Senator suggests targeting Net 'indecency'

The U.S. Congress may be preparing for another round in the Internet "decency" wars.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the influential chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, has indicated that Internet decency regulations could be inserted into legislation that was originally intended to boost fines for off-color radio and TV broadcasts.

"We ought to find some way to say, 'Here is a block of channels--whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is--to a home that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see,'" the Alaska Republican told reporters Friday, according to an audio recording.

Stevens didn't describe how broadband or Internet telephony decency regulation would work, and a spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Elsewhere in his remarks, the senator said indecency rules should be extended to cable and satellite, and "we're looking to create tiers, or create a system like the movie business...to let us develop a ratings system."

The first round in the Internet decency wars took place nearly a decade ago, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act, which punished the transmission of indecent or "patently offensive" material with up to two years in prison and fines of $250,000. In 1997, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly rejected those portions of the law.

But the court's opinion didn't say anything about the constitutionality of a law that would require certain types of Web publishers to rate sexually explicit sites through a mechanism like the Platform for Internet Content Selection, which is built into the Internet Explorer browser.

"It looks like Stevens is talking about some sort of ratings system for the Internet," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "But you really can't have the FCC or the federal government be the taste police for the American citizens. It's just not going to work."

Stevens' committee is reviewing a decency bill, already approved by the House of Representatives, that would raise the maximum fines for radio and TV broadcasters. In early March, Stevens said he wanted to see those indecency standards extended to cable and satellite. (The Federal Communications Commission has defined indecency to include

Leave it to a politician....

I'm all for "protecting the children" from violence and nudity on broadcast TV. It's too easy for them to access.
However, Porn on the internet you have to find, and on Cable/satellite you have to pay for it. If I pay for these services then it's out of the government's hands because I approve of it's content. If I didn't approve, I wouldn't pay.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot see... it's my choice.

[bobby_brady]

Pay for it?

When you're on cable, you simply paying the cable operator. When I'm on the internet, I'm paying the ISP.

Things are getting out of control and some regulation is needed.

[John Kuzak]

broadcast TV

http://www.analogstereo.com/mazda_miata_owners_manual.htm

Stevens is Looney

I joined the Republican party because it was supposed to be about smaller government. But these people have proven that they are more than capable of expanding government.

Now Stevens wants to regulate cable channels and the internet? Imagine a world where cussing in email earns you a hefty fine or jail time. Wonderful. I guess in 2006 I will be voting totally different.

[nedmorlef]

senator targets net indecency

how bout targeting some congressional indecency.

Senator wants to rate the internet

Lotsa luck, buddy. It must be cold in Alaska. It froze
your brain. The " Internet " is not subject to US law.
It is all over. So is your censorship idea.
Hal Weiner

[seaside]

US is only 1/4 of the net.

Seems to me like this man has missed something.
The internet isn't a US affair anymore.

Just checked on internetworldstats.com.
Only 1/4 of all net users comes from the US.

Or perhaps he wants to adopt a Chineese/Arabic solution and cut off the US part of the information highways from the rest of the world.

[unknown unknown]

Technologically enept senator trying to regulate technology...

it just doesn't make since. It's clear to anyone with even a basic idea of how the internet works that such laws would be completely ineffective and that it could very well run afoul of the first amendment. A parents right to keep certain material from their children doesn't trump the free speech rights of others. There is software out there that allows parents to create a whitelist of sites that their children can vist while blocking everything else. This attempt to impose decency laws (read censorship laws) on every medium of communication is troubling to say the least. You can't have free speech and press with a censorship regime in place.

[fhowden]

decency is in the eye of the beholder

In NY State (wherein I live) had a court decision many (10 - 15) years ago that women can appear topless anywhere men can appear topless. Lets assume that the President [CWB] appears at Jone's Beach and answers questions from a crowd including thousands of topless women. Can the Networks brocast the event????

Janet Jackson notwithstanding. Is there anyone in American who hasn't seen a woman's brest???? What about pictures and other representations [http://which is what the Super Bowl watchers saw.|http://which is what the Super Bowl watchers saw.] ?????

The point grows and grows and any farmer can tell you what makes things grow.
F. Howden

[nzamparello]

Does congess know???

Don't they realize we have a constitution that protects speach and expression... We are mostly adults here... We can make our own decisions in life.. Politicians leave me alone... If something's a bit to graphic or explicit for children.. Well that's when it's time to be a parent and spend time with your child... Don't have time to spend with your kid... Why'd you have them in the FIRST place!?!?

[John Kuzak]

decisions in life

http://www.analogstereo.com/mazda_5_owners_manual.htm

Welcome to Bush Land

Well gee.. any of these people from those Red states? Here you go mr. america.. you voted this looser in again.. and in the name of "HomeLand Security" and "Child Protection", his administration is going to slowly but surely remove all your personal liberty rights in the name his beliefs.. ie.. the Church and his religous right supporters.

Dont worry though.. its not the parents responibility to control and monitor their kids.. its the governments right? Well we dont need that little constitution anyway.. lets just hold our public meetings in the church houses again and we can use the bible as our law.

As for regulating something that is global.. good luck ya looser.. maybe these dirtbag politicians should stick to trying not to waste our tax dollars instead of making up new laws.