May 10, 2006 5:30 PM PDT

Lawmakers take aim at social-networking sites

(continued from previous page)

To curb teenage access to interactive Web sites, Republicans chose to target libraries and schools by expanding a federal law called the Children's Internet Protection Act.

That law, signed by President Clinton in December 2000, requires schools and libraries that receive federal funding to block access to off-color materials. Librarians challenged it in federal court on First Amendment grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law by a 6-3 vote in June 2003.

DOPA would add an additional requirement. It says that libraries, elementary and secondary schools must prohibit "access to a commercial social-networking Web site or chat room through which minors" may access sexual material or be "subject to" sexual advances. Those may be made available to an adult or a minor with adult supervision "for educational purposes."

Lynne Bradley, director of the American Library Association's office of government relations, said she was still reviewing the legislation. She added that: "We're as protective of kids as any other protection in this whole field, but we do know there are legitimate uses (of social-networking sites)."

"ALA is always in favor of having quality and detailed education on how best to use the Internet and these other digital tools and the best user is an informed user that knows the risks, how to avoid them, and knows how to keep him or herself safe," Bradley said.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, there have been 25,707 agreements to provide federal funding to school districts or individual schools, and 3,902 agreements to libraries or library systems. The ALA estimates that as many as two-thirds of libraries receive federal funding and would be affected by DOPA.

DOPA would also require the Federal Trade Commission to set up a Web site about the "potential dangers posed by the use of the Internet by children" and order the Federal Communications Commission to create a committee and publish a list of Web sites "that have been known to allow sexual predators" access to minors' personal information.

Rosa Aronson, director of advocacy for the National Association of Secondary School Principals also said her organization did not currently have a position on DOPA.

"We are grappling with the tension between promoting our normal policy, which is to promote local control for schools, and on the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of protection of students," Aronson said.

Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the free-market Progress & Freedom Foundation, was not as reticent. "This is the next major battlefield in the ongoing Internet censorship wars: social- networking Web sites," he said.

"Many in government will want to play the role of cyber traffic cop here, just as they have for other types of speech on the Internet," Thierer said, adding that it will "chill legitimate forms of speech or expression online."

Laws restricting Web sites tend to be challenged in the courts. The ALA, for instance, sued to overturn the Communications Decency Act in 1996 and the library-filtering requirement a few years later.

But DOPA seems to have been written to benefit from the high court's 2003 ruling that library filtering was permissible. Bob Corn-Revere, a partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine who has argued before the Supreme Court, said the eventual fate of DOPA may depend on whether it's implemented narrowly or broadly.

Even so, Corn-Revere said, "treating MySpace sites like poison seems like an extreme overreaction."

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
MySpace, Rep., Republican, LiveJournal, legislation

69 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Just what we need...
Just what we need, a bunch of hysterical, computer illiterate, politicians, passing more stupid laws.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
this is retarded.
libraries are public places for kids, yes.. BUT ALSO ADULTS. i'm
so freaking sick of legislation that aims to "protect the children"
yet totally trashes the rights and privileges of adults. this is not
something that needs to be dealt with on a congressional level.
and besides, kids will be kids.. THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO GET
TO THESE SITES. all this law will end up doing is allow congress
to chip away another piece of our rights so the next time they
want to limit our freedoms, this can be cited as a precedent.

there are much larger problems in this country... this crap is just
a diversion from the bigger issues.
Posted by jbondo (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Retarded
Although they would find another way to get to the sites, they don't need to do it at the library.
Posted by PSKSUNDANCE (4 comments )
Link Flag
you miss the point
it is not legislation to block you from getting your porn (btw - you should not be accessing porn from a library computer in that children can look over your shoulder and view what you are viewing). DOPA is putting responsibility on network providers to monitor for and report preditor activity. Certainly, this is not a bad thing?
Posted by dfranke (2 comments )
Link Flag
Same Congress That Taxes Us To Provide Broadband
A few short years ago we kept hearing about the "digital divide" and how our country was falling behind. We were told that we needed a new tax on broadband to pay for a mass rollout of broadband to schools and libraries. Now of course, this same Congress sees an Internet boogeyman (fueled by tabloid shows like Dateline), in a shameful pandoring to "soccer moms". Of course soccer moms can no longer drive little Johnny to soccer games because petrol is so expensive, so little Johnny spends all his time surfing the Net at the library. We MUST protect little Johnny and little Janie from themselves, so yet more legislation must be passed. Of course implementing this new legislation will be expensive, and bankrupt schools and libraries certainly don't have the money to do this, so we'd better levy a new tax to solve a problem that we created by levying another tax. Makes perfect sense. There's no problem in the world that can't be created (solved) by legislation.
Posted by maxwis (141 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are so right
I disagree somewhat, in that I think the problem is real, but I totally agree with your main point: rescind the telecom tax, and the problem solves itself. No tax = no subsidy = no internet at school/library = no problem. Not only that, but maybe Johnny will learn to read, write, and add.
Posted by dmm (336 comments )
Link Flag
Congress targets social network sites - NOT
Making anything off limits to kids only makes it more desirable (please refer to history of Prohibition, cigarettes, sex ed, etc.). Duh!

