Justice Department Says Free Speech Not Stifled By Web Labeling Bill
from the first-amendment-interpretations dept
Earlier this year, when politicians were shoving each other aside to introduce legislation "for the children." A popular bill was the one that would require websites with sexually explicit content to label themselves as such in some form or another. This idea is apparently so popular that, rather than a separate piece of legislation, it's found itself as an amendment tacked on to various other laws, including the big telecom bill and a spending bill (the type no one ever votes down). Now, the Justice Department has weighed in on the issue -- because requiring content providers to label themselves can be seen as a First Amendment violation. Not so, according to the Justice Department who says "this is not censorship." Why not? Well, because they feel: "it's not a major break with First Amendment principles." Of course, they don't really explain why -- and just saying it doesn't make it so. Plenty of others disagree, and note that this kind of legislation is quite problematic. The problem is pretty straightforward. Where is the line? What needs to be considered sexually explicit? What if it's considered sexually explicit in the bible belt, but not on a coast? Who gets to decide? Considering how difficult people have agreeing on what is and is not objectionable content, this kind of law just opens up a huge potential mess of problems (not even getting into the fact that any borderline content will likely move to offshore servers). It's one of these laws that will let politicians claim they're doing something, while actually creating an even bigger mess.
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
Good Idea
This sort of concept should be implemented, not just in the United States, but internationally. Each web site must have a tag that immediately indicates the type of content it contains, allowing end-user filters to prevent children from using sites with a specific content type.
However, the question does stand, who gets to decide what is 'explicit', and what is not?
Perhaps, instead of a tag labelling a site as "Sexually Explicit", which is dependant on a perspective (for example, some people would class full-frontal non-contact nudity as explicit, while others would not), a reference system could be devised that flags each type of content (ie. "This site contains mild explicit language, partial and full-frontal nudity, cartoon-style nudity, references and descriptions (both textual and visual) to sexual acts; etc.).
From here, a person could tell the filter more accurately (and according to their perspective/belief) what they do and do not want to allow viewed.
However, maybe that would give parents the ability to shelter their children from the world a little too much. Note that I am not trying to tell people how to raise their children; I just feel that they need to be exposed to some real-world stimulation (pun intended) before they try to take it all on themselves.
But then, I probably belong in a white padded room, so feel free to ignore me... 8-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Idea
Kinda like a cancer, if you don't cut it out soon enough it will kill you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tagging
Something tells me the politicians are thinking more of an image or something like that as they are not the most technically adept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wide Open Web
Whoever came up with the idea that pictures of naked women performing grotesque acts is free speech anyway? Do you really think that this is what the founding fathers intended?
I think we were taught at some point in the not so distant past that free speech was the ability to express VERBALLY what you believed in especially POLITICALY. It has nothing to do with pushing smut.
America, have you lost your mind? Has all those years on drugs rotted your brain?
Come on, free speech enables smut purveyors to show and sell porn over the internet to our kids? What is wrong with you people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wide Open Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is nudity, love, sex really harmful
what matters is that children are allowed to grow up innocent until such time as they are mature enough to understand adult relationships, and to be strong enough to know what is reasonable/normal and reject attempts to abuse or exploit them. Only, in theory, are parents able to make such judgments because children gain maturity at different ages.
thus, I support the need to label goods, whether physical (video tape, DVD, books & magazines), or virtual (websites, video sites etc), or broadcast (TV, radio), such that parents can filter what their childen see.
labelling by itself does NOT impact free speech, merely requires those expressing free speech to respect the rights of people to their privacy and choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, one would want to label oneself in the best possible light for marketing.
Say I have a porn magazine - here I'll apply a label to myself - MORE PORN THAN ANYONE ELSE! ... how about that label?
Umm.... in case anyone forgot ... X is a label ... and I don't really remember XX .... but there certainly is the label XXX. I don't think sites, or magazines, really have a problem with the XXX label - they seem to like it!
Soooo what happens when the label becomes a marketing gimmick?
And who is to decide what label? Maybe this site needs a label .... DANGER! DIVERSE OPINONS EXPRESSED! OPINIONS LISTED HERE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE VIEWS OF THE WEBSITE OWNER!
YESSSS!!! That's what we need! More warnings, labels, denials of responsibility and liability! That will fix all of our societal problems!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea!
