House Passes Ban on Social Site Access

Krishna Dagli writes to mention a C|Net story covering a House of Representatives vote on restricting access to social sites on public terminals. The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot from terminals in libraries and schools. Adults would be able to 'ask permission' to access such sites. From the article: "'Social networking sites, best known by the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded in popularity in just a few short years,' said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of DOPA's original sponsors. Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'"

Literally exploded?

[dido (9125)]

Strange I didn't hear a thing...

Re:Literally exploded?

[BenjyD (316700)]

Indeed, his inability to understand the meaning of simple English words does make me wonder what he's doing making legislation for the most powerful country in the world.

Re:Literally exploded?

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"Inconceivable!"

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

:-)

Re:Literally exploded?

[BalanceOfJudgement (962905)]

My name is Inyego Montoya. You killed my language. Prepare to die!

Re:Literally exploded?

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Because "literally" is a heckuva lot easier to type than "Although what follows is unlikely, it is exactly what I mean without metaphor"

David Cross said it best ...

[IntelliTubbie (29947)]

"Dude, it was so funny I literally shit my pants!"

"Well, what did you do?"

"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."

"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"

"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"

Cheers,
Ari

Re:Literally exploded?

[escher (3402)]

You see, the internet is a series of tubes. When you have enough fragments of social sites moving around, they clog up those tubes, preventing the porn images from coming through.

They're only trying to save the internet for porn!

Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[elrous0 (869638)]

"Sorry little poor kid, you can't access myspace on the library computer. Maybe if your mom hadn't pawned your computer for crack, you could be popular too."

Why not just kick them in the face while you're at it?

-Eric (former poor kid)

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[joe 155 (937621)]

good point, it would disadvantage poorer people unfairly. You also come close to one other point that I thought when I read the article, why let children use a computer on their own in their own house but not in a public place... when was the last time you ever heard of a peadophile convincing a child to get naked on a web cam in a library?

If parents can't be bothered to take an interest in their children (which the House seems to think that they can't) then why not let someone else prevent this - assuming of course that this is ever a serious issue anyway; I remain convinced that it is just a very rare exception.

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[jcasper (972898)]

why let children use a computer on their own in their own house but not in a public place...

Funny that this discrepancy is inadvertently brought out by one of the bill's supporters:

"Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids," said Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican and co-founder of the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus. "This bill requires schools and libraries to establish (important) protections."

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[elrous0 (869638)]

Yes, God forbid some homeless guy should have an email account to send out resumes.

-Eric

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[Amazing Quantum Man (458715)]

Yeah, and public libraries shouldn't stock fiction, such as trashy romance novels either.

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Libraries are for reading and learning, not checking email and making posts on myspace.

Computers were added to libraries not only to function as a research tool, but also a communication tool. Those who cannot utilize the internet are increasingly at a disadvantage. Remember when you could exist as a functional member of modern society without a credit card? Now you need one for all manner of crap. The internet is no different, and soon enough, anyone without internet access will be in the same disenfranchised class of people as people without bank accounts or credit cards.

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[pjt48108 (321212)]

Disadvantage? A computer in a library used to access Myspace?

Honestly, these computers should be used for something a bit more productive than wasting time on myspace.com anyway.

ARGH!

The attitude expressed in your statement is really simplistic to the point of banality. Who is to say myspace isn't a productive use of resources? I would have said the same thing about classmates.com, until I discovered my old college roommate there a few weeks ago.

Just because YOU don't use that resource doesn't mean it isn't useful or helpful to someone else.

Personally, if I were in charge of a library's IT, I would white list sites like Wikipedia and *.edu and a bunch of good academic research sites. I would block out Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc. Libraries are for reading and learning, not checking email and making posts on myspace.

Well, jackass, *I* WAS in charge of IT in a library. Sure, we had rules in place as to what made for proper use of equipment, but we didn't block content at all. As for kids, it was only when the feds started writing restrictive laws re.: filtering that we began to limit kiddie use, and only then by saying they could only use the net with their parents' supervision.

As far as "good" academic search sites... HAH! Wikipedia is convenient, but as far as academic research goes, it fails on several marks. I wouldn't block it, though, just because it doesn't appeal to my high-fallutin' academic ways. Blocking out Gmail, yahoo, etc., would place a fundamental cluster-fuck on communications for a GREAT many people, INCLUDING those doing legit research. You may not LIKE people communicating on library computers, but research is, well, based on communication.

It's annoying when you want to do some real research on a library computer and some asshole in front of you is chatting on web messenger or checking their email.