This should be a "no-brainer" for our "edge-u-kayshun" president and the likes of him. Instead of *restricting* our children's use of MySpace.com et al, why don't we *educate* them about the "risks and perils" of the internet and all the "boogiemen" waiting out there? Most of the teenagers I talk to about it in our community are totally aware of why you don't give out personal info on a webpage. How insulting to their intelligence is this!? Let's give them a little more credit, please.

Besides, if kids don't use MySpace, where will the pervs go then to look for "fresh meat"? As it is now, finding and arresting them is like "shooting fish in a barrel". By having sites like MySpace, we're making law enforcement's job just that much easier.

Fear-mongering Repukelicans will do anything to get a vote! This story reminds me of when I was little and mommy told me, "Never get in a car with a stranger." Did they take all the cars off the road? "I don't think so, Scooter!"

Get off the computer Congressman, and get a life!
Posted by gawdess (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Absolutely
Correct. Well said and right. This is more right wing midterm desperation politics.
Posted by blogtommy (6 comments )
Link Flag
DOPA is for DOPES
"Fitzpatrick's bill, called the Deleting Online Predators Act, or
DOPA, is part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to
address topics that they view as important to suburban voters.
Republican pollster John McLaughlin polled 22 suburban
districts and presented his research at a retreat earlier this year.
Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, is co-sponsoring the
measure"

More like part of there "lets focus everyone's attention away
from our total lack of ability to govern" strategy...

And more importantly, this vaguely worded sorry excuse for
legislation is not gonna do anything to protect children from
cyberstalkers...

And did I mention it was vague and poorly worded...

"cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create
public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board,
chat room, or e-mail service"

that could be construed to mean any site where you have a
profile and a discussion board...

that includes cnet...

and then where would i go to watch flame wars?
Posted by victor_kahn (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What we really need
Are parents who do their job as parents and quit relying on the govenment to be your nanny.
Posted by kaufmanmoore (42 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: What we really need
But parents are working. Wah waah waah! They're too busy to take care of their kids.
Posted by Steve Imparl (10 comments )
Link Flag
amen..
so true... parents.. isn't that YOUR job not our governments? plus, i don't want my tax money (being a single man) to go to such a bill...
Posted by seamonkey420 (72 comments )
Link Flag
The public library??
Schools that want to block these sites may do so today without the need of legislation, but how can we justify blocking access to these sites from the /public/ /library/??

They can't fairly block blogger.com and no other blogs, so does that mean they must all be blocked?

Just as they are voted into office, people should be able to vote these idiots out of office.

Politicians always make promises they can't deliver to get voted into office and then instead spend their time in office chipping away peoples rights little by little.

I don't even have a political party to run screaming to because they are all mostly just as worthless.
Posted by Dachi (797 comments )
Link Flag
What happened to State and local authority?
I can't for the life of me figure out why the choice of whether to block a website from a school computer shouldn't be exclusively up to the school authorities. Surely the school system and its parent's groups and voters would be able to work out this issue to their satisfaction based on local standards? Isn't that what a federal system is all about, that each level of government gets to make the choices reserved for them in the Constitution (and the State constitutions)? Welcome to the Republican theocracy, where religious extremists ride roughshod over the Constitution when the public doesn't side with them. This silly proposal will fail, as will Karl Rove's attempt to make a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage (marriage law belongs to state authority, not federal) a centerpiece of the party's Fall congressional strategy. Offering up bad legislation in order to pretend to serve party ideology is damaging to the fabric of our democracy; it shows a contempt for the underlying basis of our legal and governmental system.
Posted by Razzl (1318 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Get your facts straight (no pun intended)
1) The Feds feel entitled to intervene in local school internet policy because the DEMOCRATS passed a law that taxes telecom use and uses the money to subsidize internet access by schools. The one who pays the bills, calls the shots.

