Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.

A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive "words or digital images" in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen "absent any further actions by the viewer."

A critic of the proposal said that its requirements amount to an unreasonable imposition on Americans' rights to free expression. In particular, a mandatory rating system backed by criminal penalties is "antithetical to the First Amendment," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.

During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions--a position first reported by CNET News.com--and indicated that legislation might be necessary there as well. Internet service providers say they already cooperate with police and appear to be girding for a political battle on Capitol Hill over new regulations they view as intrusive.

An idea once proposed by Democrats
The Bush administration's embrace of a rating system backed by criminal penalties is uncannily reminiscent of where the Clinton administration and a Democratic member of Congress were a decade ago.

In the mid-1990s, the then-nascent Internet industry began backing the Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS. The idea was simple: let Web sites self-rate, or let a third-party service offer ratings, and permit parents to set their browsers to never show certain types of content. Netscape and Microsoft soon agreed to support it in their browsers.

At a White House summit in July 1997 hosted by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the head of the Lycos search engine proposed that only rated pages would be indexed. (Bob Davis, the president of Lycos at the time, said: "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages.") Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, suggested that misrating a Web site should be a federal crime. And Australian government officials began talking about making self-rating mandatory.

[Jon_Paal]

scare tactics again!

I tested the proposed problem of typing in "Barbie dolls" on google with safe search off. checked both the images and the web and guess what I found..<br /><br />Links to Barbie doll sites.<br /><br />I hate when the government exagerates to create scare tactics for passing unnecessary laws.

[kim&4catz]

It's not fictional.

It's metatag abuse.<br /><br />You can put anything popular in Metatags - "American Idol" or "ipod" or "discount airfare" and if the tags, rather than the site's content, that the search engine uses to direct you to a site, then you can, indeed, get something other than what you were searching for.<br /><br />I think Gonzales is overreaching, and ultimately this will be something that porn merchants can work around. But that doesn't mean the problem doesn't, to an extent, exist.

[maxwis]

It's All About Scare Tactics

The only thing this administration knows how to do is spread fear. I am so sick of the "crisis of the week" that they circulate to the complacent press. Leading up to the the last election, we were bombarded with weekly orange alerts and stories about impending attacks of dirty bombs and smallpox. Then they moved on to bird flu and an assured U.S. death toll of millions. Now it is Iran being just "weeks away" from getting the A-bomb. Meanwhile of course, real threats like destruction and death from hurricanes is completely ignored.

[ACIDQUEENLEE]

REAL MEN AREN'T AFRAID OF THE INTERNET

WHAT IS YOU PROBLEM, DUDE? YOU'RE THE SECONG 'VIRIL; SOUNDING MALE TO INTIMATE THIS. ALTHOUGH, TO BE HONEST YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY CONFESS THAT YOU WERE 'CHICKEN _ _ IT! BUT THE POST YOU LEFT MADE IT AN EASY INFERENCE. <br />Let me clue you in, okay? There is NOT; anything out there in 'cyberspace', that you need to be 'afraid of'. The worst that could possible happen to you is 'you might'get an electrical shock; computers do use electricity; unless you have a laptop-they can run on batteries.<br />All I can say is, you guys out there need to toughen up; and stop being afraid of 'cyberspace'; there is no booby man, only 'porn stars'; and if you have the same problem as that other guy, you better take a rest, or sleep for a couple of days!<br />Good Luck with your 'Abundant Porn Stories'! Have Fun!<br />dcl

[unknown unknown]

It quite clear Gonzales and Bush doesn't understand the internet.

No matter how much this adminstration likes to think so, they don't rule the world, and U.S laws only apply in the U.S. This makes governing internet an interesting proposition especially when it comes to censorship. They could certainly force U.S sites to put up these idiotic labels, but the rest of the world doesn't have to, that's a pretty big gap in any filter. It like won't have much effect on child porn. <br /><br />I suspect Gonzales has alterior motives.

