New bill banning the web?

[Astronouth7303]

According to ABC News, a bill has been introduced in the House of Representitives (as the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006," H.R. 5319) that would ban any website that allowed minors to interact. According to their definition, this would include Wikipedia, ChiefDelphi, any other wiki or BBS, any blog, any web host, etc. etc. Also under this bill, any IM or chat would be banned.

Granted, this is still an early form. However, I'm posting this here so that everyone knows to watch for this bill getting shot down, and to write their congressman if it doesn't.

[Gabe]

Of course it is going to be shot down. Think of how many congressmen and congresswomen have daughters and sons that are minors. Now imagine what their reaction is going to be if their father/mother supports this bill. Seriously...

Scientists all over the world are intently observing these events in an effort to better understand these curiousities of the human mind.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the first amendment was composed shortly after the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the idea of an electronic Internet would have been beyond the dreams of even the most revolutionary thinkers. But as Alexander Hamilton set a precedent, that sometimes the Constitution needs to be "elastic" in order to adapt to a changing world/economy/technology.

Although I may be just a high school student, it would seem that the medium by which speech is carried out should be protected under the First Amendment. Whether it is in person, via telephone, or via the Internet, having the right to say what one wants without fear of censorship by the government is the basis of freedom of speech.

This bill is just an ill-conceived, under thought-out, and disillusioned attempt at curbing the amount of predators on the Internet. This bill would deny most of the population of Chief Delphi the "freedom of the post", and I believe that many of the students here on Chief Delphi actually make meaningful posts that contribute something back to the community.

Now is our time to act. Let us not be casual observers any longer; it is now time to fulfill our Constitutional duty and responsibility as citizens of this democracy and take action. Democracy is never guaranteed, but always a constant struggle to protect our natural and civil rights.

We have the power to shape the future of our country, all we need to do is start somewhere. Anywhere. Write letters to your congressmen/women and Senators. Write editorials into your newspapers. Blog about this somewhere. Talk to your friends. Start a protest or a rally. Experience democracy and engage in its full potential. This is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. Let's make it so.

“It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. „ _{-Old Proverb}

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

When the first amendment was composed shortly after the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the idea of an electronic Internet would have been beyond the dreams of even the most revolutionary thinkers. But as Alexander Hamilton set a precedent, that sometimes the Constitution needs to be "elastic" in order to adapt to a changing world/economy/technology.

Aye, but good 'ol Thomas Jefferson begged to differ.

This bill was also brought up in the MySpace thread. It does NOT ban any of these sites in any way. It bans minors from accessing sites that "commercial social networking websites and chat rooms that have been shown to allow sexual predators easy access to personal information of, and contact with, children." ChiefDelphi, for instance, is in no danger.
"The language of the bill, however, may still be modified before it is formally voted upon. "It still has to go through a tough markup process," Jeff Urbanchuk, Fitsgerald's press secretary, told PC Magazine. "It's only 72 hours old, you know." "

You may lose your MySpace, or Livejournal until you're 18, but big whoop. If it cuts down on sexual predators, I'm all for it.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

According to ABC News, a bill has been introduced in the House of Representitives (as the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006," H.R. 5319) that would ban any website that allowed minors to interact. According to their definition, this would include Wikipedia, ChiefDelphi, any other wiki or BBS, any blog, any web host, etc. etc. Also under this bill, any IM or chat would be banned.

This came up earlier in the MySpace thread. The law and the proposed amendment only apply to things like public schools, libraries, etc., and not to the internet in general.

Also, chiefdelphi.com is not particularly commercial in nature, though it does receive some sponsorship from commercial sources. This (in a rational world) ought to keep it from being banned (it's not a "commercial social networking website").

[petek]

Let's take a deep breathe and focus.

First, this bill would require institutions which receive federal funding to block access for minors to sites which allow people to share personal info and message like MySpace, CD, etc., but would not "ban" them.

Second, IMHO, this is a poorly conceived attempt by my congressman to seem to be doing something about online predators, and would have little or no impact on that front.

Finally, rather than complain about it, do like I did and write your congressman to explain to her/him how this bill would prevent you from collaborating with your peers on CD while working at school (assuming your school lets you on CD now), and all the benefits you get from that interaction. While you're at it, you might make sure s/he knows about FIRST and what a positive influence it is...

[Ashley Christine]

I think that it is looking more at the 12 or 13 year olds who say that they are 16 or 18 to make a myspace and are putting themselves into danger. The internet really is a dangerous place for young kids. As cool as myspace may be or seem, I think that it would be a good thing to make kids have to be 18, but even so they would most likely lie about their age anyways, then what would the government do? Send them all to juvi for breaking the law.

