On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 08:21 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6063554.html
> 
> Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law
> April 20, 2006, 11:35 PM PDT
> 
> Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place 
> official government warning labels on their pages or risk being 
> imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.
> 
> A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently 
> stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General 
> Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.
> 
> The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to 
> place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission 
> on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit 
> broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and 
> masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital 
> regions.

The mind boggles. (1) The US hardly controls all web sites. Surely they
realize that US law does not apply abroad. (2) When you get to a page of
the type in question, how will the offending content be hidden? Just
because there is a warning does not mean the rest of the content is
invisible. I guess they do not mean a warning. Perhaps a tag that can
keep the page from being seen. Meaning that they will legislate that
browsers be made that disallow showing certain content. Once the
technology is in place, first porno, then umbrella of 'national
security' issues. 

Perhaps they are trying to make democracy more attractive to
totalitarian states so they can be more successful in future regime
management situations.

Damn but I will sleep better tonight knowing that this is now taken care
of. Now I'm off to the pub. Spring is in the air.

--
Roger

_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to