Is labeling something good?.... In certain ways they are. I believe its true in case of smut. When there was lesser accesibility, it was not a huge problem. of course, accessing smut from under papa's bed was prevelant even before internet came up. I beong to that era. But as on today, it, i believe, does pose a problem.
How to label the product/service? ( frontal non contact, frontal contact nudity, violence et al) has to be done after deliberation and debate. I do not have a solution to propose, yet.
here is a thing i have noticed about american values.... Free speech ? porn is free speech ? there is not one coherent sentence in a porn movie... so its not a question of speech! its more about 'relief'...
I think its more relevant for today's world that the 'free speech' quote has been misused and abused everywhere and anywhere..... time US citizens gave up some of the rights and make this a more suitable world for the whole spectrum of people all over the world.
I'm an Indian and i believe that we also have freedom... i also believe we know when water turns to wine...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech, heh?
I read the comments attacted to this article and realize how many people "just don't get it." This entire issue has little to do with freedom of speech, or my favorite oneliner from completely useless politicians "protecting our children." If you believe that, you're a moron. It doesn't work like that.
And labeling, ha... that doesn't fix anything. Take a look at what type of enterprises you're dealing with here. Do you think the porn industry, or some of the slimeball webmasters are going to adhere to your "you need a label your website" crap???
Here's how it works. If you're looking for porn, you're going to find it. If you label it, it doesn not make it any more "secure." The problem is the parents. If you want to protect the children, look to their parents, not to politicians. Start watching your kids and blaming others. If you want to protect your children, then do it and stop talking about it. Don't make excuses that porn is too prevalent, turn off the computer or get up off your ass and watch your kids!!!
And last but not least to address "4playR" regarding one of the most popular quotes I've heard over the last 5 years - "time US citizens gave up some of the rights and make this a more suitable world for the whole spectrum of people all over the world".
That quote shows either 1) You are not an American, or 2) You have no idea what it is to be an American. America is a great country and our freedoms are what gives us the the most free country in the world. If you give up a small freedom today, and a small freedom tomorrow, shortly, freedom is gone. Then we have a country the founding fathers defeated and wrote a constitution to prevent the rise of again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech, heh?
I had mentioned that i was an Indian. And i have not the faintest idea what it is like to be an American. I can assure you I dont want to be an American either. It may be wrorking great for you, but it sucks for the rest of the world. I can essay on for eons on how i can prove myself right, but i wont, as this is not the forum.
If u were an American yourself, you would have known that US does not have a written constitution ?
And here is another debatable point in ur comment.
"If you give up a small freedom today, and a small freedom tomorrow, shortly, freedom is gone."
I tend to disagree to it. There is a story that i had read when i was a little kid. It was about a shepherd boy crying "wolf'. The point is, when u start to cry wolf for necessary and unnecessary stuff, people stop caring. So, i believe, people need to know that 'for the sake of society we live in', we ought to give up a few things.
In many ways we already have given up a lot of things even if u r an american. Ex. gmail's mail search.. ur privacy is shot to shit. but i never heard anyone complain so much as to change it ? infringements to our privacy happens everyday that our threshold to attack has gone up considerably.
Internet is a global medium and it does not belong to the US. If u say that u r an american and that u do not want to give up ur free speech, so be it. Its just that i dont give 2 hoots about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
w3
Further As somebody replied to one of my other posts, The US govt can only pass laws affecting servers in the US, So if this legislation is passed the sexually explicit sites would only need go overseas, avoid this new law and disregard the need for any label proscribed by US law.
FURTHER, the govt cannot hope to control the internet without us becoming a nation that is alot like china. What's next? Are we going to have to get a redirect just to get to Google? I think the Government is overstepping their bounds here big time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better then guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
governemnt should be .gov
news should be .nws
business should be .biz
religion should be .god
sex should be .sex or .xxx
that way, you can always filter out whatever. but then it'd be up to w3c to get on the bandwagon to endofce it. i doubt that'll happen.
Next, someone mentioned that our founding fathers never imagined people having gratuitous sex was free speech. I would claim that they also never figured on civilians having handheld RPGs and 50-cal chainguns and sniper rifles under the the right to bear arms.
