Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

No Space for MySpace?

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 12, 2006 03:23 PM
from the gotta-keep-connected dept.
conq writes "BusinessWeek looks at the flaws in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives that would block access to social networks and Internet chat rooms in most federally funded schools and libraries. One big problem with their bill is it is much too vague, it 'could rule out content from any number of Internet companies, including Yahoo! and Google.' What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it. That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections." This is analysis of a bill we covered yesterday.

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Politicians Target Social Sites For Restrictions 497 comments
cnet-declan writes "Politicians are looking for reasons to convince citizens to vote in November, and polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet. Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries. The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites. House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims it's necessary to stop 'dangerous predators' out here on the Interweb."
[+] Politics: Illinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites 293 comments
AlexDV writes "Library blogger Michael Stephens is reporting that an Illinois state senator, Matt Murphy (R-27, Palatine), has filed a bill that 'Creates the Social Networking Web site Prohibition Act. Provides that each public library must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Provides that each public school must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to students in the school.' Here is the bill's full text." This local effort harks back to an attempt last May to get federal legislation banning school and library use of social networking sites (Wikipedia summary here). The DOPA bill passed the House but died in the Senate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

No Space for MySpace? 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • 1st Ammendment? (Score:5, Interesting)

    "What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it".

    There's something "Freedom of Speechish" about that that doesn't sound quite right. What's the argument going to be? "No, we aren't preventing speech about topic X -- we're preventing all speech". Riiiiight.

    • Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilMagnus (32878) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:27PM (#15320967)
      Sounds like it'd ban email, too.

      After all, what is email but user-created content that is then shared with others?
      [ Parent ]
    • Agreed, my web host has an online text editor. So given the loosest reading of the text, their hosting system would have to be trimmed down.

      -Rick
    • Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pete6677 (681676) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:42PM (#15321108)
      Unfortunately it is becoming all to common for politicians to pass legislation on subjects they know nothing about with disastrous consequences. Remember the DMCA, and the Communications Decency Act of 1995?
      [ Parent ]
        • Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Cromac (610264) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:58PM (#15321716)
          How many republicans blame the internet for shining a light on what they're doing and thereby raising public awareness and undermining their popularity?

          Probably about as many as there were Democrats complaining about the same thing in the 2004 election when people were finding out all about Kerry.

          [ Parent ]
  • Censorship Questions Arise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Salty Moran (974208) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:26PM (#15320947) Journal
    The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?
    • Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Does the federal government have the authority to ban books from a public libraby. From what I understand of this bill, it would make the targeted sites (whatever they may be, it's beyond the scope of this comment) inaccessible at a public library. My co
    • Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:4, Insightful)

      Not at schools. The government has decided that anybody is basically allowed to do anything they like to students.

      You have no protection against search&seizure, no accused rights, and no first - and absolutely definitely no second ammendment rights.

      The logic is that until your old enough those rights really belong to your parents - which is why most of the initial punishments in school involve sending the kid home. If someone does something to you at school it is assumed that your parents sanction it because they go there and have access to the school board.

      Along the same lines, however, parents are generally allowed to say that they don't want a particular book to be in a school library (like "Heather Has Two Mommies") or do want it despite a librarian's insistence that it's inappropriate (as I've actually seen come up with "Harry Potter").

      I don't see how they're justifying general public libraries, though.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:3, Informative)

        I don't see how they're justifying general public libraries, though.

        It's aimed soley at institutions that receive money from the "Universal Service Discount" program, y'know that "fee" or "tax" that is added onto your phone bill every month. This money is
      • Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:4, Informative)

        by Golias (176380) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:20PM (#15321439)
        What's incredibly short-sighted about this bill is that the Internet is not, and never was, intended to be a tool for one-way information gathering. Plenty of such tools already exist. The value of the Internet is a direct result of the fact that it is a means of two-way communication.

        MySpace gets used for a lot of frivolous blogs and teen flirting, but it's silly the way it's being scapegoated. Just as with AOL chat a few years ago, the bogeyman of a Creepy Old Guy wanting to run off with your teenager keeps getting trotted out, but the vast majority of statuatory rape cases are going on in homes, with family members or close friends of the family.

        Where's the crack-down on a dad's 40-year old drinking buddy slipping upstairs to visit his daughter during a back-yard BBQ? That's the *real* teen abuse problem.

        For the most part, there are no "strangers in the bushes" to worry about, and the way to guard against such rare cases is to teach your teen some sense.

