Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law

[GameSnake]

"For the rating system's definition of sexually explicit material, the Bush administration proposal borrows language from existing federal law. It covers: sexual intercourse of all types; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Yet Another Unconstitutional Mandatory Web Labeling Law

The End of porn?

[Eric]

How is web "labeling" in any way unconsititutional?

[Newby]

How stupid.

[MyndFyre]

QFT:

How is web "labeling" in any way unconsititutional?

Oh wait, GameSnake is just trying to be a libby attention whore again and exaggerating the reality of the situation.  While I don't agree with the law, it's not unconstitutional.

[GameSnake]

x86] link=topic=5657.msg66243#msg66243 date=1145732363]
QFT:

How is web "labeling" in any way unconsititutional?

Oh wait, GameSnake is just trying to be a libby attention whore again and exaggerating the reality of the situation.  While I don't agree with the law, it's not unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to be anything - I pasted the words of the source [dailyrotten] "as-is" - that wasn't my opinion.
And by the way, many 3rd world and non-democratic nations already censore the internet -- I don't think it's right -- for anyone to do that, the internet is to be a beacon of free speach and not censorship; the internet is not a playground for kids, no child should have acess to the internet without an adult's knowledge.

[Eric]

The non-democratic countries that you spoke of in the post that you removed are, exactly as how you stated, non-democratic.  We are a democracy (or a republic, rather) and we have a Constitution that defines our freedoms—freedom of speech being one of these.  This "labeling" is an alternative to following the lead of those non-democratic countries and attempting to cencor the internet in its entirety (which as demonstrated by China, does not work).  This is not an issue involving free speech.  It does not violate the Constitution.  It just prevents a child from inadvertently stumbling onto one of these websites and allows web filtering software to function more accurately.  The "censorship" is left up to those who install and properly configure web filtering software on their computer's which is an ideal preached by anti-cencorship advocates, myself included.

[GameSnake]

The non-democratic countries that you spoke of in the post that you removed are, exactly as how you stated, non-democratic.  We are a democracy (or a republic, rather) and we have a Constitution that defines our freedoms—freedom of speech being one of these.  This "labeling" is an alternative to following the lead of those non-democratic countries and attempting to cencor the internet in its entirety (which as demonstrated by China, does not work).  This is not an issue involving free speech.  It does not violate the Constitution.  It just prevents a child from inadvertently stumbling onto one of these websites and allows web filtering software to function more accurately.  The "censorship" is left up to those who install and properly configure web filtering software on their computer's which is an ideal preached by anti-cencorship advocates, myself included.

Like I said, a child should not have acess to the internet without an adult's knowledge, we don't need to label the internet -- we need to help parents monitor what they're kids are looking at on the internet, while still preserving everyone's right to a free beacon of speach.

[Eric]

The non-democratic countries that you spoke of in the post that you removed are, exactly as how you stated, non-democratic.  We are a democracy (or a republic, rather) and we have a Constitution that defines our freedoms—freedom of speech being one of these.  This "labeling" is an alternative to following the lead of those non-democratic countries and attempting to cencor the internet in its entirety (which as demonstrated by China, does not work).  This is not an issue involving free speech.  It does not violate the Constitution.  It just prevents a child from inadvertently stumbling onto one of these websites and allows web filtering software to function more accurately.  The "censorship" is left up to those who install and properly configure web filtering software on their computer's which is an ideal preached by anti-cencorship advocates, myself included.

Like I said, a child should not have acess to the internet without an adult's knowledge

I wasn't proposing that this measure shouldn't be taken as well, but do you honestly believe that a child won't accidentaly (or purposely) find himself looking at inappropriate content, even with parental consent to use the internet?

we need to help parents monitor what they're kids are looking at on the internet, while still preserving everyone's right to a free beacon of speach.

Isn't that exactly what this system will allow?

[GameSnake]

The non-democratic countries that you spoke of in the post that you removed are, exactly as how you stated, non-democratic.  We are a democracy (or a republic, rather) and we have a Constitution that defines our freedoms—freedom of speech being one of these.  This "labeling" is an alternative to following the lead of those non-democratic countries and attempting to cencor the internet in its entirety (which as demonstrated by China, does not work).  This is not an issue involving free speech.  It does not violate the Constitution.  It just prevents a child from inadvertently stumbling onto one of these websites and allows web filtering software to function more accurately.  The "censorship" is left up to those who install and properly configure web filtering software on their computer's which is an ideal preached by anti-cencorship advocates, myself included.

Like I said, a child should not have acess to the internet without an adult's knowledge

I wasn't proposing that this measure shouldn't be taken as well, but do you honestly believe that a child won't accidentaly (or purposely) find himself looking at inappropriate content, even with parental consent to use the internet?

we need to help parents monitor what they're kids are looking at on the internet, while still preserving everyone's right to a free beacon of speach.

Isn't that exactly what this system will allow?

I'll have to really think about this, which right now I don't want to do. Honostly, I like to read and share news; I don't have a strong opinion for you.

[Ergot]

He's after my kiddie porn too :'( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4929578.stm

[Blaze]

"The Internet is bad for you, Senior!"