It's probably just as annoying to need to get a quick email out to a research collaborator when some "asshole" is sitting there posting to Slashdot, too. I wouldn;t block Slashdot, though. And I wouldn't prevent an asshole like you from doing what-the-hell-ever he or she wanted to do, so long as they didn't break any laws.

Really, people with your views need to walk a mile in the shoes of the average library user. And the average user is NOT you or me. It is the poor student, the poor worker, the elderly person, etc., who don't have the resources available to them privately. Take a chill pill, buddy, and let sleeping dogs lie.

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Yeah, it's pretty sad how this solely affects public web access, which seems to me to be the least likely place for anyone to do the kinds of things they are worried about, whether victim or predator. If they tried, wouldn't the possibility of someone looking over their shoulder and seeing it be a good thing? Instead we're actually going to force them to go into their rooms (with the door shut of course) where nobody (certainly not the parents) is watching. Now obviously the public library/school web terminals are the only thing they really have the power to restrict, so the fact that it is utterly stupid and detrimental and as you note discriminatory is really only a sad side effect of the typical politician's desire to be seen doing SOMETHING, no matter how idiotic.

Yet it does make me worry about what's next, when they stop just worrying about "virtual" hunting grounds.

Sorry kid, no public parks and playgrounds for you, a sexual predator might find you!
Sorry kid, no public pools, kids in bathing suits are like chum in shark infested waters!
You know, public libraries have dark corners, so no more free books for you!

The conspiratorial part of me could even see at being part of the larger assault against public services in general.

Oh, but wait, I just realized, I need to THINK OF THE CHILDREN, and so all my objections are moot. And you, you cad, don't you care about the children?

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

That is, of course, a strawman. There is already standing precedent for the legality of preventing minors from accessing materials deemed, by law, to be potentially harmful.

This is not doing that however, This is preventing minors from using public resources to access material that may be harmful, while not banning them from accessing those same materials in other locations. It is a fairly important distinction.

So, in effect, the entire whiny, misunderstood complaint here is "it's unfair that children are being barred from accessing, via public systems, non-educational sites which could potentially cause them harm".

I think that is a valid complaint. Every Web page contains information, whether you deem it educational or not. Maybe it is educating me about the colors preferred by teenagers or about the psychology of groupies. Similarly, every Web page is potentially harmful. Maybe commas look a lot like sperm which will permanently scar a child and destroy their future relationships. We don't have any proof to the contrary so lets think of the children and ban them unless they can come up with an "educational" reason they need to see pages with commas.

Both the harmfulness and the educational benefits of any given sight are very subjective and this type of legislation is harmful or useless except for one thing. It convinces people politicians care and is a way to get votes from emotionally driven, infantile voters.

I don't question that the educational value of MySpace is pretty much the same as hitting yourself in the face with a brick.

I see, well why don't we make you the gatekeeper for all media to decide what is and is not appropriate for Americans to see. Or maybe we shouldn't.

This is not a violation of rights by even the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

Yes it is. It is making it harder for me to view certain Websites in the library and not others. It is intentionally restricting my and everyone else's access to certain information.

Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out

[elrous0 (869638)]

Well, admittedly, I never have learned much on myspace. But I have *certainly* learned quite a bit here on /. (which would also be blocked under this law). And there are MANY message boards and social sites which have proven INVALUABLE to me in my career (like when I have a technical question on something and need to interact with a group of specialists or enthusiasts).

-Eric

Evil

[Umbral Blot (737704)]

Obviously this law just screams out to be abused. Who defines when a site is social? Does the Democratic party have a forum? I bet that makes them social enough to be blocked. On the other hand though they are blocking MySpace, so this law does have some redeeming qualities.

Re:Evil

[ackthpt (218170)]

Obviously this law just screams out to be abused. Who defines when a site is social? Does the Democratic party have a forum? I bet that makes them social enough to be blocked. On the other hand though they are blocking MySpace, so this law does have some redeeming qualities.

Forgive me Congress, for I have sinned. I have had impure thoughts that you lot are trying to control the minds of the people. I was greatly disturbed to see the margin of passage as 410-15. But I see I was wrong now. Clearly the people cannot be allowed to think for themselves and anything they wish to do may be construed as a possible connection to the sinister. I beseech thee to absolve me of my moment of falling from grace.

does the offering basket take PayPal?

Help?

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

My own sites tend to have text boxes for reader comments and guestbooks and things, does this make them havens for sexual predators? Because it'd be terribly unfair if underage kids could somehow get a date through my web presence while I still can't.

They just don't get it.

[Spazntwich (208070)]

We desperately need the current generation of senior citizens to die off. That, or we need to make voting significantly more accessible to informed people who have shit to do.