I DO think that they had enough insight to let the document be flexible enough to change with the times, yet rigid enough to support an overall structure that would carry through the years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice try. But that's what's called a Top-Level Domain, or a Root Domain. The problem is that anyone can sign up for most any TLD, and put anything they want on it. I guarantee you that Disney would buy disney.sex, and redirect it to disney.com. Now you have no guarantee that all the content on .sex is sexual, and you could have people buying .com sites and redirecting them to .sex, so you're screwed either way. The best bet is to just figured out how to deal with things you don't like, and ignore them. If there wasn't a market, they wouldn't exist. Perhaps the problem isn't in the Internet itself, but in society, and you should work on changing the root cause, rather than some symptoms that let you keep your head in the sand?
And about your proposed .god TLD... you do realize that not all religions believe in God, right? Hinduism has multiple gods, Shintoism and Paganism both have supernatural ideas without supreme supernatural beings. Or should we outlaw freedom of religion while we're at it with the sex and all?
The first step for dealing with your problems isn't legislation, it's understanding the issue in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parental Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parental Responsibility
The problem, as mentioned above is the ignorant, lazy, fat constituents. It's unfortunate but this world has developed into people that are too lazy to turn off Jerry Springer, take the second bag of dorritos away from Jr. and make them go outside and play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Elections are coming in about 6 weeks. This is the time for a lot of politicians running for Congress or the Senate to throw up stuipid crap that looks good to their ignorant constituents and then they can say ... "I'm trying to protect your children! Look what I proposed! That's why you should vote for me". Never mind that it was stuipd to begin with, ill-conceived, wasn't meant to have a snow balls chance in hell of passing, or was even really serious to begin with.
It's politics. Something we ALL have in common ... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm offended by all religions. i feel all religions should be banned. i now demand it as a devout atheist. ya, i'll be waiting on the censorship of religion for ever i think.
so every time some religious zealots start talking about the censorship of language, movies, games, websites, etc., i just want to point out to them how offended i am by their own personal belief system and how religion is destroying the world (see news about Pope's speech and Islamic murder rampage afterwards).
Religion will be the Apocalypse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GRAPHICAL CONTENT IN PREVIOUS POST
- Crap
- Drugs
- Smut
- 'kill you'
As you felt the need to air these viewpoints without labeling your post we will be removing it from the comments section. As an additional safetty measure, for the good of the community, we'll also be removing your Internet connection.
The Management
>> See, that's what happens when you decide it's OK for someone to determine what's morally right or wrong for the world at large and when you put yourself forward as the arbiter of decency. Sometimes you'll be on the loosing end. Maybe we should just let people decide what's best for each person, M'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In a perfect world, creators of ... suggestive content would volunteer to label their content for the protection of those who do not wish to stumble onto said content. Thus rendering the free speech debate moot as it is a choice that the site creator made. The labelling act itself would do little to inhibit people from visiting the sites if they have an interest to do so, but it could go far to warn one when one might travel to such a site by mistake. Insofar as free speech are concerned, I'm all for it, as well as nudity and sex and everything that goes with it (I am dutch after all). But I still believe that we should be responsible about the things we wish to do freely. And if porn site creators decide to label their content for the sake of others who do not wish to be exposed to it (from whom they probably won´t receive any revenue either), it would be a sign of integrity, not the defeat of free speech."
All porn site are already labeled, by their meta tags and the keywords they use. Search engines index them everyday. Every adult site out there is fighting for the top search engine result for "xxx gangbang a$$ orgy" or whatever.
Why labeling is useless:
1. Just about the first thing any curious kid does, reliably and undeniably, is to figure out how to disable those annoying filters mommy put on their computer. Kids are more tech saavy than their parents these days. Keeping a computer in a public part of the house is the only solution.
2. Great, youve labeled all the sites in the US. The millions of other porn sites worldwide remain unlabeled. You have done nothing but added useless restrictions on an already overly regulated industry. Good work!
People keep pretending there is an answer, other than watching your kids while they are on the computer. There isnt. Its just not technically possible. Kids want to see the bad stuff. You outlaw it here, it will be available from another country. You install filtering software, your kids will uninstall it. You cant solve this problem with laws. EVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that stuff should have a label also -
"Beware! In case you couldn't tell by the naked people below, this pop up contains pornographic images! If you don't want to see pornographic images on your popups, you should invest in some good spyware removal tools! Have a nice day from your friendly porn spyware popup installer staff."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the utter nonesense of subjectivity
WE WILL DECIDE (and our elected officials). THE DEMOCRACY WILL DECIDE! THE MAJORITY!