2) Not that this is pertinent to the article, but for the record, the Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage would ONLY affect FEDERAL and INTERSTATE recognition of gay marriage. Currently, if Massachusetts starts marrying homosexuals, then every state and the federal gov't are also required to recognize that marriage as valid. Thus the current situation allows ONE state to DICTATE to EVERYONE ELSE, which is NOT what Federalism is all about. (And, incidentally, the PEOPLE and the LEGISLATURE of Massachusetts rejected homosexual marriage, but it has been forced on them by their COURTS. How's that for "damaging to the fabric of our democracy?")
Posted by dmm (336 comments )
Link Flag
it's called nclb- look it up
federal dollars are dangled like carrots in front of state departments of education...they of course willingly do whatever is asked since those dollars are needed to actually meet the new federally mandated nclb act requirements.

actually, states rights went away after the war of northen agression supressed state's rights activistism/seperatistism expressed by the southern states in he mid 1800's.
Posted by spidermatt67 (3 comments )
Link Flag
it's called nclb- look it up
federal dollars are dangled like carrots in front of state departments of education...they of course willingly do whatever is asked since those dollars are needed to actually meet the new federally mandated nclb act requirements.

actually, states rights went away after the war of northen agression supressed state's rights activistism/seperatistism expressed by the southern states in he mid 1800's.
Posted by spidermatt67 (3 comments )
Link Flag
it's called NCLB - look it up
federal dollars are dangled like carrots in front of state departments of education...they of course willingly do whatever is asked since those dollars are needed to actually meet the new federally mandated nclb act requirements.

actually, states rights went away after the war of northen agression supressed state's rights activistism/seperatistism expressed by the southern states in he mid 1800's.
Posted by spidermatt67 (3 comments )
Link Flag
blocky block blockerson
hahaha do they know anyting? These sites can spring up and become popular faster than congress can every do anything and faster than a public facilities IT staff can block them.
Posted by chuchucuhi (233 comments )
Reply Link Flag
blocky block blockerson
There are companies that specialize in blocking site though. But you are right, they can't even keep up.
Posted by PSKSUNDANCE (4 comments )
Link Flag
Congress is reacting, rather than responding
Once again, Congress is reacting to public hysteria, rather than responding from due diligence.

The Act broadens the definition of "social networking websites and chat rooms" so as to include any online activity or medium. The Act's description of "Internet safety for minors" includes sites through which the minor "may easily access other material that is harmful to minors." "Harmful to minors"? Such language is highly subjective at best and watered down at worse.

However, the real bottom line is that discussing the language of the Act is irrelevant. The Act applies only to computers in libraries and in schools. The majority of U.S. households have at least one computer -- which is in the minor's bedroom.

Maurene Caplan Grey
Grey Consulting
www.grey-consulting.com
Posted by mgrey (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Congress has no right....
Congress has no right to tell me what sites the computers in my house can access. It's my responsibility to make sure the computer in my son's bedroom can't access certain sites.

Here's a thought: why don't put the sexual predators in jail and leave them there? As a rule of thumb, lets let the potential predators out there know that if you hurt children or the elderly then you're going to go to jail and you're going to stay there.

I live in a city of 35,000. There are 54 registered sex offenders in town. 4 in my neighborhood, 2 of those committed crimes involving children (and I live in an upscale neighborhood).

As a society we're failing to protect our most valuable and helpless asset: our children. Shame on us.
Posted by drfrost (467 comments )
Link Flag
Ropa DOPA
DOPA (Gooood use of acronyms, guys!) is just Congress' latest attempt to swat a fly with an atom bomb. In fact, it's the equivalent of removing one bad congressperson by firing all of them at once.

Hey...

Maybe we got something here...
Posted by Steve Jordan (126 comments )
Reply Link Flag
About time soneone did something...
Maybe this is a small effort and maybe it isn't. It may be effective and it may not. But it is about time someone did something about all of our children being able to access anything they like without parental supervision. The schools and libraries are not the place for accessing this type of thing. Children should be accessing it through their homes only, where it is the responsibility of the parents to restrict or not what they have access to. As it stands right now it is the equivalent of sending a child into a room of loaded guns and telling the child it is safe to shoot any gun they wish. They child may survive and they may not. For adults to have this access - fine. They understand the consequences and can protect themselves. Children often get into things that they don't understand and don't know how to get out of.
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Keep crying
You keep crying to congress that the world is a dangerous place and they need to protect your children from it, and I will teach my children that the world is a dangerous place and how to avoid that danger. Keep crying to congress when your children have been molested or even worse killed.

