Comments on: Web labeling mandate surfaces in Senate

Operators of commercial sites containing sexually explicit content would have to post warning labels--or face up to 15 years in prison.

[DaClyde]

Why prison time?

Aside from the issue of whether or not any concrete guidelines will be spelled out for enforcing this, does the senate just have some great vested interest in seeing that the country's prisons stay over-populated? Why would this be a jailable offense? Instead of levying a punishment that simply costs taxpayers money, what about a large fine? If this is that big of a deal, turn it into a revenue generating tool instead of a revenue draining sinkhole. The same goes for stuff like driving without a license or unpaid parking tickets. Putting the offender in jail is just a tremendous waste of money and gov't resources.

[MisterFlibble]

Exactly.

I don't see this as an issue, at all, and as such, don't think that people should be fined for not labeling websites, especially since the internet is an international entity, and US law would have no barring on other countries' websites anyway, but it's just nuts to offer jailtime for such an "offense" and it's downright INSANE to offer a 15 year fedral sentence as punishment for something so minute. These GOP senators need a psychiatric evaluation, they've clearly have gone off the deep end!!!

[DaClyde]

Why prison time?

Aside from the issue of whether or not any concrete guidelines will be spelled out for enforcing this, does the senate just have some great vested interest in seeing that the country's prisons stay over-populated? Why would this be a jailable offense? Instead of levying a punishment that simply costs taxpayers money, what about a large fine? If this is that big of a deal, turn it into a revenue generating tool instead of a revenue draining sinkhole. The same goes for stuff like driving without a license or unpaid parking tickets. Putting the offender in jail is just a tremendous waste of money and gov't resources.

[MisterFlibble]

Exactly.

I don't see this as an issue, at all, and as such, don't think that people should be fined for not labeling websites, especially since the internet is an international entity, and US law would have no barring on other countries' websites anyway, but it's just nuts to offer jailtime for such an "offense" and it's downright INSANE to offer a 15 year fedral sentence as punishment for something so minute. These GOP senators need a psychiatric evaluation, they've clearly have gone off the deep end!!!

[David Trammel]

Child Pornographers Don't Worry About Labeling

Who are they kidding. Some guy already breaking the law by sexually abusing underaged children and facing serious prison if he's caught for that, he's not going to label his website. Or worry he's going to get more jail time for not doing it.

This is all about pandering to the Religious Right for the upcoming election. They don't seem to be able to get meaniful immigration reform, can't do sqwat about oil companies gouging the public like a $2 prositute, and won't rein in the massive abuse and outright bribery by paid lobbiests, but they can pass a few laws against porn and think that will make the bible thumpers happy.

Hope the Far Right sees thru the hypocricy. I can.

[jdbwar07]

top two excuses to take away freedom

1. To prevent another 9/11
2. To protect children

The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then pass more laws taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.

[jdbwar07]

top two excuses to take away freedom

1. To prevent another 9/11
2. To protect children

The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then begin taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.

[David Trammel]

Child Pornographers Don't Worry About Labeling

Who are they kidding. Some guy already breaking the law by sexually abusing underaged children and facing serious prison if he's caught for that, he's not going to label his website. Or worry he's going to get more jail time for not doing it.

This is all about pandering to the Religious Right for the upcoming election. They don't seem to be able to get meaniful immigration reform, can't do sqwat about oil companies gouging the public like a $2 prositute, and won't rein in the massive abuse and outright bribery by paid lobbiests, but they can pass a few laws against porn and think that will make the bible thumpers happy.

Hope the Far Right sees thru the hypocricy. I can.

[jdbwar07]

top two excuses to take away freedom

1. To prevent another 9/11
2. To protect children

The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then pass more laws taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.

[jdbwar07]

top two excuses to take away freedom

1. To prevent another 9/11
2. To protect children

The government wants to make us all afraid so they can then begin taking away what little privacy and freedom we have left.