As good as it would be, I dont think it seems entirebly reasonable...

I am indifferent to whatever they may decide to do. Plus, it would give me a good reason to get rid of my myspace...

[KenWittlief]

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

[Tytus Gerrish]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

im working on that

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Tytus Gerrish

im working on that

What did we tell you about not disclosing your inventions?

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

I bet you could do it with some sort of evolutionary neural net. There are probably browsing and typing patterns that would flag someone as "child-like", although you couldn't realistically ban people on what the program spits out, it would at least give a red flag for closer inspection.

[Simon Strauss]

Don't want to come off too opinionated (though i probably am), but this is one of the points at which i am reminded of why i have lost faith in our government and society, not the system just the people in it. It reminds me of an old George Carlin line that went more or less like, "our government isn't at fault, the people are because were the ones who elected them" (i paraphrased so that the idea could be expressed without the profanity) and we and our leaders need to realize this. If our government really thinks that this is any sort of solution it means that the majority of the people in the country do as well, and cant realize that it is A) not going to work due to the innovation of the youth and sick B) only attempting to cover up a problem not prevent it C) A violation of the rights of us more or less law abiding citizens D) very reminiscent of the Luddites and E) going to do more harm than gain by limiting the transfer of knowledge
Back to the issue at hand though, whatever happened to solving issues through education, Limiting the actions of a people is not only oppressive but it also has the possibility to create an underground market through creating a demand, like was seen during Prohibition, which can turn out to be detrimental than the issue was to begin with (eg. Bootleggers and the Mob). The simple solution, spend the time and other resources that are being used in the creation of this bill toward a better education system in which we can get to the kids before predators do, tell them that it is wrong and not only address this issue in the present by warning our youth but also prevent it in the future.

[Steve W]

This is somewhat a political thread but I will post my thoughts anyway.
The government does many things:
1: They listen to groups that will get them elected.
2: They reward groups who get them elected.
3: They try to protect themselves.
4: They reward themselves for the great job that they perceive that they do.
5: They protect us from others.
6: They protect us from ourselves

There are a lot of good people in government and a lot of others. The fact is that North America has it a lot better that a lot of other countries and for this we should be grateful. We should also remember that when the government starts to sway away from the good of the people that we should inform them with our voices, letters and votes.

I will end with two questions. If we got rid of Myspace and others like it would it really impact our day to day lives? If we save one child from having any of the possible mishaps that come from predators, is it worth it?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I will end with two questions. If we got rid of Myspace and others like it would it really impact our day to day lives? If we save one child from having any of the possible mishaps that come from predators, is it worth it?

We could argue the same thing about any perilous, but enjoyable activity: who would be disadvantaged if we banned mountain biking because of the mishaps inherent to the sport? The difference, of course, is that a sexual predator is a person who intends to do harm, while falling off of a bicycle is a simple accident. But we can still draw parallels between these two things with respect to the impacts on the victims—both can potentially inflict grevious injury, of various sorts. If it were truly a matter of protecting the victims, then it seems that we might go to any lengths to shield people from all the hazards of life. Realistically, though, I think that legislation like this is motivated by the desire to remove the possibility of people (and not merely victims) partaking in activities that are not universally recognized as constructive. It has far less to do with victims of sex crimes than it does with the embarassment of media proclaiming "Pre-Teen Internet Scandal", with a picture or video of an underdressed twelve-year-old doing something imprudent.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by petek

Let's take a deep breathe and focus.

First, this bill would require institutions which receive federal funding to block access for minors to sites which allow people to share personal info and message like MySpace, CD, etc., but would not "ban" them.

Second, IMHO, this is a poorly conceived attempt by my congressman to seem to be doing something about online predators, and would have little or no impact on that front.

Finally, rather than complain about it, do like I did and write your congressman to explain to her/him how this bill would prevent you from collaborating with your peers on CD while working at school (assuming your school lets you on CD now), and all the benefits you get from that interaction. While you're at it, you might make sure s/he knows about FIRST and what a positive influence it is...

And there is a teachable moment here: Whenever anyone tells you something, especially of a shocking nature, look into the facts before reacting. The more shocking, the more likely it's false. Thanks & Rep to Tristan Lall for linking to the actual text which, if read, is pretty clear as to what they mean - if you can follow the legalese.

The bottom line is this: Don't take anyone's word for it, not even ABC News: Do your own research, come to your own conclusions. If you take just this one habit with you into life, you will be a much better citizen, and happeir too.

Don