These boneheaded politicians have fucked our country in so many ways in the past 6 years alone it's almost inconceivable, and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

Re:They just don't get it.

[DarkDragonVKQ (881472)]

That's because it's not really a matter of the old generation holding onto their ways (no insult at all). It's that people continue to teach children, friends, etc.. misguided views. And then some of those people turn into politicans. So we see the same old shit every 4 years. As I read somewhere as a politican joke. The only two basis of politics are that Democrats have no new ideas. And Republicans just have bad ideas. Nothing ever changes.

Re:They just don't get it.

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

When this law is overturned constitutionally...can we please prohibit the author(s) from writing future bills? Since they obviously don't know how to do their 'craft'.

I kind of think that's the point. They know this law has no hope of standing up, since it's almost identical but *more restrictive* than COPA. I believe this is election fodder. Call them stupid, but anyone who votes against this will be called a pervert lover come next election. Think of the children...

Re:They just don't get it.

[kthejoker (931838)]

Seriously, have you ever heard anyone really run that successful a campaign by calling their opponent a "pervert lover"? Being "soft on crime"?

Can you seriously imagine the commercial they would have to run to convey that image in regards to this bill?

"Representative Hogan is out of touch with America. He voted against a law that would prohibit minors from visiting MySpace.com in public libraries. Does that sound like the kind of guy you'd want in office?"

Everybody loves to be like, "Oh, well voters just eat that up, they're dumb and gullible," but no. Not really. No they're not. Most of them won't care about this bill one way or the other. And BECAUSE of that, any smart Representative ought to have the courage and conviction to say this law is inappropriate government meddling, and we don't need it. And be able to easily defend that charge at home. In 8 simple words, too.

"That bill is a violation of our liberties."

People in this country, they don't care about liberties in the rhetorical sense, but trust me, the few voters who use this bill (and bills like it) as a lynchpin issue in who they're voting for are the ones out of touch. And they'll get called on it.

I guess my point is I'm tired of all this tsk-tsk Chicken Little hysteria that we're all being labelled "unpatriotic" and "terrorists" and "pedo lovers" because of our positions. Who out there is actually doing this? Who is stifling your dissent? Who is really out there calling you a terrorist? Ann Coulter? Give me a break. Have your convictions, stick by them, voice them loudly and proudly. Nothing will happen to you.

So stop being afraid.

Re:They just don't get it.

[buysse (5473)]

Representative Hogan is out of touch with the people of Minnesota. Despite the well-known danger, he voted against a measure that would protect our children from sexual predators in schools and libraries. Many children have been abducted or assaulted by predators already, and he doesn't want to do anything about it. You can do something about it. Protect your children this November.

I remember quite a few ads that were at least this bad in 2004, and I'm expecting it to be worse in Minnesota this year. Note that I never mention the word "vote" or any other candidate. That makes this an "issue" ad, rather than a direct campaign ad, and it's now under looser finance restrictions. The campaigns do a lot of research. If it didn't work on a large, vulnerable (ignorant) part of the population, they wouldn't waste money on it.

Re:They just don't get it.

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

I'm a big fan of making laws that get overtuned for being unconstitutional a criminal offense. After all, they tried to punish people for something that wasn't illegal in the first place. Therefore, they did something illegal.

Re:They just don't get it.

[Billosaur (927319)]

If politics mattered so much to you, you'd take the time to vote, rather than bitch about inaccessibility for "informed people who have shit to do." Evidently, since you have shit to do *other* than politics, you are content to delegate to those people who will gladly worry about politics for you.

Perhaps it is because it's Friday, but I don't remember the parent mentioning their voting/not voting. One would like to believe that anyone that passionate about the subject does in fact vote. I know I do, but the parent has a point: a lot of people vote who a) follow strictly party lines no matter what, b) vote for "the nice people who left that flyer at my house," or c) don't have a clue what or who is on the ballot but are going to vote anyway.

The people who don't vote are the people you have to convince when it comes to issues. Groups that vote tend to be polarized, and you can pretty much tell which way they will lean in an election. It's the non-voter that holds the real power, if you can find an issue which fires them up enough to get them to the polls. The problem is, you just never know what that issue is.

Slashdot??

[HugePedlar (900427)]

"...would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot.....[which] ....have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground."

Of course, because preteen girls are well known for associating themselves with this particular social network.

Re:Slashdot??

[elrous0 (869638)]

preteen girls are well known for associating themselves with this particular social network.

It must be all the ponies.

-Eric

Thank you, nanny state

[onallama (515297)]

Apparently no bill is too stupid if it's for the sake of the children...