AND IF WE THINK SMUT IS SMUT, WE WILL LABEL, BAN IT, DO WHATEVER WE WANT! AND THE FACT THAT OTHERS DONT AGREE...
who cares?
its good they are not in the majority
Dont let moral sunbjectivity, a bunkrupt ideology, create anarachy, its true spiritual goal...anarachy is not spiritual. spirituality is balance and poise and a decision, about the path to walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your spirituality
It all comes back to what "Will" said above. "People keep pretending there is an answer, other than watching your kids while they are on the computer."
Don't bring your semi-religious, super-spiritual, ultra-hypocrytical, blind faith into an argument solved if parents take responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smut and Parents
Firstly, yes. Smut is smut. Smut, pornography, sexually explicit images. I think we all know what it is. And I think that we all know that it is there, and that it always will be. And what's more, half of the time, the webmasters don't care about what is on it, just so long as they get people visiting their site.
Yes, parents are the overall people in control of their child(ren)s upbringing, and to that end, have a responsibility to maintain vigilance, ensuring that they do not get too wayward. I did not read in either this main article, or any that it referenced, that the government was trying to take over the task of parenting in any way. It is just a possibility - to introduce controls to allow people the ability to filter what is accessible.
In my first post on this article, there was one key work I said, and for a tech forum, I'm ashamed that no-one picked it up, immediately jumping to "the politicians are trying to 'protect the children', but that should be the parents job". People, hello? END-USER! If web sites have a metatag stating the content type, that means that parents have the controls to prevent their children from accessing 'sexually explicit' material, as well as whatever else they shouldn't be looking at. It also means the same for businesses - I work at a school, for example, and if I hade a system to arbritrarily block sites that the students shouldn't visit based on content rather than a domain name being reported, I would have a much easier time!
Yes, my computer has an off button. So does yours. So does every other computer. But should I prevent people (not just children) from accessing the Internet - a global resource for information as well as communication - just because there is so much content that is 'unsuitable'? How would you all go without Techdirt?
Yes, it's the parents responsibility to raise their child(ren) appropriately. But should that mean that the government cannot provide a tool that assists in this task? Tell me, if you see a mother down the street, three children about her ankles, carrying several bags of shopping, and one of the bags break spilling the contents on the pavement, would you stop and offer your assistance in picking up the shopping, or would you veer out of the way, thinking that 'nah, she'll get it done ... eventually'?
But, I suppose, I'm just pissing in the wind. As ebrke said, even if this, or something similar, was enacted, it would only be in America, and whats more, it would probably be ignored by most anyway - for example, hacking sites. I'm sure that there would be a, or several, cagories for hacking, and then the reigonal-specific distributions of browsers would automatically block that based on laws for that reagion, and so to be heard, the Hackers would bypass it by either ignoring the requirement for a metatag, or providing a false tag. Obviously this doesn't apply just to hackers.
One method of enforcing this, however, is to make all browsers accept only pages that have this metatag, completely barring sites that dont (it cannot cause any financial damage, as it is just one line of code in an HTML text file that you can add with notepad). But, then, there is still the issue of falsifying the metatag.
Don't mind me, I'm just half asleep and had a bad hair day... :-/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smut and Parents
One another note, is it just one "metatag?" It seems like billions and billions of metatags need to be added, to billions and billions of pages. I doubt a change like that will be embraced, not matter if it's business or smt.
If you're going to have browsers only support sites with those metatags, now browser code needs to be modified, who's going to do that? A change of the magnitude this law suggest is utterly asinine, and shows the ignorance of all that suggest it.
And just to take and extra dig, nothing will replace the responsibility of parents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: wait a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have fun with Big Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate censorship because I think it's the parents' responsibility to protect their children. This helps parents, and it the ideal alternative to censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF: "Good Idea by wraeth"
Are you getting the fucking point yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
has nothing to do with free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the "Problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ratings, like movie ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many unreasonable people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is harmful?
I imagine that there would not be many.
Does that mean that we do not need tools to prevent our children from seeing what we, as parents, do not want them to see? No.
