House overwhelmingly passes SAFE Act on obscene images -- Ron Paul dissents to save us from ourselves?
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Dec 6th 2007 7:31AM
posted Dec 6th 2007 7:31AM
Look, kiddie porn and terrorism are bad. Obvious. But what better way for a government to push through controversial legislation quickly than to harness their emotive properties? After all, what self-respecting member of the US House of Representatives would vote against legislation called Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online, or SAFE? Only 2 it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul) with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to On the surface we're not happy in the least at the prospect of being required by law to do what is an ethical imperative in the first place. Besides, laws are already in place that require ISPs to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Given that the Act was rushed through under a procedure reserved for noncontroversial legislation, never voted on in committee, and was never posted (in its modern October 10th form) for public review, well, let's just say our distrust of the Nanny State has peaked. Ron Paul, care to comment on your dissenting vote before this heads to the Senate?
SAFE Act of 2007 (summary)
Voter roll call
Update: Here is the SAFE Act [H.R.3791.EH] as it was passed. At least it does not seem to require proactive monitoring of data or persons crossing your pipes. Post updated to reflect new information.
You guys did it now. Don't you know that anything relating to Ron Paul equals a bum rush of his followers spamming your comments?
This legislation is pointless. I don't even like Ron Paul because I think the majority of his followers (my age, anyway) like his ideas on pot more than they like anything else about him. Regardless, does the American public even know what obscenity is? I doubt the average internet browser has any idea about the Miller and SLAPS tests, which are the current standards for the definition of obscene material. What we're going to have are a bunch of self-appointed internet police officers running around and reporting everything they can find that they don't like. There's also the logistical problem of most obscene work being posted overseas.
Furthermore, if this legislation passes, you can kiss goodbye your "2 Girls, 1 Cup" gags and the infamous anime Shitting Dick Nipples (lol).
What ideas on "pot" are you referring to? I've been following Ron Paul's campaign for months now and haven't heard anyone there mention anything about marijuana. You must be thinking about Kinky Friedman. Which makes you an uninformed person not worthy of listening to. Go back to sleep.
Ron Paul is for the decriminalization of all drugs, under the theory that what you put into your body is none of the government's business.
http://stopthedrugwar.com/chronicle_blog/2007/nov/27/ron_paul_on_medical_marijuana
@AmazingRobie
That movie zeitgeist is all conspiracy theory. It cites absolutely no evidence in its suggestions. I did further research on it and found only other conspiracy theories that they used to support it. Nothing objective.
I have been reading and listening to Dr. Paul for years. Dr. Paul has stated that when he answers questions, like the pot issue, he is addressing the issue from a jurisdictional poit of view; at the Federal level, and not at the State level.
Dr. Paul position on pot, whether commercial (bird feed, hemp fiber, medicinal) or recreational, is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to ban it. The Feds could regulate the INTERSTATE commerce but not INTRASTATE. And regulation is not the same as prohibition. Remember, alcohol prohibition required an amendment.
My dad says marijuana should be legalized, but he's an anesthesiologist. I think weed should remain illegal because if you're dumb enough to get caught, then you're not the type who should be smoking MY weed!
I think marijuana SHOULD be legalized, so pot heads have nothing to talk about anymore. This shit gets old.
the other link isn't working anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk
Ron Paul favors removal of authority for regulating drugs from the federal level. States would still be able to enforce drug laws as they see fit.
He is one of the 3 candidates who isn't on the counsil on foreign relation CFR which it's founder quoted "we shall have world government wether you like it or not the only question is wether it will be formed by conquest or consent" that was paul warburg, so hell yeah I suppourt Ron Paul. Back to the gold standard!
@ a.guy.named.eric: Nothing objective? It speaks of the official 9/11 comission, you know where it says "the funding for 9/11 was of little significance" That is no conspiracy read the damn book. As for the North American Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjSX2kO07Y&eurl=http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_cnn_hack_nafta_superhighway_imaginary.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSe8_1U7ryk&feature=related
I don't know how much more proof you need, the mexican president admitted it on CNN. What part of that is conspiracy? Do some real research before just calling it crazy conspiracy. It is happening, they even have engadget articals on RFID and big brother.
Anyone here who doesn't know much about Ron Paul yet, I hope you will take the time to at least read about him a little. Ron Paul is the first chance in decades for us to have a president who is truely for the people. He is often the only one in the House to vote a particular way because he is the only national level politician that strictly votes for what is right and good for the American people. He does not care about corporate interests! And that's why the media largely ignores him, he is not, and will not be, under their control!
@Jaime:
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently ruled that intrastate growth and consumption of a fungible commodity (like Cannabis or Wheat) can be regulated by the Federal government through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The basis is that your intrastate "commerce" (or for personal use, non-commerce) effectively disrupts established interstate (or potential interstate) markets for the commodity.
This applies even if there is only an interstate black market for the commodity, as is the case with Cannabis. Doesn't matter that you can grow it and consume it legally in California for medical purposes. Because the Federal government can regulate the potential for interstate commerce in the commodity, it can reach beyond the state boundary and into your living room to prevent you from further disrupting the interstate black market with your intrastate use.
It really has nothing to do with the Controlled Substances Act at this point, or other questionably unconstitutional control by the Federal government. It's a commerce issue, which is (unfortunately) clearly constitutional until a different court overturns the Raich decision.