Re:Thank you, nanny state

[edawstwin (242027)]

Apparently no bill is too stupid if it's for the sake of the children...

... and in an election year.

It's worse than that, Mike

[ackthpt (218170)]

Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'

People might also get together and discuss anything else, including unpopular wars, politics (including bills to viloate privacy, violate basic civil rights and interfer with the 'free market' and communications) or the corporate predators who back them.

i welcome you to the new america. leave your conscience at the door.

Utterly Daft

[ackthpt (218170)]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Clearly you have fallen hard from your turnip truck and struck your head quite forcefully. I see you as a complete apologist for those who are happy to legislate our freedoms into oblivion. Perhaps when they take away something you treasure you might at least grunt coherently before rolling over anyway. Not I.

The concept of fighting these sorts of violations of basic rights in court, rather then defeating in in committee or vote before house and/or senate is far more desireable as it eliminates the period of suppression prior to overturning, futher it eliminates any artifacts which may remain in place (as this will affect programmings, filtering and structure of information access) after subsequent overturn by a court. In these cases an ounce of prevention is truly worth more than a pound of cure.

Just for a second my heart sang

[tehcyder (746570)]

From TFA

the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded

I met a predator here

[Killjoy_NL (719667)]

Some weird guy (or gal?) who wanted to root my server.

I was so scared ;)

(S)he also said something about a basement, but that's when I went offline

Overly broad.

[DragonPup (302885)]

This won't survive a court challenge.

This will make some admins quite happy

[QuantumRiff (120817)]

While most admins (including me) will be disgusted at the "protecting us from ourselves" aspect, as well as taking away free choice, this will really help the schools and libraries with their bandwith consumption. Some of the school and Library admins I know say that Myspace.com now accounts for over 50% of their traffic, with its stupid embedded music/videos.

Ban Housing

[Botia (855350)]

Why don't they just ban housing. That's where most child abuse takes place.

Seriously, though, the abuse, etc. should be a criminal offense, not something that might be related in some way. For example, guns should be legal; murder should not be. Credit cards should be legal; fraud should not be.

Major Problem?

[BenjyD (316700)]

"Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids,"

Does anyone have any figures for how many kids have actually been solicited compared to those who are molested by family etc?

Canadian statistics

[freeweed (309734)]

There was a rash of news stories a few months back up here in the Great White North. Some poor kid got abducted and as it was a slow news day (WWIII hadn't broken out yet), the media was awash with abduction stories.

Apparenly last year in Canada there were something like 30,000 cases of child abduction. Might not be the exact number, but it was in the tens of thousdands. OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! The news stories focussed on what laws we need, how we can save the children, how the Internet is a bad place, don't let your chilren do anything in public without you, blah blah blah.

In only ONE of the news stories did ANYONE talk about just who was doing the abducting. Of course, it was pretty much always the parents or some other family member. This story had a very short summary of how many kids in Canada last year were abducted by complete strangers:

5.

That's right, FIVE. We're about to re-write our laws, do some stupid reactionary crap, demonize the Internet, lock our kids in protective bubbles, because 5 kids got abducted. Never mind the 29,995 taken by their parents, we don't have to worry about those!

Incidentally, we just had our first Amber Alert(TM) here in Calgary. The city used the Emergency Broadcast System for this. Considering we've had several tornado warnings lately, it scared the hell out of me to hear that blaring from the TV.

Turns out, the kid was abducted by her mother, and as almost always happens in these cases, was returned safely. *sigh* I remember the days when the EBS was used for things like incoming nukes or earthquakes.

Most sexual predators are KNOWN to the children

[vidarh (309115)]

I guess politicians don't bother reading any research before they make their minds up. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by parents, relatives and friends of the family. A few years ago a survey by the NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children) in the UK published a research report documenting that 75% of all abusers fell in those groups. Of the remainder, only a small percentage met their victims online.

They'd achieve far more if they instead spent some money on awareness campaigns to teach people the most common signs of abuse, and to make people aware that strangers isn't the greatest risk to their children.

Freedom of Association?

[gstoddart (321705)]

Doesn't this kind of interfere with the whole freedom of association thing?

And, banning Amazon is kinda silly -- so many things on the web link to Amazon for information about books and the like. Why include Amazon in this?

Are they even going to be able to enforce this? What about as people add new social sites, are libraries going to be required to know all of the things they should be censoring, or will someone give them a list?

I'm kinda hoping the librarians fight them on this and get it shot down as unconstitutional. To me, this sounds about as insane as barring Baptists or some other group from meeting in any number than two in a public area -- it's both insane and unenforceable.