[jeolmeun]

Better than nothing

at all.

[DraconumPB]

'Effect on child porn' ???

Is child porn not already illegal in the US and, I'm sure, other countries as well? I don't think that Gonzales is pushing for legislation to make child porn websites identify themselves, because they're already illegal.<br /><br />I think maybe you meant 'children viewing porn', but I'm not sure.

[R Me]

sure has

Just like hitler. If you want to exterminate something it must first be labeled.

[throbi]

Get a life!

It's OK to label and verify content when you have some couple hundred TV channels. But who the hell is going to verify millions of web sites? And who will pay for that?<br /><br />You want your kids to be safe? Spend more time with them, you people!

[gawdess]

Why not create an internet for perverts?

Hell, government agents could sit around and monitor XXX rated sites and get paid for it! That guy at Homeland Security caught with porn on his computer? That should be his defense in court: "I was only trying to show how the government could be a better Big Brother!"<br /><br />Get a life is right!<br /><br />gawdess

[booboo1243]

No it is not

It's exactly like those anti-spam laws.<br />Now almost all spam is sent from China.<br />There's been an INCREASE in spam since the anti-spam law became effective.

[Blito]

The government continues with isolationism

Have a global non-profit do the labeling (set standards) and the countries do the enforcing.<br />I just don't like the insuler attitude countries take because it gets us nowhere in this global age.<br />First they try to sound like they care (with no global standards) and then one country abuses it too much because they are clueless. Then are labeled a terrorist and more resource wars. Illegal immigrant s are taken advantage of to avoid cross-border laws etc...<br />The Bush admin, like previous admins, continues to ignore the rest of the world.<br /><br />?The only times courts allow product labeling is with commercial speech?advertisements."<br /><br />I am not sure what this persons definition of 'product' is and this is what they allow now so I don't understand how that means the law would be 'struck down.'<br />Anything put up on the Internet is being produced as a product UNLESS it is not really being given to you under an EULA (End User License Agreement). A sniggle room contract that lets companies not really give you the product.

[richtestani]

labelling will do nothing

Seeing large-breasted woman, and wording about sex isn't a good <br />enough clue you are at a sexually-driven website.<br /><br />People don't stumble on it because they aren't looking for it, and if <br />they aren't they leave. As for kids getting on to sites, it still should <br />be a parental issue and not a goverment mandate.

[MisterFlibble]

Oy, Torture Czar is at it again.

Maybe instead of trying to censor the internet constantly, he should maybe try to stamp out the use of torture... by both foreign and our own government. Lessee... to a Bushie, sex = bad, torture = good! Oh, so that's how it works?<br /><br />Gonzales should be tried for war crimes in the hague.<br /><br />Are you regretting voting for these people yet?

[cajunman4life]

Prudes?

First off, I'm an American.<br /><br />I don't understand why America is the land of the prudes. If you look to our European counterparts, they have nudity and "porn" all over the place, yet have a lower rate of sex related crimes. How does that work? Why is it that we scoff at the human body sans clothes? For a "Christian" administration, they should surely understand that what we have was given by God. And judging by the fact that the first humans ran naked through the garden of eden, apparently God wasn't concerned with it. So what gives?<br /><br />&lt;/rant&gt;

[duggerdm]

Reasoning ??? Religion

Your reasoning is absolutely correct. Did you notice - in this country its the same shriveled, paranoid mentality that wants not only to control everything you do, see and think - even to the point of re-interpreting science and rewriting history - that dominates both this country's government and its religions. The tragedy here that so sadly speaks for the American people - is that the majority (debateable, yes) voted for these mentally ill deficients. Which begs the question - which is more dangerous, the unknown perverts on the internet (based on foreign soil far out of Gonzales' and US law's reach) or the perverts that want to "lead" us?

[tryoneon]

Why we have a higher sex crime rate

People want what they cant get. Violence by the bundle is fine in the U.S. but mention sex and people think its immoral.

[CARL C]

NYT on value of public (WWW) nudity--is it Porm?