        Look, princess: The grown-up who wants to hook up with you at a motel is not "cool". If he was "cool" he could find women his own age to sleep with. He's a LOSER, and you should stay away from him. Now, have fun chatting with your pals on MySpace, but remember that I have a profile on your Friends list, and will check in from time to time. There will be consequences for misbehavior.

        This bill would do absolutely nothing to protect children. Irresponsible kids and their adult predators will simply move to a different medium to hook up, such as text messaging on cell phone networks. I'd like to think that those behind this bill are simply ignorant of that fact. If you live in Michael Fitzpatrick's Congressional district, please write to him and explain that fact.
        [ Parent ]
  • No user-created content? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:26PM (#15320948) Homepage Journal
    "DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it."

    Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
  • DOPA? (Score:5, Funny)

    by windex (92715) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:26PM (#15320951) Homepage
    Why not just call it DOPY, so we get a better picture of what the politicians are thinking.
  • China (Score:5, Funny)

    by McGiraf (196030) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:27PM (#15320954) Homepage
    That's it! I'm moving to China.
  • Like all politics... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moqui (940533) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:27PM (#15320956)
    Oh crap, my constituents are upset again about something. Let's knee-jerk a bill together that is ill-defined and problematic. God knows it won't ever pass, but it looks like we did something!
  • Neat! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2006, @03:27PM (#15320959)
    So Congress gets to bask in the glow of the "protect the children" big lie, AND deal a significant blow to that pesky "blogger" problem. This bill is like a politicians' wet dream.
  • Porn in the Library (Score:5, Funny)

    by abscissa (136568) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:27PM (#15320960)
    So it is perfectly legal to view porn in the public library, and they will even give you a special screen to do it... but not myspace?
    • Is the screen special because it is easy to wipe clean?
      • Re:Porn in the Library (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Is the screen special because it is easy to wipe clean?"

        No, it has one of those anti-glare filters. If I had a nickel for every time I've lost an erection as a result of glare on the screen blocking my view of teh pr0n, I could rent me some high class
    • So it is perfectly legal to view porn in the public library, and they will even give you a special screen to do it... but not myspace?

      Since when does the peepshow loan out books?
  • The school I went to blocked certain sites via "custom block" on websense etc...

    Someone I knew found out the admin password by watching him type it because he lost the password to his account. He used it to change the school's homepage to a websense looki
  • wrong end of the stick? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Burlap (615181) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:30PM (#15320991)
    how about insted of going after the law abiding we go after those who are breaking the law?

    oh rihgt, cause those that follow the rules are much easier to controll, and if they cant vote, all the better
  • Web 1.0 (Score:2)

    That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections."

    I thought "Web 2.0" was supposed to mean the new "Ajax powered" web, where people use Javascr
    • Re:Web 1.0 (Score:2)

      Hm. Insert closing italic tag where appropriate. I would prefer it after the first sentence, but put it wherever it makes the most sense to you, in order to keep with the democratic nature of the Internet.
    • Re:Web 1.0 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dr. Cody (554864) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:37PM (#15321068)
      Another innovation from Web 2.0:

      </i>
      [ Parent ]
  • Why is this that big a deal. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:31PM (#15320999)
    OK, I can see why a public library might need a little more room to wiggle, I will definitely concede that point - but public schools and those oh so great government jobs? They don't need access to MySpace.

    I also have a hard time believing that it isn't vague for specific reasons. Police might need to be able to access these sites for research reasons, as would some Gov't employees tasked with research. You don't want those people restricted in their web access.

    You do however want to restrict that moron at the DMV from checking out the American Idol blogs.

    This seems to be a common way for legislators to write law that can be selectively enforced.

    Ahhh, its moot anyway. These people don't understand what it is they're writing laws for anyway - they just know they have to do something or lose votes.
    • You do however want to restrict that moron at the DMV from checking out the American Idol blogs.

      Why? If his manager feels the need to blog that, that's his manager's decision. But if he's going to slack off all day doing crap like that, chances are if yo
  • by sous_rature (969750) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:35PM (#15321038)
    The vast majority of high schools and elementary schools in the US (i.e. those with funding to hire someone who knows how to use the internet) already do extensive blocking of this sort of material. The problem is that with proxy sites and other work-arounds this legislation will be no more effective than the policies which are already in place. The flip side is that those teachers who have found innovative ways to use blogging, wiki-ing, and other interactive web media in their teaching won't just be able to go to local officials to clear ideas.
  • can you regulate the internet? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davek (18465) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:39PM (#15321077) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone think that there exists sufficient language to regulate ANY activity on the internet? Governments use platforms like child porn and copyright infringement to attemnt to push legislation into the mostly lawless arena of the internet. If any sweeping legislation does get through, who's going to enforce it? Internet police? The logical conclusion is what government does with all other regulation: licence and tax. To optain an IP address, you would need a government supplied license, one which requires signing off on a legally binding agreement, paying a fee for the beurocracy, and a tax for the usage.