It scares me how much they are willing to curtail everyone else's liberties in order to suport this witch hunt which allegedly is supposed to help the children. Very scary indeed. I'm just waiting until US authorities start arresting people who run sites in foreign countries because they accepted logins from Americans.

What?

[RyanFenton (230700)]

How is trying to block access to the 'social' internet as part of law NOT in very important ways a roadblock to free speech? If I add a Wiki or a chat function to a website, is it then a danger to children because anyone can access the site, and communicate freely to children using that tool?

That's a default system of banning speech in public, on a scale far worse than any indecency bill. It's akin to banning phone calls to private residences on public phones, in order to protect children from free communication.

What kind of idiotic message does this send to children anyway? The majority of our legislatures in the house seem to think that free communication is too dangerous a thing for children to do now. "Don't talk with strangers" is perhaps a way to get children to think defensively about the messages they get... but speaking with strangers is the only way to learn about the world outside your own little bubble. Sure - the boogey man of the Internet child predator has some reality to it, but the Internet is still one of the safest place for children to learn about the opinions of the rest of humanity outside their small environment. Banning such access in public libraries is telling children that they can't be trusted with even the possibility of such communication. I aknowledge that children can't be trusted with all the rights of adults, but our public infrastructure seems to be producing another generation of sheltered dropouts, each less qualified to enter college than the last.

This is an immoral bill, in my mind, and one I hope is found unconstitutional.

Ryan Fenton

Must be election year

[ch-chuck (9622)]

Here's how it works: News program has time to fill and ratings to keep up, produces a piece about pedophiles stalking children on MySpace. Grannie, who votes religiously like a real patriot, watches news.

Congressman running for office, addressing an audience with grannie in attendance, says, "And to protect the children of America, which are our future, I have introduced legislation to ban access to web sites frequented by predators and pedophiles in our public schools and libraries."

Lather, rinse, repeat and watch all our freedoms slowly spin down the drain.

This Story...

[eno2001 (527078)]

...is an outright lie. Because it claims that the bill was primarily backed and created by Republicans. And Republicans are for LESS government, not more dammit!!!

Quit bitching and call your Senator

[dysk (621566)]

Write and call your senators letting them know exactly why this is a bad idea. If enough people
make their opposition clear, we may still have a chance of getting it stopped there.

the "people" communicating vs. state control

[drDugan (219551)]

Dear People of the World,

It has come to our attantion that it is a LOT more difficult to keep you all under our control when you are well educateed and well connected. As such, we, the corrupt career politicials (that really have only our own interests at heart), all 410 of us, have decided to stop letting you connect with each other so easily.

We've decided that it would be best if the big corporations decide how much people should pay to have access over the shared global computer networks. We've decided that public services that offer Internet connections should restrict sites that allow people to connect and share information. You see, when all you "people" (plebs) out there keep sharing information and educating each other (for free) about what we're doing -- it makes us look REALLY bad. It erodes our ability to craft the message we want you to hear. It prevents us from keeping the food locked up and you worried about how to survive, so that you'll work real hard.

We're not going to stop this pattern. Each time it looks like the people have too much freedom, understand the world too well, or have too much information about how the state operates, we are going to pass more laws that try to keep ourselves in power. We're not even going to consider rational debate on how we should be paid, or really who we work for - we work for our own self interest!

Sincerely Yours,
The Senators and Representatives, leaders and crooks, cronies and career jackashers who have the world by the balls and have no interest in letting go...

All the ranters need to realize something

[ChiChiCuervo (2445)]

With all the assorted bitching on here about this bill, people need to realize something....

The Senate IS NOT going to bother with this bill.

The Senate takes alot longer to do things. _maybe_ 10% of what the House passes is ever brought up on the floor. Add to that the short time Congress is in session before they all go home to campaign and the real purpose becomes clear.

1. the Senate too slow to take time with frivolous legislation.
2. there are only a few days left of the session before everyone goes home to campaign.
3. therefore the House is free to pass any kind of retarded crap it wants, knowing it will die on the way down the hall.
4. therefore House members are totally free to vote for blatantly unconstitutional AND retarded bills so they can say they support protecting our children from the boogeyman.
5. tout said dumb bill in campaign commercials
6. win
7. ??? (think duke cunningham)
8. profit!

Re:What a nice group to be in...

[Dachannien (617929)]

If slashdot is grouped with MySpace does that mean we are also a haven for online sexual predators?

As many times as goatse has been posted around here, I'd say yes.

Re:thanks ben

[Dachannien (617929)]

I think a more appropriate quote would be, "They who don't pay attention to what their kids do on the Internet, deserve neither kids nor the Internet."