[David Trammel]

Don't Work That Way Boys

<<"A similar sentence would apply to anyone who knowingly embeds words or images in the source code of their sites with the intent of deceiving minors into viewing "harmful" content.">>

Only problem, web searches don't work that way any more. Haven't for years. The major search engines, like Goggle have algorythmns set up which detect imbedded or hidden images and text meant to artificially inflate or influence your rank on their searches. Big No-No. It will automatically get a website blacklisted from the search engines. People haven't done this in a long time.

Where's an "Office to Check to See if That's Actually A Problem Before We Right A Stupid Law" when you need it?

Is it too much to ask my representative to actually check their facts. Remember this boys in the beltway, I remember lame attempts to look good while wasting my taxpayer bucks, and I vote.

So do millions more of us. Enjoy your retirement come December.

[David Trammel]

Don't Work That Way Boys

<<"A similar sentence would apply to anyone who knowingly embeds words or images in the source code of their sites with the intent of deceiving minors into viewing "harmful" content.">>

Only problem, web searches don't work that way any more. Haven't for years. The major search engines, like Goggle have algorythmns set up which detect imbedded or hidden images and text meant to artificially inflate or influence your rank on their searches. Big No-No. It will automatically get a website blacklisted from the search engines. People haven't done this in a long time.

Where's an "Office to Check to See if That's Actually A Problem Before We Right A Stupid Law" when you need it?

Is it too much to ask my representative to actually check their facts. Remember this boys in the beltway, I remember lame attempts to look good while wasting my taxpayer bucks, and I vote.

So do millions more of us. Enjoy your retirement come December.

[Central_office_tech]

What about communities that allow users to post content?

I run a few websites. One of which is a community. We will allow people to post pictures and video's. Thier profiles will allow them to link straight to it. Now if some idiot posts porn will I go to jail because I didn't check everyone of the thousands of profiles and lable each page accordingly?

This law sounds pretty broad and in places outdated. Why not push the .prn domain names through then make a law forcing all pornographic sites to that extension. Then you could allow parents to block all .prn domains. Granted that will not fix all of the problems, but it is a much better start. It also keeps people out of jail that would never intend to harm a minor.

And what about the violence on the net. I find a naked body less offensive than a beheaded person. It is a naked body. BDSM and full on sex I get. But to get upset because a breat is on your page, In clothing no less is a bit extreme. I mean the old Sears Catolog by federal law is porn. Bikini and underware... Hell the K-mart flyer I get weekly is porn.

A bit broad and scarey if you ask me. Maybe that is the point. It seems like if you do not surf the way they want you to, to where they want you to, they want a fine, or jail time.

What does it matter anyway. If net neutrality isn't put in place they can ask 5 compaines to just block offensive sites throughout the US.

[Central_office_tech]

What about communities that allow users to post content?

I run a few websites. One of which is a community. We will allow people to post pictures and video's. Thier profiles will allow them to link straight to it. Now if some idiot posts porn will I go to jail because I didn't check everyone of the thousands of profiles and lable each page accordingly?

This law sounds pretty broad and in places outdated. Why not push the .prn domain names through then make a law forcing all pornographic sites to that extension. Then you could allow parents to block all .prn domains. Granted that will not fix all of the problems, but it is a much better start. It also keeps people out of jail that would never intend to harm a minor.

And what about the violence on the net. I find a naked body less offensive than a beheaded person. It is a naked body. BDSM and full on sex I get. But to get upset because a breat is on your page, In clothing no less is a bit extreme. I mean the old Sears Catolog by federal law is porn. Bikini and underware... Hell the K-mart flyer I get weekly is porn.

A bit broad and scarey if you ask me. Maybe that is the point. It seems like if you do not surf the way they want you to, to where they want you to, they want a fine, or jail time.

What does it matter anyway. If net neutrality isn't put in place they can ask 5 compaines to just block offensive sites throughout the US.