But we need to understand that no matter what safeguards are used that sometimes children will still find a way. Thats what parents are there for.
I have always liked the idea of being able to create a set of rules (laws, guidelines... whatever) that enable people to customize what they, or their children are exposed to WITHOUT barring those who do want the exposure.
One such compromise is a .xxx/.sex/.adu domain. Tags could enhance this. Wouldn't it be great if Sex, Pharmaceuticals, Drugs and Weapons were all under a .adu domain? With tags you could then choose. Your eight year-old child gets nothing from .adu, but you can still lookup your medications, or whatever.
This just means that you are in charge of what happens in your house to your child.
The problem that I see with the above is that it is still not perfect. Ok, you control what happens in your house, but what if you are at a public library and want to lookup information about your medications. Is there enough flexibility in both the system and the minds of the people who are in charge of what the library computers can and cannot do? If not, it has failed.
Balance has always been the problem. The solution needs flexibility but so do the minds of the people controlling it. Remember NetNanny? It prevented children from researching beavers because the word beaver is also slang. That is not the solution. Children who want to research mammals should be able to do so and adults who want to view things that many modern industrial societies say children should not should also be able to do so.
Simply enough I feel that something like an adult domain would be a good place to start. One, it doesn't single out producers of porn, but rather creates a way to channel what the majority seems to believe is of an adult nature. Two, the establishment of an adult domain does not restrict people who want to view the content from accessing it.
Tags enhance the concept well. For example, if the community at large has decided weapons are too adult for children they would be under .adu. If your child is good with a bow and arrow and you want them to be able to research the various ones for sale you should be able to block your child from .adu except where there is a weapon-bow-and-arrow tag. (I realize that what takes place behind the scenes would likely be much more complicated than what I just described.)
I used to know a girl who was 15, at the time. Everyday her mailbox would just fill up with ads for Viagra and pictures of things she had not yet experienced ('nuf said). She would have gladly turned off access to much of this content herself if she had the tools to do it. I didn't bother with e-mail back then, but I looked around on the Internet for a solution. At that time we both came up empty handed.
Years ago spam filters were just a pipe dream, do you have one protecting your e-mail today? Do you feel like your rights were violated when you stopped receiving the ad with a woman on one side, a man on the other and fluids being shot through the air?
I do not miss that ad, or the hundreds like it. I choose to filter my mail. I choose how it is filtered. I enjoy reading my e-mail more now that I get what I want and discard the rest.
I also enjoy knowing that if there are ads, etc. that I would like to receive I can allow it.
I get newsletters in my e-mail. When I first subscribed I didn't get them. I checked and sure enough they were marked as spam, but I wanted them - "one mans trash..." I had to change my filters to allow it and I would have been quite pissed if someone took that ability away from me in order to protect me or whatever.
So what is a BALLANCED solution to the problem? What allows person "A" to re-experience their puritanical roots and person "B" to be a hedonist and keep both of them happy? That's what I would like to know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to david, with love
i do know that posing the .god/.rel(religion for you multi/no god having peoples too)/.sex/.xxx/.wtf/.*** has major problems. with that would require a complete "police" force for the web/net. as i said the w3c does a good job at keeping the web up with standards and information and whatnot. it's just going to be tough to make sure all billions of websites and whatnot are correctly tagged, linked and identified. the pure time involved is amazingly large.
but ohwell....life is that...life. then it's over. and reember in 5 billion years or so, the sun will eat the earth and the solar system will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, trying to enforce such a law. It's a joke, just like every law about spam is. The Internet is worldwide and trying to force US laws upon other nations is impossible.
Second, parents need to actually parent. The Internet is a very dangerous place, in more ways than one. Pornography is only one danger presented to children on the net. You wouldn't let your children play in a dangerous junk yard, so why do so many parents feel it's okay to let their kids loose on the Internet or for that matter their right to have their children protected for them. Protecting children from this kind of content is a parents job, not the governments.