Being Bad: The Career Move <br />By GUY TREBAY<br />Published: April 20, 2006<br />IT would probably require a stopwatch to clock the lag time between sin and redemption lately, as media disgrace is transformed into a bargaining chip in a celebrity's career often before a bad boy or girl has stumbled home from the crime scene and showered off the taint of shame. <br /><br /> <br />[http://Nikon Inc. After rehab, Kate Moss came back to advertising campaigns.|http://Nikon Inc. After rehab, Kate Moss came back to advertising campaigns.] <br /><br /><br /><br />What seems evident is that public humiliation has lost its barb. There might have been a time when being caught on camera in flagrante delicto or hoovering up lines of coke would have ended a career. But as Paris Hilton proved, being videotaped by one's boyfriend in a zonked-out state and naked on all fours does not put a hitch in one's five-year plan. If anything, the bubble-gum divinity apotheosized on the basis of a homemade pornography loop, a moronic catchphrase and a mental vacancy cavernous enough for storing yellowcake appears set to enjoy a media half-life about as long as that of a spent plutonium rod.

[rem1010]

Sure this will work ... "NOT"!

Sorry, but this idea just cannot work and is not well thought out.<br />All this will do, is to force the website operators to operate offshore, just like the gambling does now.<br />If this goes through, then ALL media will probably be next, including all MEDICAL books, library books, MOVIES rated "R" and so forth .... so just require all Computer and Browser Vendors to require the equivalent of a "V" chip in the computer or software .... WAIT ... I think that someone already does that with a ... nanny ... software or something ...<br />We just do not need Government getting into the World morality structure and pass their values and force them upon everyone.<br />It is time that each person regain their own responsibility for themselves and quit being responsible for everyone BUT themselves.<br />Laws and actions like this proposed law are designed to punish persons running a business, from parents that do not know what their kids are doing and have not given them proper guidance as to what and how they should conduct their lives.<br />Laws like this will never solve that problem and only will make criminals out of people that "break the law" because someone STUPID looked at their wares.<br />Time to rethink how the U.S. should dictate to the world, proper American values.<br />Just my $0.02

[emeraldgate]

breaking the law

the people making the porn and the people selling the porn ARE the criminals. Why shouldn't they be defined as such? They are drugging, raping, and videotaping thousands of people everyday. WITH ANIMALS. How can you think they are NOT criminal?

[eSchmeltzer]

Now we are legislating mistakes?

I often thought that would be a great idea, and, in theory, it will work....till you google something.<br /><br />You can google images for the most innocent of intentions and get a surprise, so will we send Page and Brin to the Hoosgow also?<br /><br />Howsabout we just take responsibility for our own kids, no computers in the bedroom, laptops are in Mom and Dad's room for the night, and if we, as adults, stumble on something nasty, just hit the back button.

.xxx Domain

Wouldn't much of this be resolved or made easier by ICANN's ".xxx" domain?

[dland51]

XXX

It would have been so simple but that would have legitimized the sex industry by the government! This way everything that could have a sexual conotation, whether it is models in bathing suits or an article showing how a woman should do a self exam for breast cancer will be subject to another stupid law, dreamed up by someone trying to shove their moral certitude down the throats of every citizen of the US! OH, I just thought of another bonus for this law; it will drive more business into outsourcing so they don't have to worry about pissing Bush or Gonzalez off!!!

[duggerdm]

Yes, but ICANN's not up for reelection like many Repubs.

Great point. As what is becoming 'the most hated administration in US history' further unravels, you can expect to see even more stupid, inept, and bazzare attempts at wooing the uninformed masses of the US voting public. Now that the head rat has left the sinking ship - you can be sure Rove will be active in trying to keep the rest of the minor conservative demigods afloat - in the upcoming elections. One day perhaps the American voting public will vote for politicians the same way they hire an employee for their business - insist on and accurate resume and then hire the most qualitifed and experienced individual. Hey, I can dream.

