Giving the government blanket permission to screen every image you come in contact with on the web and log it to you (and use the information to judge your behavior and punish you for it if they so choose) is yet another inch of creepage in the slippery slope into the toilet the Constitution is sliding down. I once thought McCain was a good guy. I have two teenage daughters myself, but this could be twisted in all kinds of horrible ways.
The proposal, which Sen. John McCain is planning to introduce on Wednesday, also would require ISPs and perhaps some Web sites to alert the government of any illegal images of real or “cartoon” minors. Failure to do would be punished by criminal penalties including fines of up to $300,000.
The Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online Act (PDF) states ISPs that obtain “actual knowledge” of illegal images must make an exhaustive report including the date, time, offending content, any personal information about the user, and his Internet Protocol address.
Another section of the draft bill says that anyone convicted of certain child exploitation-related offenses who also used the “Internet to commit the violation” will get an extra 10 years in prison.
The Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man in November on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents’ consent and posted them online. The images were overly “provocative” and therefore illegal, a federal prosecutor asserted.
Don’t post pictures of your kids in the bubble bath, no matter how cute, or your ass is grass.
Where can I sign up to be one of the screeners?!
I hope there will be some one I can vote for by the time the election rolls around. I won’t be voting for McCain. I will not vote for anyone that has the whiff of totalitarianism about them. This country was founded on LIBERTY you numb nuts!
“The Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man in November on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents’ consent and posted them online.”
The exact same thing happened here in mid-Michigan to a guy named Robert C. Lamb. He took pictures of young boys, with the parents’ permission, and posted them on his website. Now, he did have a record of actually molesting children decades ago, but there was no such allegation in his recent case. He was sentenced to prison for a minimum of 2.5 years to a maximum of 6.
Update: My facts are inaccurate. See comment 11 below for more information.
The feds already have digital signatures on the most common kiddie porn. When they bust into a house they scan the PC for these common images first, and a positive result can come in just a minute or so. If it does, it means you’re virtually convicted already. This appears to be an effort to expand the list and require ISPs to do some scanning of news servers.
Yeah, they have to iron out the gray areas.
I’ve got a better idea. How about you creepazoids stop posting kiddie porn pictures online. HELLO!
There has to better self-policing or the Gubnent is going to do it for us.
I think McCain might be thinking about another Presidential run. Why is he concerned with “the children”? I’m sure it’s just a coinky-dink that Presidential hopefuls are starting to throw their hat in the ring about right now…
Wait, wasn’t there a ruling some years ago that stated that a cartoon or other created work couldn’t be considered under child pornography since they’re only drawings? I mean, no real children or minors or even adults are depicted, it’s just a fricken drawing.
What I can’t understand is, where are all these images at? To listen to these people, one just has to hook up to the net and all of a sudden you’re barraged with illegal child porn! I’ve been on the Internet since 1989 in one form or another (back then, it was Usenet, IRC, FTP and Email…no Web at all), and I’ve yet to see something that could be considered “child porn”. Sure, I’ve seen my share of naked women over the years on the net, but I haven’t seen anything like this. Though I’ll admit I’m not actively searching for it either.
Do these morons that propose these Net laws even use the Internet?
Not to hijack, but…
Continuing with the medias current theme of non stop FUD for Vista a new security vulnerability has been identified.
[Embed links or use tinyURL dammit! You know better. – Ed.]
I’ve yet to see something that could be considered “child porn”.
Usenet erotica binairies groups. They’re the uncontrolled wild west of images. All kinds of crap gets posted in these groups. The regular contributors hate to see it, but I get the feeling that a lot of lurkers want it based on the number of arrests.
McCain spent too much time in that POW camp. I personally think the guy is wacky and would sooner see Hillary President, as bad as that might be, then him. A good intention, twisted and perverted into a draconian law.
6. “Wait, wasn’t there a ruling some years ago that stated that a cartoon or other created work couldn’t be considered under child pornography since they’re only drawings?”
You’re right. Every so often they try to ban drawn images or the use of adult models to create so called child-porn. And every time the courts will knock those laws down.
The sole reason why child porn is a per se crime is because actual children are being harmed in the creation of the material. Once you remove actual children from the content you’re left with no actual harm. You’re left with a possible harm that someone might see the material and might be so aroused as to rape a child. The courts have determined that those mights are insufficient to ban such depictions, as of yet.
My prediction is all of this will change when someone starts making and selling very realistic child porn made entirely with CG effects. I’m talking about extremely hardcore videos with what would appear to be extremely young children. Everyone will be so outraged that even the courts will concede.
To clear up what SN said above…which did make it seem that Robert Lamb was just a photographer that put clothed images of boys on his website and he was arrested for it…this isn’t quite the case, as it’s more murky than that.
