Bush Begins Crackdown on Internet Freedom - Starting with Porn!

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]The Internet again in the political crosshairs
August 29, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh


Social conservatives helped to re-elect President Bush last year. Now his administration is returning the favor with a crackdown on sexually explicit material.
As usual, the Internet is in the political crosshairs. The Family Research Council recently demanded that the Bush administration do something about the .xxx domain--a zone reserved for adult content and set for final approval this month.

The administration was happy to oblige. Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, asked for .xxx to be put on hold. Now its future is uncertain.




The same pattern is repeating elsewhere in the administration. When Bush needed to appoint a successor to Michael Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the president could have chosen someone to relax Powell's "indecency" crackdown.

Instead, Bush chose Kevin Martin, who holds even more expansive views of what's indecent than his predecessor did.

Calling for a crackdown on sex sites through new taxes, regulations or prosecutions might make headlines--but it's just political posturing. Martin voted against airing "Saving Private Ryan" on broadcast TV, and his candidacy was embraced by the Parents Television Council. Now Martin has hired Penny Nance, an antiporn religious activist, to be his adviser. Until a few weeks ago, Nance was a board member of Concerned Women for America, which has a mission statement of bringing "Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

Bush's Justice Department has not been idle. Bruce Taylor, the president of the National Law Center for Children and Families who claims to have been responsible for the most obscenity prosecutions in the history of the United States, has been hired to lend a hand.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft was the butt of jokes from late-night comedians for his morning prayer sessions and his staff's decision to cover the naked breasts of a statue in the Justice Department.

But it was Ashcroft's successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who targeted adult Web sites by burdening them with onerous record-keeping requirements. Those rules currently are being challenged in court. So is the Child Online Protection Act, defended by the Justice Department and opposed by mainstream publishers including Salon.com, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and News.com publisher CNET Networks.

Expanding 'indecency'
Congress is becoming just as censorial. One example is a proposed tax on adult Web sites. Another is a bill approved by the House of Representatives that would boost fines for broadcast "indecency" from $32,000 to $500,000 and punish stations with possible loss of their broadcast license.

Now the Senate is talking about expanding that idea to cable, satellite and the Internet. "We ought to find some way to say, 'Here is a block of channels, whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is, to a home, that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see,'" Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told reporters in March. (VoIP stands for voice over Internet protocol.)

Even though cable channels currently are not covered by "indecency" restrictions, some have been self-censoring to avoid the ire of the self-appointed morality mavens in Washington.

John Landgraf, president of FX Networks, told a conference in Aspen, Colo., last week that his shows are "rated, they're V-chipped and there's a detailed graphical (warning)." FX's lineup includes "Rescue Me" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."

"You'd really have to be blind and deaf to watch the shows and never know--we make it quite clear they're adult shows for adults," Landgraf said, adding that FX won't air racy shows earlier in the evening. "Even though technically we're not regulated and there's nothing the FCC could do, we feel that we have little choice right now."

Risk of collateral damage
The problems with Washington's new focus on pornography are twofold: It won't work, and it won't stop with adult sites.

Calling for a crackdown on sex sites through new taxes, regulations or prosecutions might make headlines--but it's just political posturing. Sexually explicit material isn't limited to the United States, and persuading the Dutch to pull the plug on sites based in Amsterdam is as likely as persuading France to endorse the invasion of Iraq.

The second problem is that antiporn laws are touted as targeting smut, but they end up being used to suppress unpopular ideas.

Victims of obscenity law in the not-so-distant past include a literary review with works by Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs, Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer," the classic tale of "Fanny Hill," James Joyce's "Ulysses," and, in the last decade, comic book artist Mike Diana.

Indecency regulations are even broader. The FCC has ruled that utterances of four-letter words can be punished--a sweeping categorization that includes news articles, dictionaries, sex education sites, and transcripts of conversations between the vice president and a U.S. senator.