[James P. Larsen]

Bush opposed the .xxx Top Level Domain...

...that's the main reason it hasn't happened. I guess the just don't <br />like _that_ label. dland51 probably has the right take on that. <br />a .xxx TLD would have been too narrow, leaving open the <br />possibility that bikini's and underwear might not be xxx'ed.<br /><br />God save us from His pea-brained minions....<br /><br />JPL

[MrHandle]

Yes Samual

If these leaders weren't completely mentally incompetant, what you're saying would be obvious to them. It's all a bad joke.

[CP80]

.xxx needs some work before it is even a solution

I don't think .xxx failed because it legitimized porn. We build <br />prisons, fund poilce forces, pass laws to control harmful <br />substances all the time, this doesn't legitimise crime, legitimise <br />illegal activity, or legitimise drugs or drug traficing.<br /><br />The problem with .xxx was that it did nothing to correct the <br />problem.<br /><br />It was origionally proposed as volitary, so nothing changed from <br />a .com perspective. <br /><br />How were you going to get everyone who has paid money for <br />their .com to give it up, abandond, or redirect?<br /><br />How would you force the rest of the world to comply, no answer.<br /><br />I can't imagine the fights over specific domains: Ford.xxx, <br />USC.xxx, CocaCola.xxx, Disney.xxx. Or, maybe that is exactly <br />what those who proposed such a option want, an auction $$$$$<br />$! Can you say "TradeMark Wars"!<br /><br />I heard some argue that it will make it easier for kids to find it. <br />Just type anything .xxx and your there: Kids.xxx, Toys.xxx, <br />food.xxx, where does the madness it end?<br /><br />I think that there are better solutions out there than .xxx.

[CP80]

.xxx needs some work before it is even a solution

I don't think .xxx failed because it legitimized porn. We build <br />prisons, fund poilce forces, pass laws to control harmful <br />substances all the time, this doesn't legitimise crime, legitimise <br />illegal activity, or legitimise drugs or drug traficing.<br /><br />The problem with .xxx was that it did nothing to correct the <br />problem.<br /><br />It was origionally proposed as volitary, so nothing changed from <br />a .com perspective. <br /><br />How were you going to get everyone who has paid money for <br />their .com to give it up, abandond, or redirect?<br /><br />How would you force the rest of the world to comply, no answer.<br /><br />I can't imagine the fights over specific domains: Ford.xxx, <br />USC.xxx, CocaCola.xxx, Disney.xxx. Or, maybe that is exactly <br />what those who proposed such a option want, an auction $$$$$<br />$! Can you say "TradeMark Wars"!<br /><br />I heard some argue that it will make it easier for kids to find it. <br />Just type anything .xxx and your there: Kids.xxx, Toys.xxx, <br />food.xxx, where does the madness it end?<br /><br />I think that there are better solutions out there than .xxx.

[cubicleslave1]

It's about time

It's about time we did someting to protect our children! The <br />proposed legislation does nothing to impede our personal <br />freedom. Anyone can still access all the pornographic material <br />they want, but parents now have a tool for blocking such <br />material from their children. This is just common sense, and <br />really nothing new. For example, we require that adult <br />businesses cannot admit minors within their premises, and may <br />not be located within a certain distance of a church or school. <br />Any adult, however is completely free to patronize such <br />businesses. We prohibit the sale of pornographic magazines to <br />minors, and require that their covers be obscured on the news <br />stand if they feature any pornographic image. Any adult, <br />however, is still completely free to buy such magazines. We <br />prohibit minors from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and <br />prohibit them from entering any establishment that serves <br />alcohol. Yet such businesses still thrive, based on patronage <br />from legally adult customers. The legislation proposed by <br />Gonzales just gives us more choice, if we choose not to be <br />bombarded with porn. On the flip side, it could be good for <br />adult businesses, because now anyone who is seeking porn will <br />be able to more easily find it! I fail to see how this is any crimp <br />on freedom of speech, unless you are talking about the freedom <br />to send porn to minors over the objection of their parents.