Go to http://tinyurl.com/3ds6b to see the story from 12/06.
From what I can gather, the website and his prior conviction as a sex offender were more of a catalyst to search Lambs home, where “Lamb was arrested after police found pictures of naked subjects on a computer disk…” and “Lamb admitted to having sexually abusive photos of naked subjects who Lamb said “appeared to be under 18.”
Just wanted to be clear, this guy isn’t going away just because he had images of clothed boys on his website. So if you have images of your kid on your family website, I think your safe….for now that is.
11. Thanks Scott for clearing that up. I tried to find a news story about it to refresh my memory but couldn’t. Thanks for adding the very important details.
§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
Thanks eric…but I SWEAR there was a case some years ago that challenged this about the “cartoon” part and it shot it down. I can’t seem to find it though.
According to this: a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting means that no humans or any live thing has to be exploited or abused in the creation of the image…it’s just the image itself and what it depicts that will become illegal.
Again, how is a drawing hurting anyone? What about words? What about a story of child sexual abuse that goes into details? Is that illegal also? These are just words on a page…and scribbles on a drawing pad…how can these things in and of themselves be illegal or even harmful? I guess this goes back to the mentality that some pervert will read them or see the drawings and say to himself “let’s go rape some kids!” Who knows.
I used to like John McCain but it has become increasingly obvious that he’s pandering to the same Christian conservative right-wing fanatics of the Republican Party that got Dubya elected. He obviously didn’t get a good read of the political winds after the 06 mid-term elections. Where the hell was he?
You spelled Pornography wrong.
That’s all.
14. “Thanks eric…but I SWEAR there was a case some years ago that challenged this about the “cartoon” part and it shot it down.”
The case you’re looking for is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389 U.S., 2002. It held that the government may not criminalize possession of non-obscene sexually explicit images that appear to, but do not in fact, depict actual children.
You may remember that the government can ban any obscene material, the problem is the determination of what’s obscene. That’s a factual determination, unlike child porn, which is a per se violation.
Why Senator McCain – whats that brown stuff on your nose?
Which is to say don’t make a obscene cartoon and post it on the internet (or download it from) or you could be in trouble(under 18 U.S.C. § 1460—1466) –“shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years”
The result of this legislation, of course, would be to force the ISP’s to keep records of all of our activities. Then, of course, some pencil pusher could use those Patriot act powers to demand lists of online activity en-mass, then use this info to blackmail or silence us. It really is a very poor idea, because it sets up the apparatus needed for massive societal control.
I guess the litmus test will be whether or not McCain himself can get aroused and masturbate to the images.
Get ready for it folks, the election season is heating up. Prepare for a lot of crazy proffered legislation on child porn, violent video games, CO2 emissions, and Health Care reform. Heck, there might even be something about erecting bronze statues of Bush in every city across the US.
Since child pornography on the internet is illegal, it should be scanned for. Same for on-line drug dealers or bank fraud.
But, once again, the problem is they over-reach. Kids in bath tubs are not traditionally thought of as porn.
#6 asks “Do these morons that propose these Net laws even use the Internet?”
The answer is no, very few politicans actually use the net themselves. Most probably can’t use a computer at all. They certainly are easy marks for misinformation about computers and the internet.
Examples abound. For example “The internet is a series of tubes.”
I really don’t think McCain’s law goes quite far enough. He’s including the salacious issue of cartoon porn, and God bless him for that, but he’s ignoring a a very serious related issue. There are some cartoonists who deserve to be put in prison for the numerous acts of unspeakable cruelty they’ve perpetrated against Wile E. Coyote over the years. There must be something John McCain can do.
And where is PETA when cartoon animals suffer?
I’m going to have to write this up eventually. But I am convinced that McCain is trying to submarine his own candidacy. Too many nutty ideas.
I think McCain knows that being the president is worse than being a captive in Vietnam.. Smart like a fox that boy..
Child pron is VERY wrong. This is not the way to combat it however.
On a side note: regular porn between adults should be required viewing before voting. That would weed a lot of whackjobs out of the voting pool.
FYI to the Editors (re: #7): The latest update to our corporate Sonicwall device now blocks tinyurl as a proxy avoidance/hacking site. >:-(
Mc Cain is a wingnut who will flip flop upon whatever the will of the neocons is at the moment.
I wouldn’t vote for him EVER!
As a matter of fact, I don’t know how he keeps getting elected.
Honestly — I don’t get some of you guys — including John.
What’s so crazy about monitoring the ‘Net for child pornography or any other criminal activity? I expect our government to do this.
I’m not exactly sure about the “cartoons” part but the rest seems totally reasonable.
“Cartoons”? — do they mean like graphic novels or something like that?