All these mandated filters on the world don't protect any child. They only take rights away from all of us and teach children how to become hackers. Monitoring your children and talking to them when they stray teaches them about the world we live in. Relying on software to watch your children is about as safe as the fox guarding the hen house.
Posted by lschweiss (9 comments )
Link Flag
children vs. adults
children shouldn't be using myspace without parental
supervision.

that is a given.

but this bill would block EVERYBODY from using these sites in
schools and libraries...

These sites do have legitimate uses...my tax dollars pay for your
network, so do try to keep the policing to a minimum...kthxbye.
Posted by victor_kahn (11 comments )
Link Flag
no FEDERAL law. Have individual institutions vote for only specific sites.
Forums and blogs provide information that can be used for research. The majority of blogs and forums are not used for social networking amongst teenagers. Generally speaking, forums and blogs should be allowed in schools and libraries. Instead the schools and libraries should decide themselves if they want to block only specific blogs and forums, and that should be done by a parent, library-card-holder vote. They should then work with their IT department to block only those specific sites instead of creating an global law. For those schools and libraries who are not concerned, let them allow all of them.
Posted by esterud (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thats some heavy bias, there, CNET
While I agree the proposed law is retarded, this line caught my attention:

"is part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to address topics that they view as important to suburban voters."

Thats a VERY loaded line. This should never have gotten past the editor. CNETs 'journalistic' quality has always been scraping the bottom, but this is worse than usual.
Posted by (402 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Please explain
While I agree the article is neither well written or supported - I'm not sure what you find bias in this statement - assuming that the author verified that there is a Republican poll that says this an actual concern of suburban voters. If its a statement of fact - even though the poll is not referenced or detailed - it should be a statement of fact. Where's the bias?
Posted by masonx (244 comments )
Link Flag
What bias?
Actually, my local Republican legislator sends, on a regular basis, polling materials asking what topics the party should work toward. It usually has a list of topics with a rating system asking the recipient to choose a rating by importance for each topic. It's not the bottom of the barrel - it's a fact. It is a common practice/ploy politicians use to present themselves as caring representatives!
Posted by Throwing Thunder (1 comment )
Link Flag
Justification and legislative priority
No where in any of this do I see any actual facts telling anyone how big a problem internet child predation really is. Its certainly not in the this C/net story (shame on you Dedan Mc Cullagh - **** poor writing). Yes, everyone has heard stories. Yes, this country's politicians are stupid enough to propose legislation without any actual justification - just based on popular fear and ignorance. I have never read the actual number of children that have been physcially harmed through public interntet access sites - have you? Where are those numbers to support the priority and need for this legislation. I have no doubt that it is a fraction of the number that will be physically ill and die from smoking and second hand smoke. A fraction of those that will die unnecessarily in car wrecks. A fraction of those that will die from inadequate medical access. Where the hell are the politicans needed to combat these very real high priority threats to our children. NOooo that would mean cutting their kick backs and financial base that might threaten their re-election. I'm not necessarily against this legislation - I am against anyone considering it without enough facts to establish whether its' priority is high enough for congressional action ahead of other much higher priority legislation and I am really pissed because its obvious that its priority is much lower than many other dangers that politicans like this ass Fitzpatric choose to ignore for their own gain and well being Please, somebody kick this Fitzpatrick in the head until he has enough sense to address the facts - in the legislation before he proposes legislation solely to pander to his equally stupid and computer illeterate conservative voter base.
Posted by masonx (244 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I vote to give the power to the parents.
Censorship has always had the opposite effect.

What happens when someone tells YOU...that you cannot have something?

I have faith in parents' ablilities to raise their children, in their own families' values.

Pat
Posted by patgrahamblock (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
censorship
OMG another way for the government to inact censorship. This pisses me off soo much. Who controls which sites get blocked?? Could be anything. Besides kids can access these sites from homes why not create a law that solves the problem instead of creating needless censorship.
Posted by ardentsunshine (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
create laws
There are already laws on the books against the most horrific porn - beastiality. There are laws on the books against raping childen. What they should be doing is charging the producers of this garbage with slavery. A new law could be one entitled 'chemical kidnapping'. It could be used against those people who drug and rape someone. What the neutrality law does is protect the web server, like Google, from prosecution.
They should be charged, raping people with animals, has become a billion dollar industry and the web servers make a fortune off of it. They should be in jail.