[dland51]

fail to see

Well, if you look at all the people who have said those very famous words you just used: "fail to see," and the effect on the civil liberties of all Americans you are a member of a growing minority! The minority I speak of are the people who have used that phrase and wait until something comes along that personally affects them and then wonder why hasn't anyone done anything, why wasn't anything done to stop all of this infringment before now, why do I have to be the one to raise a stink about the erosion of civil liberties and rights! Someday you will be that person, unless of course, you are the top dog and are dreaming up these protect us from ourselves laws! Let people raise their own kids, protect their own kids from what they read, watch on tv, the internet, or the kids next door: keep the government out of it! Each one of these laws is about control; government control of the American citizen, not about protecting kids from porn! My God we have 2 and a half more years of Bush and his "protecting the people!"

[duggerdm]

The greatest protection is understanding

If you are truly interested in protecting your children - you should try to understand more about the internettechnically and more about this problem. People who support ineffective and unworkable legislation actually do more to make us at risk, because it dilutes enforcement efforts and resources from enforceable laws. Your analogy comparing your local convenience store magazine rack to the internet is exactly why the proposed legislation won't work. The internet convenience store is anywhere in the world and far out of reach and enforcement by US law makers - not matter how grandiose they think their powers. How has their spam law worked out??? This kind of thoughtless legislation is meant to tell conservative voters that the current administration really loves them - so you will be deceived once again in to voting for them in the upcoming elections. What you should be seeing is that they are not only totally and legally and technically incompetent, they are purposefully trying to deceive you into thinking they are actually doing something for you. Have you considered supervising your children's acess to and time on the internet? This is something you can do without the govenment's support. What a novel idea.

[rdsoxfan]

Well said!

I agree completely with this! I posted a similar response before reading this one. I agree with your comments about freedom of speech. This legislation does not restrict freedom of speech. People opposed to this sort of thing always use the argument - "If you don't like viewing porn, then don't view it" but without mandatory, consistent labelling how can those of us who don't want to view pornograhphy (and who want to protect our children from it) be assured that we are filtering it out?

[Bill Dautrive]

If you need the governments help to raise your kids

You are a bad parent.

[rcrusoe]

Re: It's about time

Forget all the good reasons for doing this. The bottom line, IMO, is the government isn't trying to do this to protect children. They have political or other reasons for proposing this. <br /><br />Only a fool would think that a U.S. law could have any effect on a global network.<br /><br />One needs only look at China for proof of this. The Chinese government has failed in their attempts to keep their people from accessing certain types of data on the net. And short of cutting their country off from the net, they will continue to do so.

[Zymurgist]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

While it's a cozy thought that you could regulate online pornographys like "adult" stores, I think it's a foolish daydream.<br /><br />Fact is, any legislation -- even if it stands up toa court test -- is quite limited in scope: commercial enterprises within the US. Were I someone that were interested in getting around something liek this, I'd simply host the site out of the US. I'd see no difference in cost, I could keep the same domain name as before, etc.<br /><br />In fact, the laws' marginal effect would be that foreign web-hosting would get a boost and US web hosting for these sites would suffer.<br /><br />And what's the point? To make it easier for people to filter out the content? Presumably kids are supervised online and get this stuff. Presumably surreptitious receipt of pornography is already either the result of uncovered behavior, or already illegal to begin with.<br /><br />Not that I disagree that people ought to be able to block out what offends them, but frankly, I would think this would be pretty low on the totem poll. I mean frankly, the majority of the stuff that comes out of Fox News and CNN are more harmful to children than naked folks -- need I list them: people chopping off each others heads, school children killing themselves and each other, shooting up heroin, bodies lining the streets, or an attorney general of the US that endorses torture, or an administration that orders $400 million worth of "mass detention" facilities for "new government initiatives". I mean come on, a naked lady might raise some questions uncomfortable for Mom and Dad, but the stuff on the typical news site will make your blood run cold, have nightmares, and develop serious psychological issues if taken in without guidance.