Technology including the V-Chip, white-listed Web sites in Apple Computer's Tiger operating system, and even the humble off switch are more effective ways to shield children from porn without collateral damage to free expression. But because politicians wouldn't be able to claim credit--or appease their social conservative supporters--we should expect more of the same.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Hmm... Well, unless I'm mistaken, limiting (or the attempt to limit) the freedoms of the people in this manor is the first step to a 'Facist Government' as according to Lawrence Britt. Even if they'll likely fail on such an endevour - the Porn industry is far to powerful - it seems to be a sad sign of things to come; or a desperate show of defiance from a dead administration.

Discuss.[/COLOR]

[Harry]

I don't agree with this measure (and laugh at Bush's obvious ignorance to how much of the internet is comprised of porn), but saying this is some horrible violation of freedom is idiotic. This is only for a .xxx domain name, it's not shutting down any porn sites. It doesn't hurt porn sites at all, all it does is just hurt the web filtering people who have to keep a list of name instead of just blocking out all .xxx domains.

Last of all, the porn industry has no real power in the US so it's likely that this will stay. Since you live in the magic land of Canada, you may not realize that porn is barely legal in the US. The only reason why it's legal is because of a vague sentence given out by SCOTUS in the 70's. They dont' have lobbyists, they only have lawyers who can sue which only gets you so far.

[Stuart]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]I'm with Harry, When he said "I don't agree with this measure (and laugh at Bush's obvious ignorance to how much of the internet is comprised of porn), but saying this is some horrible violation of freedom is idiotic." There are other ways to prevent the viewing of porn for kids. Such as: parental controls, and other "kid safe" programs. There's plenty of technology out there to do it. The same goes for television. Though I agree that there are some things that shouldn't be aired on TV, and it makes me sick to watch some of immature nonsense that is put onto TV. If the government should crack down any thing, It should be television. But again, There are parental controls now for the TV. If parents don't want their kids to view mature content, that's the parent's responsibility. Increasing tax prices to prevent porn? I find that to be quite a waste.

I dug up an article that relates to this issue. The article dates back to 2004, so as you can see, This isn't a new idea that the government as thrown out. If you're interested I suggest you read it [URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5324463/#storyContinued][U]here[/U][/URL]. I believe it to be more "well put", If you will. [/FONT]

[Lafleur]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I do agree that the .xxx domain won't really shut-down porn sites, but that's not what it's about. The fact that the [I]freedom[/I] to do what you want to do on the internet is being infringed, that people aren't allowed to do whatever they want with the internet would be like saying you can't host kangaroo boxing matches in International Waters. There aren't supposed to be laws or restrictions or anything, that's why the Web is such a great place. Today it's a .xxx domain, tomorrow it's having some government orginisation monitoring everything you type, or somthing of that nature.

BTW, this has nothing to do with the US other than Bush (And the rest of them) is the one doing it. It's the WORLD Wide Web. What happens on the internet is none of Bush's, or anyone elses, buisness and I don't feel anyone should even be alowed to try to restrict it. As I said, like placing restrictions in International Waters.

Am I the only one tired of somone peddling their Puritan wares to make sure no one has any fun?[/COLOR]

[Manic Webb]

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']BTW, this has nothing to do with the US other than Bush (And the rest of them) is the one doing it. It's the WORLD Wide Web. What happens on the internet is none of Bush's, or anyone elses, buisness and I don't feel anyone should even be alowed to try to restrict it. As I said, like placing restrictions in International Waters.[/color][/quote]
That's one thing I'll never understand when it comes to people who want to censor the internet on some level; the internet is an international domain. One country shouldn't have the power to impose laws, taxes, or restrictions in "international waters."

[quote][color=darkred]Am I the only one tired of somone peddling their Puritan wares to make sure no one has any fun?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
That's what happens when your country is founded by Puritans-- Puritans who were kicked out of their original country, mind you.

[Sandy]

I still can't get over the fact that American government and officials - almost the whole society - thinks that nudity, homosexuality and pornography are something much more worse than violence, crime and guns!

That's something so [I]absurd[/I]! The first three have never hurt anybody (if you don't count raping, pedophilia or S/M ;P ), while the latter three kill loads of people every day and ruin the lives of so many more! Yet little is done to them, while all sexual content is getting wiped out.

