New bill banning the web?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

The difference being that if you hurt someone it would be yourself not an innocent.

That's essentially true (apart from crashing into a fellow rider, sending them flying off of a cliff), and addressed above. But that's not the issue at all.

It's clear that the activities that a "social networking site" (commercial or otherwise) provides are frequently enjoyable and in some respects, beneficial to their users (ChiefDelphi, for instance). It's also clear that on the Internet, as in life in general, certain risks are assumed. The trouble is, while normally we would attempt to strike a socially acceptable balance between risk and reward, this legislation deals with a miniscule risk, and imposes wide-ranging restrictions on perfectly legal, and sometimes-productive activities. And it does this in libraries, of all places—where, at least ideally, it's up to the patron to access the information that interests them, rather than the subset of that information which has been sanitized in the name of hysterical parents and vote-hungry legislators.

But most importantly, this law is not about the victims, nor the offenders, because the effect on sex crimes is bound to be next-to-zero. How many people are clueless enough to be lured into a compromising situation over the Internet, and furthermore, to do so during class hours or at the public library. Though it's disgustingly popular to sensationalize these sorts of incidents, the fact is, they're not very common at all. Restricting only one potential precursor, in two specific venues will do little to prevent the same clueless teenager from taking the same objectionable action elsewhere, be it by e-mail at home, or over their cellphone at the mall. It's ridiculous that this law is being marketed as a weapon against child exploitation, when in reality, it's just another stupid hurdle over which the schools are forced to jump (in this case, to get a certification, which, as is the way of these things, will probably affect their funding).

I'd surmise that this sort of law is as widely accepted as it is, because of the many irrational attitudes and laws concerning sex crimes that exist in the U.S.. And despite all of these "think of the children" episodes, the law doesn't serve the needs of the children particularly well, except in the minds of the multitude of lunatics who see sex criminals everywhere, and in the minds of those who exploit that perception to political advantage.

[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