementation varies?

Basically, this is my argument with certain issues such as "terrorism" and "pedophilia". We all abhor them so much, and rightly so, that we can willingly hand over more powers to governments to intrude, to detain WITHOUT TRIAL and trample on basic common law rights than may be good for us in the long run.

Cry witch and you will find one.

If you really want to stop something work out where its funding is coming from. Follow the money trail. I don't understand how kids clicking on a link to teddy bears makes any money for a porn purveyor or helps a pedophile. Pedophiles lure children by befriending them not scaring them?

DrTandem1 · #**127** (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 03:24 PM

Sorry, I don't buy the typo argument. Firstly, it would be easily shown to be a typo without criminal intent. Secondly, I would hope that one would check their work, especially links to children's sites.

How many of you are working on links to children's sites, anyway?

These are just empty excuses. I'm still waiting for a legitimate argument of how it tramples on your US Constitutional rights.

**Tubby** · #**128** (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 03:56 AM

I think I would avoid all the hassle, and make the law similar to a speeding fine.
get caught with a misleading link to porno site. on the spot $50 dollar fine. . If its still there next day $50.

If unable to locate where to send the fine - automatic fine of $500.

This seems to slow most motorists down. . .

They call it the internet Hyway. . introduce a hyway code. . On the spot fines

When you pay the fine there can be an option to go to court to argue the case to get your fine back....

begabloomers · #**129** (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 04:56 AM

Tubby that sounds too much like commonsense.

I certainly won't get caught for speeding, I'm up to 7 links and hot on the heels of poor.com ( at 35 ) so i think i should leave well enough alone and get to work. I hope your other matter resolves itself .

**Tubby** · #**130** (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 07:04 AM

quote
"I hope your other matter resolves itself ."

I have here. . as we say in Aus, More unresolved matters 'than you can poke a stick at'

every matter gets to a point of 'no other option' But I usually catch ball just before it hits the boundary Mate..

enerji2u · #**131** (**permalink**) 02-28-2008, 08:56 PM

QUOTE:
russellcole38
What will happen to children if they come across nudity
I fail to see what type of damage is inflicted onto a kid if he or she happens to see aspects of human sexuality. Will the kid become a sordid sexual offender - a new fictional subspecie of humanity created by the moralist quacks in psychology? There are absolutely zero credible studies to support any of this nonsense which contends that children are adversely affect by this type of content. This is because none of these soft scientists can use control samples versus experimental samples in their studies. Therefore, all of this moralistic babble about protecting children lacks any substantive empirical support.
R Cole
END QUOTE

You are completely missing the point. It isnt about what will happen to them as adults, its what is happening to them as children! The damage is seen in our children having sex younger and younger - thus having kids of their own before they should or getting and passing STD's. Just a few years or so ago the average age of having sex was age 12. Now the average age is 9. Children do not have the concept to educate themselves on the entire realm of what goes into having sex. They are curious, they want to experiment or there is pressure from their peers.

Our children are being exposed to sex and sexual inuendos more often as time goes on. When I was a kid you would not see half the sexually explicit material you will see today. You certainly wouldn't see "40 yr old virgin" playing on a Saturday early afternoon like you were able to in Januray 2008 on USA much less even see the commercials played all hours of the day, any day for an entire month. You wouldn't hear "Sexual Seduction" on the radio either on your way to school. Society is making light of sex and the impact sex has on a person more and more as time goes on. Kids act on what they see and hear - mostly out of curiosity and pressure. Children are not responsible enough to have sex - the same could be said for many adults but at least they are adults. The consequences in having sex should not be available to children, and these consequences happen to our children because our society encourages sex to who ever will listen.

In looking at a lot of the responses here and the only "negative" being posted here about children seeing porn is preditor issues. There are more issues at stake here.... curiosity to reenact what they see, pressure to be more "adult" and hormones (yes even at 8, 9, 10 - caused by precocious puberty and endocrine diseases) raging.

Also, the comments about "loop holes" are huge cop outs. 'Gee lets not bother because some arse hole will figure out a way around it" - are you kidding me? Your answer is dont bother because there is probably a way around it? WOW! What ever happened to "baby steps". Its important to start the ball somewhere and get it better along the way instead of having an "oh well" attitutde.

Varshen · #**132** (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Well at least they are doing something up there in washington

**cw1865** · #**133** (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:26 PM

Its a paper tiger, its only going to be charged if they're going after you for something else, ie. child porn, then it'll be an add on charge and if anybody even realizes that its illegal!

Martinscholes · #**134** (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmarr

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.

What? ALL websites? Every single one? And who would select the Independent body? How would it work?

Just suppose you have the job of running it. How would you check and verify websites in British English, Cymraeg, Lalans, (LowLands Scottish English) Gaelic (Irish) Gaelic (Scottish) Gernow, (Cornish) Y Ghailck (Isle of Man Gaelic)? All of those are languages of the British Isles.

You'd have to work out how to check websites using those languages and the thousands of other languages from round the world.

**cw1865** · #**135** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 02:21 PM

Jurisidiction is naturally a major problem. You could essentially police it at the domain name level. Ensuring 'due process' would be difficult, ie. who has the authority to take the rights to the domain name away?

Very problematic, I agree, Martinscholes!

activeco · #**136** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 04:13 PM

Uhm guys, this thread is two years old.
Was this law ever since applied anywhere?
The only thing I found is an article noting that the Bush administration didn't include any money in its 2008 or 2009 budgets for the Act: Vitter seeks funding for child-safety act- NOLA.com

sryk1 · #**137** (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 08:50 AM

Great idea.

mrsjordanjr · #**138** (**permalink**) 07-05-2008, 11:16 AM

It doesn't help either that kids under 13 can still get into sites that are for 13 and over. They just lie about their age.

Parental controls and software set up is not easy for most parents. It's still not as user friendly as it needs to be and parents are unable to securely lock out their kids from adult Internet sites. Not only that, it can be expensive to acquire parental controls that work better than the stuff that comes with Windows and half the time it doesn't filter out everything anyhow. Plus, kids know how to get around it half the time too!

I was looking up the A-B-C song for my kids one day and clicked a link that said it was what I was looking for but NOPE - it was hardcore and my kids were standing right next to me. Thankfully, they were watching TV behind us as I scrambled to click off the page. You have to continuously click the X button too sometimes because of the scripts these sites use that keep bringing up page after page after page.

Clearly, these laws are nothing more than somebody trying to gain some brownie points. They are not enforceable laws but are only used as a way to fine someone that happens to get caught. It's another money maker law.

I still get just as much spam in my email inbox as I always have despite the laws they passed about that. Didn't make one bit of difference to me as an email user. So, I doubt this one will make much difference either.

full house · #**139** (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 11:05 PM

you mean there is a new .us domain link? The story is not clear for me. can someone shed lights on this?
thanks,

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