[PWNED]

I agree with Sage on this one 100%, Violent crimes happen all the time all over the world but Bush can't seem to pull his finger out and do something about it. But remember, George Bush appeals to the Right-Wing Christians who think that Sexual things that are not said are good in the bible are wrong. Puh-leaz; That is the way which people in the middle ages thought unlike in the Present day.

Well, that was Satisfying. Now to my proper argument.... Drugs, Guns and Violence kill people while things like Same Sex marriages and Pornography are harmless. Unless the Same Sex people are psycho killers or the Pornography is Snuff Porn, Then people are getting hurt. But that isn't often at all.

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Manic, yo']That's one thing I'll never understand when it comes to people who want to censor the internet on some level; the internet is an international domain. One country shouldn't have the power to impose laws, taxes, or restrictions in "international waters."[/quote]
Countries have some jurisdiction over the internet, but only to their own domain extensions. The US has the .com/.org/.net/etc set, as whell as .us (in contrast, Australia controls .com.au/.net.au, etc), but as far as I know, .com and etc has become so extensively worldwide it'd be impossible to control the content on them all at this point.

Additionally, .us is rarely used, as well (it has some insane restrictions attached to it, heh), and I never seen a .us porn site, so basically this internet crackdown is going to amount to jack all, lol. Gold star for trying, though, George!
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Bloodseeker]

I don't really care about restrictions on internet porn... I'm not a porn addict or anything. What I do care about is a potential snowball effect. If the American government can block porn on the internet, who's to say that they won't be able to regulate internet news sites eventually to block news that makes them look bad? (forget the first amendment... everybody else already has) Or censor sites that end in .com, .gov, or .edu? (not to mention that this sort of control would lead to a crack down on internet piracy... none of us want that) The great thing about the internet is that its an uncensored wide open network that allows you to look at almost anything and talk about anything. If the government interferes, that could change.

[Leofski]

I not particularly with either side on this debate to say that the porn industry has no power in America is slightly wrong. It was Playboy after all who financed the Wade vs. Roe case that legalised abortion in the US, and if I remember correctly, the industry makes a hell of a lot of money, so it won't just be a case of them slapping restrictions on internet sites. I'd be suprised if there weren't some high profile appeals.

[AnimeFront]

[QUOTE=Sage]I still can't get over the fact that American government and officials - almost the whole society - thinks that nudity, homosexuality and pornography are something much more worse than violence, crime and guns!
[/QUOTE]


Whoa whoa, I have no problem with gays, nudity, or pornagrophy. Now almost all of the conservative society may have a problem with it, but I am part of the liberal left. 49% strong.

[Sandy]

Meh, I knew somebody would be offended by my remark...

I'm trying my hardest not to generalize, but you must understand that to us foreigners America looks like a very hypocritical/double-standardized nation - on one thing it's all "freedom this" and "liberty that", while on another thing it is "ban this" and "censor that"!

Of course many people don't think that way, but it's the current image USA is giving from itself to the other countries.

[JJ]

[quote name='Sage']I'm trying my hardest not to generalize, but you must understand that to us foreigners America looks like a very hypocritical/double-standardized nation - on one thing it's all "freedom this" and "liberty that", while on another thing it is "ban this" and "censor that"![/quote]

And people wonder why they get funny looks when they talk about supporting America and it's decisions over here in Germany....

But seriously, I bet if we went into Bush's closet, there'd be at least a couple of issues of Playboy, or some other magazine like that.

You can't do it. There'll be no way that every porn site'll be filtered into the .xxx domain because alot of them share the same name with .com, and .net. There'd have be site name changes, which would cause legal fights for the name.Hey,let's save the courtroom space for the more important cases like Martha Stewart and Wynnona Rider.

That'd be so much more interesting than watching Britney Spears's daily life.

