Liberal Internet Community Interfering with Law Enforcement

[ClydeR]

The House Republicans' first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing.

A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police.

More... (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029393-281.html)

That's all well and good. But guess what? The liberals who control the internets are already plotting to thwart it.


Tomorrow's data retention hearing is juxtaposed against the recent trend to protect Internet users' privacy by storing less data. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission called for "limited retention" of user data on privacy grounds, and in the last 24 hours, both Mozilla and Google have announced do-not-track technology.

Even some otherwise good people are being lured into criticizing the effort.


Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, says the push for legislation is an example of pro-regulatory Republicans. "Republicans were put in power to limit the size and scope of the federal government," Harper said. "And they're working to grow the federal government, increase its intrusiveness, and I fail to see where the Fourth Amendment permits the government to require dragnet surveillance of Internet users."

I disagree with Mr. Harper. This is not regulation. It's law enforcement. Law enforcement is the complete opposite of regulation. If they pass this law, it will help put in jail people plotting terrorism, people looking at pornography, and people scamming to steal money. Mainly they will catch people looking at pornography.

[Gan]

Since when is it against the law to look at pornography if you over 18 years of age?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Since when is it against the law to look at pornography if you over 18 years of age?

Is there an actual LAW that if you are under 18 you cannot look at pornography?

[Jace Solo]

I think the law is that if you cannot give access to someone under 18. So, it would more than likely affect those that provide others with porn.

[Cephalopod]

Is there an actual LAW that if you are under 18 you cannot look at pornography?

More likely laws that prohibit sales of pornographic material to minors. (Think stores, rather than online.)

[Gan]

Is there an actual LAW that if you are under 18 you cannot look at pornography?

I think there are state indecency laws regarding this.*

*Geared towards the provision of said material, not the actual viewing of said material. I do not think a minor can be charged with any offense if he's caught viewing a form of pornography based on my understanding of Texas law. Federal law might be another story...

ie: Texas Penal Code


Sec. 43.24. SALE, DISTRIBUTION, OR DISPLAY OF HARMFUL MATERIAL TO MINOR. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Minor" means an individual younger than 18 years.
(2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole:
(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor, in sex, nudity, or excretion;
(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.
(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful:
(1) and knowing the person is a minor, he sells, distributes, exhibits, or possesses for sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor harmful material;
(2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; or
(3) he hires, employs, or uses a minor to do or accomplish or assist in doing or accomplishing any of the acts prohibited in Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2).
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification; or
(2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or spouse.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless it is committed under Subsection (b)(3) in which event it is a felony of the third degree.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[TheEschaton]

The hard part with online porn sites is "knowing the person is a minor". As long as they put a "Are you 18?" button on their website and the user clicks yes, they can argue that they didn't know they weren't.

[ClydeR]

Since when is it against the law to look at pornography if you over 18 years of age?

The law -- both in the states and at the federal level -- is not as clear as you may think. As a matter of fact, it's probably a lot less clear than any of you think. All it will take is a prosecutor with the inclination and resources. Republicans are making sure that internet companies help provide the resources by preserving people's internet history.

Prosecution of obscenity cases has been vacillating between hot and cold as we switch from Republican to Democrat to Republican to Democrat appointed attorney generals. During Democrat years, the prosecutions focus on child pornography. During Republican years, the prosecutions are wider and included successful prosecutions of distributors of "obscene" adult pornography. With new internet tools, a Republican appointed attorney general will be able to extend the rod of correction to consumers, in addition to distributors.

[Gan]

The law -- both in the states and at the federal level -- is not as clear as you may think. As a matter of fact, it's probably a lot less clear than any of you think. All it will take is a prosecutor with the inclination and resources. Republicans are making sure that internet companies help provide the resources by preserving people's internet history.

Prosecution of obscenity cases has been vacillating between hot and cold as we switch from Republican to Democrat to Republican to Democrat appointed attorney generals. During Democrat years, the prosecutions focus on child pornography. During Republican years, the prosecutions are wider and included successful prosecutions of distributors of "obscene" adult pornography. With new internet tools, a Republican appointed attorney general will be able to extend the rod of correction to consumers, in addition to distributors.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Ardwen]

Because our ridiculously overcrowded prisons need yet more people that shouldnt ever have been arrested in them. How bout the people pushing silly shit like this get off their asses and maybe create some jobs or something at least worth considering doing

[ClydeR]

I was saying...


Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have each told Morality in Media (MIM) his administration would prosecute violations of the bans on hardcore pornography, the anti-porn organization reported Monday (Jan. 9). None of the other GOP candidates or President Obama has responded to efforts initiated by MIM in October to learn their positions on the issue.

MIM has chided Obama for his administration's failure to enforce obscenity laws.

"Vigorous prosecution of those who violate our nation's obscenity laws is critical now. Our nation is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography that is readily available -- even to children on the Internet and in other venues," MIM President Patrick Trueman said in a written statement.

More... (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=36922)

That's why, just as I said a year ago in the first post in this thread, that we're requiring internet service providers to keep records of which subscribers are looking at pornography. As soon as we get a good Republican attorney general, we'll be able to lock those people up, making the world a safer place for the children.

[~Rocktar~]

This is such a poor law and has so very little to do with porn that is is laughable. It is vague, nebulous and provides an onerous burden on internet providers that is so great as to be threatening to anyone that uses electronically transmitted communication, data storage or networked devices. The laws against porn, child porn and so on are pretty effective and have easily addressed the cyber world. It moves beyond proof of guilt to prove you are innocent and in the mean time suffer tremendous and damaging financial burden just in the attempt.

Seriously, if you thought the Patriot Act was a broad brush then this is a high pressure power painter.

[Latrinsorm]

The laws against porn... are pretty effectiveYou are not serious, I hope?

[Rinualdo]

This is such a poor law and has so very little to do with porn that is is laughable. It is vague, nebulous and provides an onerous burden on internet providers that is so great as to be threatening to anyone that uses electronically transmitted communication, data storage or networked devices. The laws against porn, child porn and so on are pretty effective and have easily addressed the cyber world. It moves beyond proof of guilt to prove you are innocent and in the mean time suffer tremendous and damaging financial burden just in the attempt.

Seriously, if you thought the Patriot Act was a broad brush then this is a high pressure power painter.

Comedy gold.

[~Rocktar~]

You are not serious, I hope?

No, when used, they work fine to prosecute people. The choice to use or not isn't working so fine. Also, the justice system in general is fucked up.

[~Rocktar~]

Comedy gold.

Do you ever add anything to the ecosystem other than waste?

[Rinualdo]

Do you ever add anything to the ecosystem other than waste?

Garbage in, garbage out.

[~Rocktar~]

Garbage out.

FTFY

[Rinualdo]

FTFY

u mad bro? We can settle this in a manner you're familiar with.

I open at 2 horts.

[~Rocktar~]

u mad bro? We can settle this in a manner you're familiar with.

I open at 2 horts.

~chuckles~

2 and 1/2 inches is quite an opening.

I am simply amused at your ongoing and absolutely amazing lack of ability to contribute anything of value, ever.

[diethx]

Ohhhhhh snap he insulted your hortage.