Third, the only reason there is so much porn on the net is because there is a market for it. It's not like so many people spend their free time putting this stuff on the net with no expectation of income. People do it because there is money to be made, it's a business, and a legal business at that. It's capitalism and competition at it's best. LOL
In conclusion if you don't like something, don't visit it. If you're a parent, step up and take the responsibility that you assumed when you decided to bare offspring. Your children should be your responsibility, not mine. There ara plenty of methods to protect your children, it just takes some time and effort on your side as a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the people do it
This would require some company or organization to host a centralized server that could be accessed by filtering programs, but it wouldn't really even take that much extra overhead on a search engines servers...they're already indexing everything on the web anyway.
I'm also sure there are some non-profits out there that would take something like this under management. Maybe not completely, but at least someone to review websites that have had extremely different reviews associated with them, or have been flagged as incorrectly tagged, etc.
Besides, if there were tags, it doesn't necessarily have to block everything without some user intervention. I'll be the first to tell you I wholeheartedly agree with having a filter on a computer that kids are accessing, but sometimes they can be absolutely ridiculous.
But, it could work like your standard IE security settings, with which you generally have 3 choices - allow, block, and prompt. If something has been set to prompt, because in some settings, the website might "technically" match the tags, but it might be an exception, just let it prompt you - "This website is reported to have so and so objectionable content containing these tags: 1, 2, etc." Then, it would log the decision and be on with it.
I do believe wholeheartedly in protecting kids from bad situations, but I'm also a firm believer in trusting them with some responsibility so they can construct proper morals in themselves. And with this type of system, a parent can decide whether to block or prompt, etc.
As for deciding what you should block on a computer, well that wouldn't be to hard - just have a list of all the objective tags for people to check. I'm sure there could also be a less subjective "Content Quiz" that someone could offer, for instance, it will ask you less direct questions about what you might find objectionable - somewhat similar to like a psych exam.
So many people on here are suggesting that "the government is trying to block me from seeing all of the internet." This isn't the case at all, it's merely setting up a system so that YOU and ME can decide what content we want being viewed on our computers, I don't see why that makes everyone get into such a fuss.
Oh and the argument that "if we do this, it's only on the US servers and everyone will just move to offshore servers." Why this may be partially true, so freakin what! Don't you think we should at least do what we can with what we have to make the internet a more inviting place for people to enjoy without being bombarded by junk? Besides, maybe by setting up a system like this we could possibly set a precedent for other countries and organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A more fundemental problem
As for actually placing labels, I think that enough people have already beat this dead horse enough already.
It boils down to personal responsibility and for parents of minor children it is parental responsibility. Quite trying to get someone else to raise your children. They are your responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we don't live in a society where kids spend 24/7 with their faimly. they attend school, visit friends, play sports, this that and the other thing..
it is easy to control something when it is by you 24/7. but if kids have access outside of the home, namely at school or even worse a friends house, bam, what u gonna do?
jimmy's parents might not have the same "moral" belife as you, and what's your kid gonna do? turn away and squirm? or look at it?
if they look away, they are dorks and get made fun of, if they look they are now corrupt. damn this world...damn it to hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we don't live in a society where kids spend 24/7 with their faimly. they attend school, visit friends, play sports, this that and the other thing..
I think you're sorta missing the point on the "parenting" issue. No one is saying to *WATCH* your kid 24/7, but to teach them right from wrong and good moral judgment, so that they know how to take care of themselves, and not be permanently scarred for life should they see or be around something "not good." It's about teaching your kid that not everything in life is perfect, and they need to know how to deal with different and uncomfortable situations. That's what parenting is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the fuck is your problem, Mie? In none of my posts did I state 'this and this are objectionable'. In my first fucking post, dumbass, I said that it was a matter of perspective! Or is your head too far up your own ass to see that?
RE: Re: Re: Good Idea by Anonymous Coward
Thank you, Anonymous Coward, but I am not preaching to anyone about anything, let alone religion. Think, if you had children, say a seven-year-old daughter, and she was using the Internet. She wants to find a picture of barbed wire for a project, so she goes to a search engine, types it in, and get pictures of people sticking barbed wire up their ass. If you had the ability to immediately and automatically prevent that page from being shown, would you use it?
I know that the practicality of governing a system such as this would be next to impossible, but does that mean that we should just stop talking about it? And Mike is right, it isn't censorship. Tell me, would you all like your children to be able to go to the video store and buy all the porn that they want?