    I don't see how else you can even think about drafting laws in a lawless arena. The first step for everything is that which China has already made: all ISPs are now 0wned by the government.

    -dave
  • What to know why Rupert Murdoch is hosting fundraisers [newsmax.com] for Hillary Clinton?

    Murdoch owns MySpace.

    Hmmmmm....
  • and pass a law that sends all children to boarding school at an early age and denies them all contact with the outside world until they are 21.
  • Brainless kids online (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Afrosheen (42464) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:46PM (#15321152)
    You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources. I imagine AOL deals with stuff like this on a daily basis.

      I guess Devo was right, society really is devolving and people are getting dumber overall rather than smarter. Just because a monkey can use a stick to fish ants out of an anthill we think the monkey is smart. But this is the same monkey you can trap by putting food in a glass jar. Therefore, children may appear smarter because they're typing LOL on their computers, but they're still morons at the end of the day.
    • Re:Brainless kids online (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smellsofbikes (890263) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:16PM (#15321403) Journal
      I don't think people are devolving. I think kids -- and, let's face it, society at large -- are poor at causality. As Bruce Schneier said in "Beyond Fear", we underestimate the danger of things we know, and overestimate the danger of things we don't know. So, the clueless parents and congresscreatures are scared of MySpace, and the kids who are used to it don't treat it carefully enough. If you're a homely 13-year-old and post pictures of your jammie parties for your friends, and then suddenly you hit puberty and aren't so homely anymore, are you likely to change your behavior? Why would you? Are you likely to have a clue about why people suddenly start treating you differently? This has been happening forEVER. My grandmother remembers working at a restaurant 2 miles from her house, when she was 12 (yeah, a while ago, and she lied about her age because her family was living in a hole in the ground, basically) so she'd just walk through the railyards to get to work. Then she went, rather rapidly, from 'girl' to 'woman' and suddenly she was getting chased by hobos and hassled by railroad cops, and it was probably ten years later that she finally figured out why she'd had to start riding the bus, why suddenly everyone had gotten weird.

      Here's an analogy. Think of the people who sit at the x-ray machines looking for bombs in luggage. If they go 10,000 bags without seeing a bomb, they're quite likely to not notice a bomb in the 10,001th bag. Same thing with kids online, only with them it's probably more like 100 before their attention to hinky behavior has completely disappeared.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Brainless kids online (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JimBobJoe (2758) <james@noSPAm.moyer.com> on Friday May 12 2006, @04:32PM (#15321510)
      You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources.

      And actually, I believe they do. The problem is media/politician spin.

      A 50 year old who harrasses a 14 year old at a mall is a dirty old man, but in the same event happening via Myspace and AIM the 50 year old is a "sexual predator." The reality of course is that the online event is much safer (after all, the 14 year old is behind a monitor at an unknown location and is in complete control over the situation) but is newer and easier to misunderstand.

      I contend that meeting people online first then meeting them in real life is far safer than meeting them in real life first--profiles and conversation (both online and on the phone) will give clues to the nature and personality of the person you're meeting--all of which you don't have the luxury of if you just meet them in real life first.
      [ Parent ]
  • Our county office of education is the ISP for most of the school districts in the county. Filtering is already required by law. Our filters block MySpace and other similar sites, because the computers are there to be used for school work. Social network
  • It's a fabulous idea! (Score:3, Funny)

    by underpope (952425) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:53PM (#15321206) Homepage

    I think this is a fantastic idea. Like most of the current Administration's plans regarding public schools, any such project regarding control of Internet access should NOT be funded by the federal government. Eventually, the schools will be spending so much money and dedicating so many resources to federally-required Internet restrictions and such that they won't be able to spend any money on any actual education. Et voilá! All those students grow up to become Republican neocon Bush supporters!

    It's absolutely brilliant!

    (And a quick note to those who will inevitably mark this as "Flamebait" or "Troll" -- I've already run this past my many Republican friends, and they all found it funny. Of course, they're all college educated and they all hate Bush, too. And reality, as we all know, has a well-known liberal bias.)

  • Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)

    by darkain (749283) on Friday May 12 2006, @03:59PM (#15321247) Homepage
    I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia yet. This site is nothing BUT user created content, AND the best possible resource for students at ANY education level.
  • MySpace is a scapegoat! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by i am kman (972584) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:02PM (#15321274)
    Jeez - the furor over MySpace.com is disgusting. It's a GREAT site and both my kids (and me, sometimes) use it all the time - along with instant messaging and online games and many other online things kids are into these days. It's easy to monitor their homepage and linked friends and such and most of the favorite bands have a site. It also gives the kids a place to express themselves.

    It's also quite safe if parents take some VERY basic precautions - turn off public viewing of the homepage (so only friends see it) and don't post very personal information (like schools or real names). And, of course, teach your kid not to be a moron.

    I'm sick of congress trying to pass legislation to overcome terrible parenting. Parents need to teach their kids better so they won't talk to 30+ year olds or arrange to meet folks they only met online. It's common sense and the parents responsibility.

    With VERY basic precautions and common sense, 99.9% of kids are perfectly safe and, when they're not, there are generally alot more serious problems at home than whether or not a kid has a myspace account.
  • Ignorance Run Amok (Score:4, Insightful)

    by panda (10044) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:09PM (#15321331) Homepage Journal
    Please, mod most of the Insightful posts above as "overrated." The posters simply don't know what they are talking about, though I can't blame them because TFA never mentions this part of it.

    If you read the bill, the requirement IS NOT that all schools and libraries block access to the websites, but only those that receive funding under the Universal Service Discount program. If a school or library does not receive that money, and IIRC the majority do not, then they are not required to block access to any sites, nor filter any content that is deemed "harmful to minors."

    This isn't a case of rampant government censorship, but of Congress placing conditions on the money that it doles out. If you run an affected institution and don't like the consequences, then don't accept the money.
    • Re:Ignorance Run Amok (Score:3, Insightful)

      This isn't a case of rampant government censorship...

      You're right. It's a case of selective government censorship, which is arguably worse and less constitutionally sound than the rampant kind that applies to everyone.

  • by Tweekster (949766) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:13PM (#15321369)
    week. I have a crazy idea. why dont they ban pedophiles from MySpace and leave everyone else the hell alone.

    It would be *gasp* legal even.
  • Federal funding (Score:3, Informative)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday May 12 2006, @04:37PM (#15321543) Homepage
    We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:

    1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
    2) Get them hooked on it.
    3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.

    Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."

    The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V [usconstitution.net] of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this [usconstitution.net])

    I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.
  • Reading TFB... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by malibucreek (253318) on Friday May 12 2006, @05:08PM (#15321782) Homepage
    I was all riled up to post a rant, and went to go read the bill first [politechbot.com] to gather ammunition.

    And what I found... wasn't as bad as the news reports made it out to be. Granted, it's still silly and won't stop kids from accessing sites they want to see. But it wouldn't, as now written, ban library access to all of Web 2.0.

    The bill would require federally-funded libraries to ban access to Web 2.0 sites through which students:

    (aa) may easily access or be presented with obscene or in decent material;
    (bb) may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or
    (cc) may easily access other material that is harmful to minors;

    So if your Web 2.0 sites don't allow readers to "easily access" the bad stuff, you are clear.

    *Of course* the devil be in dem der details. Which still makes this bill a lousy idea. But it wouldn't force librarians to shut down access to every discussion board and group blog on the Web.

  • Federal funding is federal power (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Friday May 12 2006, @09:35PM (#15323150) Homepage Journal
    It would normally be totally illegal for the feds to try to limit speech like this. It goes against the very intent of the First Amendment. But if you have feds fund schools, then they essentially get around this intended limit to their power, by being able to withhold funds from schools that don't play ball.

    This same sort of abuse happens in all sorts of ways. Look at how federally-funded scientists don't get to work on certain problems in biotech, or how states containing federally-funded roads (i.e. all of them) have to have a certain drinking age -- whether the people who live and vote there want it or not.

    If we make the feds stop taxing us, so we can afford to send the money to our state governments to fund our schools instead, then this kind of abuse will not be possible. So the next time some politician running for a federal office says, "I want to be the 'education president'" ask him if he's willing to prove it by cutting education funding.

    • Re:Dupe (Score:2)

      not a dupe. that was informing about the law. this is a story about an analysis of the law and why it is flawed.
    • Around here it's an established rule that you're using those computers for research or educational surfing

      It falls squarely in the realm of research if your paper is about cutting yourself after listening to Linkin Park or an in-depth analsys about how you