[AnimeFront]

Our country isnt hypocritical, some of the people are. It like Arboks says in pokemon " there is no such thing as a evil pokemon, only a evil trainer"



Now to stay on topic. Bush looks at every thing with morality of christianity, if it is not so agreeable with christianity he wil have nothing to do with it. He need to remeber the "Seperation of Curch and State" statuate.


Number of website before porn ban, 452,568,245,256 After the porn ban 500. :animesmil :animesmil :animesmil :laugh: :laugh:

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Manic Webb]That's one thing I'll never understand when it comes to people who want to censor the internet on some level; the internet is an international domain. One country shouldn't have the power to impose laws, taxes, or restrictions in "international waters."
[/QUOTE]
The internet is an international domain, but the DNS servers are owned by a single company/group in the US(ICAAN). The US only has the power to block a domain suffix which it so far has done a grand total of once with this .xxx. Everything else they just haven't seemed to care.

[quote]he fact that the freedom to do what you want to do on the internet is being infringed, that people aren't allowed to do whatever they want with the internet would be like saying you can't host kangaroo boxing matches in International Waters.[/quote]
God this is a stupid statement. Creating hornysluts.xxx is not a right. Hell using [url]www.otakuboards.com[/url] isn't a right either. It's a priveledge that ICAAN has allowed you to do. There are no rights to you using something that you don't own, nor should you have any say about it.

We wouldn't be having this arguement if the board of ICAAN decided to deny the request for the .xxx. We're only having this because you desperately want to find something to bash Bush for.

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Harry]The internet is an international domain, but the DNS servers are owned by a single company/group in the US(ICAAN). The US only has the power to block a domain suffix which it so far has done a grand total of once with this .xxx. Everything else they just haven't seemed to care.


God this is a stupid statement. Creating hornysluts.xxx is not a right. Hell using [url]www.otakuboards.com[/url] isn't a right either. It's a priveledge that ICAAN has allowed you to do. There are no rights to you using something that you don't own, nor should you have any say about it.

We wouldn't be having this arguement if the board of ICAAN decided to deny the request for the .xxx. We're only having this because you desperately want to find something to bash Bush for.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
First off, I don't need this to bash MC Dubya. That's easy. I brought this up because it seemed dangerous.

Secondly, your looking at this too shortsighted. Today it's a domain blocking, tomorrow it's banning anything that's anti-*insertcurrentgovernmenthere*. Besides, do you honestly think that if Bush didn't get the approval of the ICAAN, that he wouldn't have forced their hand? We're talking about a man who willing lies to his country, a man who time and time again breaks NAFTA and UN laws, do you honestly think that a silly thing like fair play would stop him? Cuz' I don't. ICAAN caved because they know what he's willing to do.

Lastly, ICAAN is a private corporation. They have no obligation to comply with Bush and Co's every whim, which I fear may not be too far off. I'm not even just blaming Bush for this; this whole censoring the internet thing started back when Porn sites were required to put in sophisticated tracking and counting software (Which, by the way, is what we now call Spyware) for whatever reason. I don't remember exactly who put it in, but I know it was a Lib. This is about more than politics; this is about the 'We do whatever we want' attitude that's about to spill over into the Internet. And that, for us addicts, spells a disaster in the long term.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

Well, I think there does need to be some type of regulation. I'm not talking censorship, necessarily, but safeguards are always a good idea. Whether those safeguards are parental controls (which they should be to begin with), or whether it's something a bit more Orwellian in nature, some type of safeguard is necessary.

Yes, parents should be doing their jobs. That goes without saying. Yes, they need to get educated about URL filtering and so forth. It's really mind-boggling how computer illiterate a lot of adults are these days.

I mean...my grandfather is 82, has had a stroke or two in his life, can barely walk without a cane, has all sorts of lung problems...and he's teaching himself how to use particular functions on the computer we got him last year.

And to hear about middle-aged adults who don't know how to use a Search engine just...makes me die a little bit more on the inside. lol

I find my sentiments echo Rene's. I think it's a worthy cause, cracking down on 'net porn, because I don't really view 'net porn as protected under "Internet Freedom." When I hear "Internet Freedom," I more associate that with being able to write in a political blog, type posts on message boards, host a journal, etc.

