Slashdot Log In
Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA"
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:21 PM
from the tubes-tied dept.
from the tubes-tied dept.
DJCacophony writes "Ted 'series of tubes' Stevens has introduced a bill, going by the interim name S.49, that aims to block access to interactive websites from schools and libraries. The wording of the bill is vague enough to apply to Wikipedia, MySpace (and other social networking sites), and potentially even to blogs. The bill is apparently so similar to the failed Deleting Online Predators Act of last year that it has been termed 'Son of DOPA' by some." Stevens introduced S.49, the text of which is not yet available, on the opening day of the legislative session.
Related Stories
[+]
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Jeez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Senator Stevens needs his tubes tied.
Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.
2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source [chicagotribune.com]). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years [bloomberg.com]), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.
So, with Uncle Ted presumably bringing in less pork for the foreseeable future, will Alaskans react by electing a Dem, or will they re-elect Uncle Ted in the hopes that the GOP recapture the senate and Stevens' seniority becomes valuable locally again?
Re:Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).
The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.
Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.
The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.
I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.
The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.
Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and
That's at least 20%... (Score:3, Interesting)
D'Hondt / Jefferson (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?
It's not in their best interest. I mean, he's the king of pork (which means he has brought record breaking Federal dollars to the state), and he's on some important committees. He's bee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not necessarily a good thing. For example, as I understand, even the residents of Ketchikan don't want the
Not Online? (Score:5, Informative)
Do the Slashdot editors not know how to find stuff on Al Gore's Tubes of Internets?
If only there were... (Score:3, Funny)
...some sort of mechanism to have a computer automatically read the contents of a page that was in the Tubes of the Intarweb, and then create indexes on the words contained therein, and then allow users to access those indexes via another page on the Inter
Once again... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may laugh, but legislators in your country will probably using logic similar to that above to make law. The sad thing
Think of the (poorly educated) children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What have you learned from My
Re:Think of the (poorly educated) children (Score:5, Insightful)
What have you learned from MySpace that has any value in an educational environment?
I learned:
Besides, this is only for schools and libraries.
Federal funding means responsibility to act constitutionally, including upholding free speech/expression for adults. The government judging that posting to MySpace is less valuable than posting to Slashdot, or some purely educational forum, is an unconstitutional act. The government should never be making these decisions, individuals should. It is called freedom, even if it is the freedom to waste an hour writing about how cute your poodle is and publishing it.
The case could be made that there is no valid reason for someone to be accessing MySpace from a library other than wasting time.
The case could be made that doing anything other than praying to Allah is a waste of time. The case could be made that reading literature instead of car repair manuals is a waste of time. The point is that it is not the government's responsibility or right to make that call, it is the right and responsibility of the individual.
However, I am assuming that by "schools", he is not including universities and colleges.
Public schools are one thing. The people there are children who are assigned by our society a subset of rights and responsibilities belonging to other people. In that case it is up to the parent's to decide, possibly through the democratic process of the government, subject to some limitations. In public libraries, however, there is no justification. If people actually went to said libraries and read the constitution as well as the essays of the founding fathers, maybe they'd understand why.
Great Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great Idea! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Priority (Score:2)
Yes, because it's just that important. There really is no other crisis or issue which needs legislative attention before this. At least someone is thinking of the children. *rolls
Look on the bright side (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait...my local library has an interactive catalog. Would they have to block themselves? They probably should already turn themselves in. They have a subscription to Playboy and I'm sure there are countless books that have "porn" in them teaching kids about sex.
They Want to Take Away the Power to Publish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They Want to Take Away the Power to Publish... (Score:4, Insightful)
We get web censorship by explaining that we are protecting our children from the evils of pornography, and in their defense, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll ban sites at the schools and the libraries, and leave the potential open for banning them in homes.
You balk at this idea? What are you, some kind of pervert who wants kids to have open and free access to porn?
We get personal tracking by explaining that we are protecting our children from the dangers of child molesters, and to prevent that, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll put GPS collars on convicted child molesters and other sex offenders, and leave the option available for putting them on everyone.
What? You don't like this? Why are you standing up for perverts, anyway?
We are good. Un-we, then, are un-good. Mini-love will see they become un-persons. This is plus good.
<irony=0%> (Oh, for crying out loud, did I forget the <irony=100%> tag again?)
Expect later this year from Ted "tubes" Stevens (Score:4, Funny)
Nice to see the feds aren't immune to the same bullshit stunts Illinois and Georgia tried to pull.
You know it's an election year... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?
Re:You know it's an election year... (Score:5, Insightful)
It got rewritten and nobody told you.
Republicans are the party of Big Daddy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your bedroom to make sure you're not having sex the wrong way, because pornography is a national epidemic.
Democrats are the party of Big Mommy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your kitchen to make sure you're not eating the wrong kinds of food, because obesity is a national epidemic.
Once upon a time, Americans valued "freedom to" over "freedom from". The past 40 years of "every life is precious" and "you are a unique and valuable snowflake" rhetoric has changed that; as a nation, we've pretty much decided we'd rather be safe than free. Kinda sucks for us oldthinkers who unbellyfeel amsoc, but that's our problem, not New America's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I believe he's talking about the opposite. The "you are a unique and wonderful snowflake" analogy works great... for snowflakes. However, the problem is that the crowd we speak of also subscribes to such ideas as placing more emphasis on self-esteem
Re:You know it's an election year... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know it's an election year... when politicians come up with laws restricting... well, anything.
When do politicians ever come up with laws that don't restrict things? When was the last time a politician ran on the platform of repealing all our stupid, useless, counterproductive laws? Americans do not value freedom very much anymore. It is no longer an important cultural value. Most people see the government and laws as a battleground where they try to force other people to conform to doing things their way rather than the way the other party wants. Very few people want to take a stand in favor of personal choice.
Ever talk to a die hard "pro choice" advocate? They say it is every woman's right to make choices for herself, not have them forced upon her by others. I agree. My opinion might be that abortion is unethical, but it is not up to me to make that choice and force others to agree with me; it is up to each individual to choose. The problem is most of the people I talk to are a lot less in favor of the right to own a firearm or the right to hunt some non-endangered animal, or in some cases the right to eat meat. It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice, while they advocate taking other choices away from people. Is it any wonder so many children these days don't even think freedom of speech is an important right?
Freedom in the US died as a cultural value and is dying in our legislature as well. People don't even see it as an issue or concern. They just want to tell other people how to live at gunpoint, whether that is "worship Jeebus" or "don't shoot bunny rabbits."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sick and sad when people make straw-man arguments to defend a weak position about generalization of rights and what is a "right".
Are you sure you understand what a straw man argument is?
I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-red-meat. (Bet that hurts your
No t-shirt (Score:4, Funny)
States Rights Trashed Again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There. Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People Dont read (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:People Dont read (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Predators? Well, in that case.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Halfway there (Score:3, Interesting)
Poison Placebo (Score:4, Interesting)
All they do is damage everyone. Delete Stevens and his technocrat cronies.
Job Corps (Score:3, Informative)
DESESE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. Libraries may be public but they are still owned and operated by the government. That means it's their call as to what goes on there. It's not violating your rights because you can still access whatever you want anywhere else.
Even if they somehow blocked a website for everyone it still wouldn't be a violation of your rights but rather the rights of the person running the website being blocked. Even that would be questionable because they aren't actually stopping you from saying something(freedom of speech intact) but they may as well be.
Dunno what universe you live in, but here in the US, "Owned and operated by the government" MEANS "public."
And it's called censorship when the government decides what someone can and cannot read/hear/view.
A private company (like your employer) is well
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Co