Now Congress Is Going After File Sharing Networks For Porn
from the hmm.--sense-a-pattern? dept
It appears that Democratic Senators have decided that their "moral issue" this week is online porn. How else can you describe three separate stories involving Democratic Senators and porn -- and each one seems equally pointless. There was, of course, the Hilary Clinton against consensual sex in a video game that is just fine when it only promoted murder, carjacking, prostitution and general mayhem. Then there are the Senators pushing for an online porn tax against websites that offer porn. And, now, in the wake of the Grokster decision, some Senators held a hearing to discuss what the various file sharing networks were doing, and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer seemed quite upset that these file sharing apps didn't filter out porn. Of course, this isn't a Democratic/Republican issue. Republicans, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, freaked out about the same thing a few years ago. And, this particular panel also featured Republican Senator Ted Stevens, who was just as angry at file sharing companies. At this point, it seems like just about any party, regardless of political affiliation has no qualms about making grandstanding announcements about technology they don't understand to make it look like they're solving some sort of problem. It just so happens that, right now, everyone feels they need to stand strong on "moral" issues. Unfortunately, their morals need a lesson in how technology works. Senator Boxer and Senator Stevens came down hard on porn over file sharing networks, with Boxer saying that "it's not going to sit well" if they say it can't be filtered, and, Stevens saying: "People tell me we can't do anything about it. I don't believe that." What this has to do, specifically, with file sharing is anyone's guess. A study by the Government Accounting Office (which you would think the Senators would know about) concluded a while ago that porn on file sharing networks is no worse than porn over the regular internet, but you don't see these Senators screaming that ISPs need to filter out all porn on a regular internet connection. Instead, they pick on file sharing apps, because they're easy targets and allow the Senators to look tough on online porn while not actually doing anything about online porn. The Senators made the ridiculous suggestion that because entertainment industry services don't have porn, obviously file sharing apps can filter it -- suggesting they don't realize the two systems (file sharing and download stores) serve two very different purposes and work in two very different ways. If the issue is dealing with children accessing online pornography -- that's fine. However, unfairly targeting one particular app is pointless.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What about pro-government porn?
http://www.takamatsu.nta.go.jp/home1/mangazeikin/8mznga16/bpage/manga33.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stevens
Was Stevens referring to CAN-SPAM or P2P? Does it matter? ;)
Here's a quick lesson in the Internet, distinguished congress(wo)men. Telling the ENTIRE Internet what you will do about its activity, um, uh... bad move. First of all, it's a global community, and people outside the US don't care what you think about porn. Second, people outside the US don't care what you think about anything. Third, most of those in the US agree with them.
You come across like trolls, and unlike how you bully witnesses around, your views are farts in the wind online. Your bills are about the same. You could revoke the entire Constitution, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to a Russian hosted torrent tracker.
Get a clue, and learn about how to even speak to the medium even before trying to legislate it. Barking orders will only generate backlash... severe backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stevens
fits of laughter and ridicule? definately.
They really are clueless. The sad thing is politicians make uninformed comments and policy decisions based on their uninformed points of view the world over. They just get more press in the states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stevens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
porn: for the people, by the people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm really worried about this...
I think i'm gonna move to Tahiti... nice weather, and too small a country to try to mess with the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm really worried about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]