Dianne
Posted by emeraldgate (53 comments )
Link Flag
Basic Identity confirmation
So why hasn't a reporter done a story about the stupid boring things Google and eBay did that myspace could also do to limit perverts and 12-year olds wearing barely-there tube tops?

EBay had the same problem when it first started and was perceived to be overrun by rip off artists.

It instituted identity verification processes like phoneconfirm.com and the overreaction was "Big Brother is here!" But, they were wrong. All it did was help limit the use of the system to rip people off. Similarly, Myspace could be using any number of innocuous identity confirmation systems and processes to make their system have fewer underage users and put the fear of castration into the hearts of perverts.

You note, 97 percent of sex offenders have phone numbers ... so perhaps use a phone confirm system when someone signs up for myspace and put sex offender phone numbers on the black list? Gosh what an idea. But we can't do that  that's like Big Brother. No it's not, it's common damn sense. We do it every day down at the local gas station with people who posted bad checks. We put the faces of bad people up in the post office. We exclude people who don't wear ties from fancy restaurants. We ask questions of strangers who wander into the cubicle farm unannounced: "Say can I help you? Are you looking for someone?"

And, hey, while you're at it, should we blacklist phone numbers from households that have underage users who repeatedly get deleted and then create new myspace profiles? Or put a limit to the number of sites associated from a specific phone number?

Both myspace management and the reporters covering myspace are focusing on the throbbing pants of teenagers and perverts (and the First Amendment rights of pre-teens, by god!) rather than the simple, but relatively boring, technical fixes and processes that will make the Great Myspace Freakout of 2006 look about as stupid as the Y2K hysteria.

- - -
Posted by BradPhone (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Get out of my face Yahoos!
Here we go again, political Yahoos trying to get into our shorts again because they can't seem to do anything else right. Get out of MySpace and the Internet entirely and leave us alone. I think we can govern our own lives and choices on our own a lot better than our politicians are running the so-called government, such as it is.
Posted by rneubert (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Anybody find this ironic a week after articles about kids using proxies?
I think just from the CNet articles about proxies we've seen how well these filtering ideas work. Personally, I don't care about the black lists, I have my own webserver with my own personal proxy, lets see the blocking companies track that down and block it.

And I really don't see libraries trying whitelists any time soon.
Posted by mwa423 (78 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Because we obviously can't handle ourselves
Once again, it is obvious that Congress has been pushed around by lobbyist that have figured out that parents don't know how to monitor their kids. Then again, they do have a responsibility at the library. I don't know why libraries are not all interconnected with an IT department to manage that kind of stuff. I believe that library computers should be set up like company computers. Libraries are there for the purpose of doing research. Although I know that not all people don't have access to the internet, I don't think that library computer is the right place for personnel web site creation and chat unless it is work, or school related. In this age of cheap access and even cheaper, over a time period, computers, I really don't understand why so many people flock to libraries to use a computer, anyways.

At any rate, social network sites have no real place in the libraries. You have to know that the real reason this is even news is because pedefiles have been using those sites to attract targets. For that reason, I have no problem with Congress going after the this issue. It is only sad that they do have to take the issue up themselves.

Another reason this is a problem is because of privacy issues. Nobody monitors what is going on with the computers. I know the few times I used one at the library it was to pay bills and granted, I would not want somebody looking over my shoulder while I was typing in my credit card number, however it is a public place and I should not expect to be able to do that without somebody taking notice. What I would really expect is for someone to come up and warn me that anybody could be looking over my shoulder so I should use my credit card, in such a public place, with care. I would think that people would do the same thing with something as intimate as talking to "friends or dating."
Posted by PSKSUNDANCE (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Browderism pure and simple
I live in Rochester, NY, where school children can get a library card {w parental consent.] The Roch. Public Library has 56 copies of the complete works of the M. de Sade. I certainly would NOT anyone under 16 reading this stuff and even then would want to discuss it with the child. But what my child reads is MY responsibility, NOT the librarian's. The computer is in the family room where my wife and I can moniter its use. If the individual school chooses [wisely or unwisely] to block certain sites, so be it. BUT KEEP THE FEDS OUT OF IT. Congress has much too heavy a hand to deal with all these situations. Any Fed statue will have thousands of unintended consequences. Tell the Republican 'punishment queens' to sit down and shut up.
Frank Howden+
Posted by fhowden (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Browderism?
Browderism is the idea that communism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist.