[rneubert]

Mandatory Web Labeling

And while they're at it, how about labeling those large banking, financial, energy, and government Web sites as "Oligarchy Explicit."

[gcoryer]

Administration without a clue (but yet...)

I guess I don't understand. The Bush administration has been resisting the ".xxx" domain proposal tooth and nail. The ".xxx" domain would allow us parents to easily block all properly classified X-rated content with existing filter applications. This notice and mark on each individual page method means we would have to view the page first to see that its content we don't want. Or we would need special applications that allow the government to block content based on tags on the pages themselves.....Oh!<br />Gary Coryer

[Scenario]

Bush: Go catch Osama, then you can screw up the internet.

The government reminds me of cell phone companies who keep <br />adding features to phones to conceal the fact that they still SUCK <br />for talking on.<br /><br />Seems to me, spammers and phishers are much bigger problems. <br />Focus on catching them and you'll net most of the smut peddlers <br />as a bonus.<br /><br />Otherwise this proposal smacks of a faith-based internet.

[duggerdm]

Crystal clear vision you have.

It is faith-based... electioneering. You got that right. Besides if Bushites had caught Osama, he would have never been re-elected. He would have never been able to engineer higher oil prices through Iraq and Iran. His family's oil interest and influence would not have exponentially increased in value - above and below the table. Is it my imagination or are the technophiles in general, or just on this site that are very much fed up with the Bushites?

[lmoxon]

Administration is Out to Lunch!!

The Internet, WEB Site's are independent &#38; most of the trashy &#38; Prono Sites are hosted in the 3/ 4th world countries which we have no control over!<br />Also the hit today &#38; are gone tomorrow in many cases. So wakeup &#38; take responsibility of your children's actions &#38; most of all keep your eye on them at all times!!! If you can't do that then get rid of the Internet connection that you're/ they're using!

[billsmith9999]

Iraq is lost so try something else

These guys will do anything to distract the public from the lost war in Iraq. Illegals at the borders was tried, new White House staff, now "Protect our Children" on the Internet. There is no crisis of pedophiles or child endangerment. Its just pure political distraction. Rome had its "Bread and Circus". We have Fox News and kiddy porn. History just goes on.

[DraconumPB]

Not sure I disagree

Good point, although as I stated to someone else, I don't think the problem is "kiddy porn". Actually, what I mean by that is, I think that kiddy porn (i.e. children photographed naked in a sexual context and posted online) IS a problem, but it's not the problem that's being combatted by this legislation. Kiddy porn is ALREADY illegal, so it'd be pointless to have kiddy porn websites identify themselves because, well, they shouldn't exist (in the US or wherever else they are illegal) anyway.<br /><br />But anyway, I do agree with you in some ways. I think Myspace.com contributes more to paedophelia than porn websites (that is, legitimate porn sites anyway), so that can't be used as an excuse. <br /><br />All in all, when nuclear powers mounting, gas going up, people are dying, without power or food, caught up in political strife, and so forth, some 12 year old boys seeing nipples on [insert porn site here].com isn't really the worst problem that the nation could be having.

International application of websites labelling

Even I fully agree to support the idea to protect children, imposing such labelling internationaly is going to demonstrate the US Government extending its dominance in a new field (same for passing data to the CIA and NSA !) Guess that Verisign will propose to be the business providing the label (for a fee ? ) or carriers justifying additional charges for such services !

[emanuelb]

well

Well, imposing this type of law would, I believe, be impossible in most (European) countries since suggesting it would be political suicide. Also many countries, including socialist Sweden where I live have laws regarding the freedom of speach and press that we(I am happy to report)*do* take seriously. Any attempts to limit those rights would be synonymous with ending your political career.<br /><br />I too agree that children should be protected as does almost everbody in the world. But laws such as this one will not serve that purpose and are obviously constructed with differnt goals in mind.