As for re-coding software, bigSteve, have you used computers for more than a month? Applications are re-coded, recompiled and redistributed all the time, allowing for fixing bugs, upgrading base-code, and the addition of new features. I agree with you, from my perspective as a net admin at a school, chances are it wouldn't work. But neither does DNS filtering. It would just provide another method of more fully managing the problem - I don't want someone's parents ringing up and complaining that I let them watch Mary and her Little Lamb!
And for the record, I'm athiest, so don't go giving me some bullshit about shoving religious morals down everyone's throat. I'm merely contributing to a conversation (if conversation you could call this...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A recent woman's magazine about parenting had an article about breastfeeding. As part of the article, it included a photo of a baby breastfeeding. No nipple showing, just a diffuse pink round thing and a babies head.
The magazine was flooded with complaints from women saying it was "obscene," pornography, sickening, disgusting, etc.
What about Robert Mapplethorpe photos? What about articles aimed at teenage girls to teach them about their own menstruation?
There is a HUGE religious push in this country, and those people would consider ALL of that material offensive. Do you really want them deciding for you?
Do you really want ANYONE deciding for you?
Are you that afraid, that worried that you want someone ELSE to decide for you what images you should see, what discussions you can take part in?
Don't talk to me about children - do you want someone ELSE deciding for your child what they are exposed to?
What makes you so sure that YOU would agree with what THEY decide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
Craig, in your comment you are referring to censorship. This proposal has nothing to do with any faction/government/group deciding for anyone what they should or should not view. It is a proposal for the introduction of a method to allow parents to restrict what their children view on the Internet according to their own beliefs.
Parents using content tags to determine what their children are able to access, not another party enforcing what they believe to be appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
barbed wire
I just googled for 'picture barbed wire' just like your seven year old girl. Your parental controls seem to work as no porn was immediately apparent. What will you tell your seven year old girl about Auschwitz and Vietnam though (both in first page of search results)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: barbed wire by Anon
However, I can't see the point you are trying to make with Auschwitz and Vietnam. If you are referring to my apparently overwhelming desire to block everything but the Telly Tubbies, then as with everone else who has taken a shot at me, you are mistaken. I'm not saying 'this and this should be blocked, verbatim'. What I am saying is that a system such as described in the opening article would give parents the means of blocking material that they deem as unsuitable for their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Browser Recoding
Anyone what to take a shot at me about this post enforcing censorship or taking a high-and-mighty stance on what is 'Good' and 'Evil'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arbitrary definitions serve a limited purpose
Vague rules lead to arbitrary enforcement and that's not a good thing in a free world or democratic society. What is explicit is difficult to define. As one post suggested, women's faces are considered explicit content in some parts of the world. That fine line can easily extend to prevent access to historical art (burn the Reubens and clothe the naked statues), or to censoring girls in bathing suits. It all boils down to what explicit means and who gets to define it for their own purposes.
Historically we haven't done that well with this kind of definition and obscenity trials have largely failed to clearly define what is obscene. Which is why there are such efforts to continue to legislate morality. The current government has taken the battle against porn from a context of fighting child porn to making test cases on adult porn in small courts around the US to push cases up to the supreme court to better define obscenity. The Attorney General alienated the FBI when he pushed them away from fighting real crime amd terrorism into these adult porn cases. See, for example: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389
This kind of posturing is intended to create opportunities to flood the courts with cases defining obscenity. On the same target range are curse words on cable TV and simulated sex scenes on prime time TV. People are being fined on radio for talking about taking a shit.
We aren't that far away from trials that attempted to ban books as obscene (Ginsberg's Howl, Joyce's Ulysses, for example) and if you look at the list of books being banned today in various contexts it's frightening in scope. Books like Catcher in the Rye, Huckelberry Finn and Harry Potter are already being banned from libraries. Wake up, people.
The comments suggesting an international labelling scares me as it's a logical step from a web content labeling system to encouraging international censorship. Look at the issues and concerns raised with major US companies catering to Chinese censors.
It's nice to dream of some kind of voluntary labeling system. But look at what happened with music labeling. The parental advisories merely helped push and market the material it was supposed to be preventing from getting in kids hands.
Anything clearly defined and labelled as off limits merely puts a target on it that makes the curious find a way to get there anyway. The anti-drug commercials probably do as much to foster interest and curiousity in drug use just because it's clear there is a propaganda movement to steer people away from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]