Comments on: Congress spanks naughty sex sites

President Bush is expected to sign a bill that targets Net drug sales and sneaky Web sites deemed "harmful to minors."

[xyxx1]

Congress spanks naughty sex sites

It is another case of big brother government aiding and abetting parents who wish to avoid realtime parenting. Parents want methods, formulas, plans, software, and laws that will do, they believe, the parenting for them.
It is simple. Your children's compute is in the livingroom, familyroom, or other common room where the parents may monitor what they do on the computer. Routers may be (this I approve) be configured to only allow them on the internet certain times. But the best child protection is a parent or parent surrogate parenting in realtime. Some provisions of this bill are unconstitutional and stupid.

[movie_guy_73]

RE: Congress spanks naughty sex sites

It is true that the parent should keep an eye on what their
children are surfing for on the web, but you can't watch them
24/7.

As soon as someone exploits an innocent child or minor, their
"consitutional rights" should be taken away. People take this
"First Ammendment" scapegoat way too far.

I am in FULL support of the government putting big brother on
sick people. There is nothing "stupid" about locking up sex
offenders and predators.

[umbrae]

Its a good thing that most of these site originate in Korea...

Where old bushie can't get them...

[movie_guy_73]

RE: Its a good thing that most of these site originate in Korea...

I'm not sure how having these kinds of sites is a "good thing"?
This world has NO place for sick people that run these sites and
exploit innocent children.

I say lock them up for the rest of their lives! People like that do
not deserve second chances, same as sex offenders. What
happens when they are released? They do it again!

It truly saddens my soul to think that there are people out there
who support these kinds of sites, whether they are in Korea or
not.

Even if "bushie" cannot find them all and shut them down, they
will get what's coming to them in the end. What goes around,
comes around.

[chassoto--2008]

Has anyone actually googled "Furby?"

I just did. Not one bare nipple. Not one erect anything (except
maybe furby ears). I even googled "furby sex" and I got some
christian youth site! I tell you, this Furby character needs to work
on improving his page rank...

[chassoto--2008]

Has anyone actually googled "Furby?"

I just did. Not one bare nipple. Not one erect anything (except
maybe furby ears). I even googled "furby sex" and I got some
christian youth site! I tell you, this Furby character needs to work
on improving his page rank...

[jdbwar07]

Exploiting fear

Probably no one even does that anyway. No US porn company would think of doing this, not only would they be ostracized and imprisoned, it's just bad for business.

But just like they use terrorism, you can bet the Republicans will now exploit parents' fears in exchange for more big brother (patriot act, eavesdropping,etc). The public's fear of islamo-terrorism is now wearing off, and now we know the Republicans can't wage a competent war on this, so for election time they need a new war.

So now the new thing to scare people is "sex terrorism." They're just hoping they can create a new fictional "war" to present to the public, something they can go on Fox news and say only Republicans are capable of doing.

They hope we'll all be too worried and distracted by the threat of furby porn sites, to focus on the fact the GOP has massively failed America in virtually every regard: Katrina, the Iraq war, unsecure ports/borders, corruption, bankrupting America, etc.

[ONSLAT]

I WANT MY SSI

They need to stop wasting my money on BS. Stop blowing smoke up my a?? I know what smoke feels like. The only time you will get a Politician to take care of anything worth wile is when he is not running for reelection.

[btljooz]

An EDUCATION for movie_guy_73 and

others like him:

THIS is the FBI [u]?sex offender?[/u] page:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm

See for [u]yourself[/u] what it [b][u]REALLY[/u][/b] is!!! Also, [u]THINK[/u] about such lists and the [b]continuation[/b] of [b][u]creating[/u][/b] lists such as this. WHICH [i]list[/i] could [b][u]YOUb/u][/b] find [u]YOURSELF[/u] on???

These links help expose the [b][u]TRUE[/b][/u] agendas at work here.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&page=1

http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm

Quotes from:

http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612

>1. According to data compiled by the U.S. Justice Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex ), the high recidivism rate of sex offenders is a myth. Sex offenders have an overall recidivism rate of less than 6 percent over three years, and 40 percent of those who do re-offend do so in the first year after their release. More detailed analysis confirms that a sex offender?s likelihood of committing a new crime decreases the longer he or she remains free; in other words, if they?re going to commit another crime, it will probably happen in the first few years after their release.
Of course, this sort of data doesn?t make for good sound bytes for politicians seeking to foster a ?get tough? image to bolster their chances for election or re-election; but it?s the truth, as much as they may deny it.
Nonetheless, the supposedly high sex offender recidivism rates that politicians seem to pull out of thin air (when was the last time you heard one cite an actual study to validate the numbers they quote?) have created an environment where the mere presence of an individual who committed a sex crime five, ten, or twenty years ago is enough to cast a community into a state of panic. Given the misinformation and lies of the politicians (and the media?s dutiful reporting of same), it?s no wonder that some, at least, feel that vigilante justice is an appropriate response.
In the end, it all comes down to a simple question: Should our government be in the business of facilitating vigilantism? Certainly the legislators who wrote these laws will argue that that was not their intention, but the effect is the same.
These laws remind me of the ?attractive nuisance? concept in liability law. People who work with potentially dangerous equipment (circular saws, pesticides, chemicals, and so forth) are required to safeguard those items to prevent curious children (and others) from hurting themselves. If a carpenter leaves his circular saw unattended and a child picks it up and cuts himself, the carpenter is liable for costs and damages related to the child?s injuries. The argument that it wasn?t the carpenter?s intent that a child pick up and play with his circular saw is irrelevant. By leaving it unattended, he created an attractive nuisance; and he is therefore liable.
Creating a public hysteria about sex offenders, and then publishing their names and addresses on the Web, where anyone can access that information without so much as providing identification, is akin to leaving a power saw unattended. Anyone ? stable or unstable, honorable or malicious ? can access that information and use it in any way they like. This opens the door not only to vigilantism, but also to innocent people being killed because of mistaken identity.
If this information is to be made public at all (personally, I think it should only be available to law enforcement professionals), then the only safe balance between the public?s ?right to know? and the concept of the rule of law is to release the information only to adults who physically walk into a police station, present identification, and make an inquiry about a particular individual. This creates accountability and helps safeguard against random vigilantism.
In other words, if the neighbor down the street seems to be a bit too friendly towards your children and you want to check him out, that seems to me a legitimate use of sex offender registration information. But to simply publish all of this data on the Web, with no safeguards to prevent it from being used irresponsibly or criminally, is unconscionable in a society whose conduct supposedly is based upon the rule of law.

Comment by Bugsy ? May 4, 2006 @ 10:01 am

-------------------------------------------------
2. Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid - very afraid ? of these laws.
Long before Hitler killed the first Jew in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of human beings by ? you guessed it ? attacking the rights of sex offenders. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be ?sexual deviants.?
The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for ?Megan?s Law.? They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear pink triangles, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included long prison terms, loss of voting rights, confinement in concentration camps, and (sometimes) the death penalty. All of these laws were justified by the Nazi?s in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megan?s Law: to protect the children from sexual predators.
Of course, Hitler had other things in mind, as history shows us; and targeting sex offenders was just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for his later attacks against the people he truly hated.
It?s doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitler?s rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights ? and he started with the most universally despised group he could find.
Anyone who thinks that this couldn?t happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you can?t single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else.
Comment by Liberty Lover ? May 7, 2006 @ 8:54 am

To learn more on the TRUE nature of what is going on visit this site:

http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064

and go through it with a fine toothed comb. ;)

When done, use that computer of yours to [b]REASEARCH[/b] even deeper!!!

Education/Infromation is power!!!! By allowing the US 'gov' to create a China-like net here, we are only handing over OUR power...the power of [b]WE THE PEOPLE[/B]!!!!!

[Tomcat Adam]

Woah!

Text tags work here. Wow. I never even knew that.
Neat!.

Interesting links.

I think this is going towards a more McCarthyism end...

[loadofchyt]

The only reason recidivism rates are declining is because since 1995, child sex offenders learned that if you kill the child, you will not get caught.

So, yes, recidivism rates are down, but more children are dead.

I don't find that to be an acceptable trade-off.

[cocos2000]

congres has too much time and money to waste?

they should consider to ban other words too!
foxy (its about innocent foxes)
***** (its about dogs)
doggy (style - but also about dog world)
blow (about wind)...
please ban and make special forces to search these words and put webmasters to jail!

[unknown unknown]

More election year grand standing

It's a nice idea to have GPS monitors with two way communcation ability for sex offenders but I think keeping them in prison would be an even better way to keep them from doing it again, especially for those that have actually abused someone. Perhaps start clearing out some of the non-violent offenders to make room for the real scum. The U.S does imprison the most people of any country and most of it is for non-violent offences.


As for web labeling and banning misleading words for porn sites, it's completely ineffective unless all internet connected countries agree to enforce such things.

[halebobbdotcomslashraving]

Sounds good, but lets have some truth regarding what makes a sex offender wear the label "violent".
Just because government, that bastion of truth, says someone is violent, are we to believe the person actually use violence against a victim? Well, that's what they want us to believe, but in fact this is not the case!

The new federal anti-*sex offender laws define "violent" as any attempt at a whole slew of descriptions of illegal acts. These use these terms not to inform but to further punish.

And as proof of their artistic propaganda one can view various state *ex offender websites and notice that they just didn't have the room to write out the whole "attempted" word for many of these people. They say, for example, "att sexual battery."
I guess what we really need is more funding for these poor states so that they can afford the bandwidth to spell out whole words. (Unless of course I'm correct and they purposely leave off words that bolster my argument.)

[spridemore-2009]

well I did find this article about furbiling
by googling sexual furbys

http://www.pigdog.org/furbiling.html