I don't view "Internet Freedom" as a means to acquire (or host) Russian Mail Order Bride Donkey Lesbian Hardcore Fetish Sex Farm material.

And really...I can't see how anyone could say that's protected under freedom of speech, or expression, or anything. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it has more civil liberties than public exhibitionism.

That's also kind of why I view the anti-crackdown argument centered on "It's a huge public domain" as kind of silly, really. I mean...the only difference between live, public nudity and internet nudity is the medium, and I don't think the difference in medium in this case warrants any difference in approach.

If the internet was a private connection between two colleges (like it was when it was first developed back in the 50s or the 60s...maybe 70s), I'd be more inclined to not worry about it.

But the 'net today is most definitely public, and you can log-in anywhere in the world, whether it's a net cafe, your home, a friend's house, girlfriend or boyfriend's house, etc, and go find virtually anything and everything online.

I guess what I'm getting at is there are no (or currently, very little) barriers online, and because there are no barriers, the need for some type of policing is there.

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]We should all become nudists. Then there would be so much nudity in the world, that pornography would be considered as something you would just see everywhere... no matter your age. Then it would be pointless to ban it on the internet. Ha.

I knew an issue like this would come up some time. But in all honesty, I don't think there is much Bush and our government can do about it. It would take the work of all the world leaders to tackle something such as banning porn sites off the internet. With Bush's power, he can only ban so much. This is one of those things that is just even a stupid thing to waste your time on. Our dear president is biting off more than he can chew.

[quote]Originally Posted by [b]Sage[/b]
[i]I still can't get over the fact that American government and officials - almost the whole society - thinks that nudity, homosexuality and pornography are something much more worse than violence, crime and guns![/i][/quote]

Yeah, I never quite got that. It's like, so much more shocking and sinful if you're kid turns out to be homosexual, than if they go shoot someone. Well, to a lot of people anyway. Since a lot of people have been more open about being a nudist or homosexual, you'd think more people would get used to it and accept it. But I guess that will never be the case.
Some people.... *shakes head*[/color][/size]

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
First off, I don't need this to bash MC Dubya. That's easy. I brought this up because it seemed dangerous.

Secondly, your looking at this too shortsighted. Today it's a domain blocking, tomorrow it's banning anything that's anti-*insertcurrentgovernmenthere*. Besides, do you honestly think that if Bush didn't get the approval of the ICAAN, that he wouldn't have forced their hand? We're talking about a man who willing lies to his country, a man who time and time again breaks NAFTA and UN laws, do you honestly think that a silly thing like fair play would stop him? Cuz' I don't. ICAAN caved because they know what he's willing to do.[/color] [/quote]
What the hell are you talking about. You're just pulling all of this out of your *** creating some unlikely doomsday scenario where the government starts oppressing people by blocking domain names. There is absolutely no evidence that this has happened, and there's no evidence that the US has that power. You're making things up to scare people into something that will not happen. The only thing the US government can do is block domain name suffixes (such as .xxx). They have no say on anything else.

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']Lastly, ICAAN is a private corporation. They have no obligation to comply with Bush and Co's every whim, which I fear may not be too far off. I'm not even just blaming Bush for this; this whole censoring the internet thing started back when Porn sites were required to put in sophisticated tracking and counting software (Which, by the way, is what we now call Spyware) for whatever reason. I don't remember exactly who put it in, but I know it was a Lib. This is about more than politics; this is about the 'We do whatever we want' attitude that's about to spill over into the Internet. And that, for us addicts, spells a disaster in the long term.[/COLOR][/quote]
ICAAN has it in their charter to allow the president to block certain domain name suffixes. I have no idea why, but they went ahead and let the President have that power. They felt like allowing the president to have that power, and they have the power to let him have that power.

I have no idea what you're blathering about where all porn sites were forced to put spyware on their site. I can only assume you're referring to the law that requires a porn site to keep records about how old each one of their actors/models/whatever and ensure that she is indeed over 18.