I think you mean "Bowdlerism," which is a pejorative term for censorship (esp. removing sexual references and innuendoes from classic works such as Shakespeare's plays).

I think you have a point, though, about the Feds interfering in local education. While we're at it, let's get rid of the Federal telecom tax that subsidizes internet access for schools.
Posted by dmm (336 comments )
Link Flag
Bull - Bill would support predators
The predators this bill "Claims" to protect children from require secrecy and isolation to do their brainwashing. This kind of legislation would ensure predators that teachers and librarians would NOT be looking over shoulder of children they are targeting.

Want to discourage inappropriate behavior online at your school or library? Get involved yourself! Volunteer! Encourage the agency to establish an Audit Policy where high risk traffic is brought to the attention of supervising adults in real time. Use the alert as a learning oportunity! If little jonnie is checking out a porn site he's ready to enrole in the sex ed class. If little janie's MySpace blog is has personally identifying information then teach her about online privacy and how to protect her self from predators.

The less oversight a child has while learning about life the more likely they are to be seriously harmed when they make a mistake.
Posted by jerunamuck (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You might possibly be right, but ...
consider the following:
1) Kids would undoubtedly object to what they would see as an invasion of their privacy;
2) The watchers might themselves be predators;
3) Your idea takes up a lot of volunteer time, which is a valuable and limited asset;
4) If parents don't watch their kids online, then it is their kids who may suffer, whereas teachers and librarians cannot possibly have the same degree of self-interest; and
5) Your idea sets up the schools/libraries for expensive lawsuits.

The bill in question is a straightforward and simple solution to the problem. Yes, filtering software doesn't always protect and sometimes hinders. But you could say that about lots of things that are intended for our protection, and often mandated by law -- bike helmets, car seats, seat belts, air bags, speed limits, speed bumps, gun licenses, drivers licenses, vaccinations, etc. There are two generally-accepted principles: 1) Go with the averages; and 2) When dealing with children or young adults, err on the side of caution.
Posted by dmm (336 comments )
Link Flag
why don't we...
get a bill that will just effectively put us back in stone ages. Instead of torturing us piece by piece with bills. As for this bill I say let's block the access from public places. Kids go to school to learn not get on the net and socialize. That's what cafeteria and recess is for.
Posted by dondarko (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
why don't you...
people get a life.i've been on myspace for 2 and a half years now.i've met most of my friends from myspace.i've met over 70 people off of myspace guys and girls and had no problem what so ever. i'm 20 now and have been on since i was 18. if a young girl wants to join myspace and put up unexpectable pictures of themselves thats their fault. Tom the founder of myspace nor sexual preditors tell these girls to put pictures up like that. That's their doing, nobody elses. You are the only one who can put pictures up on your page and you decided who you go out in meet. That's why you meet people in public places or with a group of friends. There's plenty of ways to tell a fake user profile from a regular user profile, it's not rocket science people. Kids, who are on myspace should know the rules of meeting people, instead of us putting laws to strict people from it. How about congress makes laws that would actually do some good like lower the damn price of gas and not allow unneccessary war to begin. This whole fight against Myspace and other sites is ridiculous. If your kid's don't know how to socialize with the right people in society, thats not my fault or the millions of people who are on myspace that never had a problem with it just like me.
Posted by joeyunstoppable (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
why don't you...
people get a life.i've been on myspace for 2 and a half years now.i've met most of my friends from myspace.i've met over 70 people off of myspace guys and girls and had no problem what so ever. i'm 20 now and have been on since i was 18. if a young girl wants to join myspace and put up unexpectable pictures of themselves thats their fault. Tom the founder of myspace nor sexual preditors tell these girls to put pictures up like that. That's their doing, nobody elses. You are the only one who can put pictures up on your page and you decided who you go out in meet. That's why you meet people in public places or with a group of friends. There's plenty of ways to tell a fake user profile from a regular user profile, it's not rocket science people. Kids, who are on myspace should know the rules of meeting people, instead of us putting laws to strict people from it. How about congress makes laws that would actually do some good like lower the damn price of gas and not allow unneccessary war to begin. This whole fight against Myspace and other sites is ridiculous. If your kid's don't know how to socialize with the right people in society, thats not my fault or the millions of people who are on myspace that never had a problem with it just like me.
Posted by joeyunstoppable (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.