Furthermore, Cannabis / THC derivatives are already available by prescription. My prediction is that no matter how hard anyone tries to legalize it, it won't happen. There's too much money to be made by the pharma industry and law enforcement entities in keeping it illegal.
See the Raich & Monson cases (v. Ashcroft) and related counterfilings by Gonzalez.
@James
I did just that. I've been reading a lot about Dr. Paul after not knowing much about him and all... and I must say this guys is impressive! Definately has my vote.
once again proof that Ron Paul is the only one that can save this country.
BTW...he isnt for kiddie porn, he is AGAINST deputizing americans against one another and domestic spying
I do love that Ron Paul song "We be Burnin'"
Yeah, and he's also AGAINST choice on abortion and he's AGAINST same sex marriage. So much for hands off government. Conservative, alright. Welcome back to the 50s.
@huh:
So your saying that not killing unborn babies is outdated? It has its uses in assault cases, but you have to understand the consequences to your own actions in those cases.
Interesting to see such an outpouring of emotion whenever Paul is mentioned.
He's not so much against those things in particular as he is against everything that comes across his desk, whether it be a bill that supports gay rights or a bill to ban abortion. Pretty much the only thing he has voted for of recent has been the border fence and that's just because he also happens to be a bigot. Don't believe me? Here's some unedited quotes from him:
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Putting that aside, though, plain and simple the man just doesn't understand how politics works. It's not about only using one color stamp. The red and green ones should be used equally. Our government was designed by our founding fathers to be fluid, adaptable and loud, not stationary and quiet as pure obstructionists like Mr. Paul would have you to believe. The only agenda he has is to shrink the government to the point where it does absolutely nothing.
And I bet from that you didn't guess that I'm a conservative. Hah!
@JLTate:
You like commenting on things without doing unbiased research too, huh? Ron Paul has stated that he is against abortions, but that he would "leave it to the states" as it's not a federal issue.
Imagine that! A politican who doesn't involve his personal views when he knows it's wrong to force them on people.
As for the fence: he's trying to prevent people from breaking US law by entering in ways they're not supposed to. He's all for legal immigration, so callign him a "bigot" is completely ignorant of his stance.
I have only most recently become interested in Ron Paul for his economic policies, but after reading the rest of his stance on the government, i have to say he is an impressive and revolutionary candidate, while all the others continue to be more of the same that we have had for multiple decades.
Ron Paul is simply about removing the over-regulation of government. He is for making many programs state run, so the national branch doesn't remove funds and make national standards that don't apply everywhere.
He is simply looking to trim down what has become an intrusive, bloated, and roaringly inefficient government, by looking to constitutional rights as guidelines, which will in effect reduce taxes and allow people to continue to be as spend happy as ever.
The bottom line is that the only people who wouldn't want to support ron paul are:
1. People that have a current stake in our bloated government
2. Those who want religion in their government
3. The uniformed
4. Those afraid of change
Sound bite politics are only helping the government hide things. Way to take quotes out of context and use them as you see fit without providing full-text source information so that readers have to trust that you've represented him truthfully.
Providing sound bites only helps gloss over personal stances. People who take them as solid representations of entire philosophy are too lazy/busy/uncurious to actually take the time to even consider thinking about an issue thoroughly.
In other words, fuck your quotes, sir. ronpaul2008.com for Ron Paul's policies.
Do you really *need* Ron Paul to comment? You already did a fine job explaining why this legislation is a bad idea.
Freedom in America as we know it is disappearing under the guise of "Security".
Anybody feeling more secure?
This country is in bad need for term limits.
To quote a song
"The prisoner of the street shrugs "Security comes first", but the trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
"security" is a load of crap the government feeds the public to lean further towards totalitarianism.
Case and point: Protecting germany from the "communists" that burned down the reichstaat.
So we want the citizens of the country to spy on citizens of the country. So what if the guy next door hates you and decided to falsely "snitch" on you? Freedom, what Freedom. Remember "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery".
I suppose its a good thing that I roll with WPA2 on my wireless network.
Shoot yourself please.
Aw geez -- was there really a need to turn a tech story into a shameless plug for a white supremacist conspiracy nut presidential candidate? Please keep politics out of it.
Aw geez -- was there really a need to post your uneducated comment? Please keep your opinion out of it.
no kidding, every Ron Pauk post I read quickly ends with some right wing christian call to theocracy in a version of the united states that would make the klan happy.
'please keep politics out of it'
Says the man who just referred to the politician as a 'white supremacist conspiracy nut'?
The "shameless plug" appears to be yourself. Calling Dr. Paul these unfounded names speaks of a low-brow knuckle dragger with little intention or ability to discover the numerous qualities and greatness this man possesses. Before you slander a person, take the time to learn if you can even qualify to be in his company.
Slander without basis is a direct reflection of its source.
oh please, I've read the comments left by ron supporters. Comments like:
he will bring Christ back into government!
he'll make sure the ethnic make up of america is at least 50% northern european.
Further mixing conservative values with religious dogma, blurring the line on illegal immigration with racism, these are hardly the sort of values it will take to "save the country".
eugene, [just about] every politician out there has some followers that are 'crazy' or 'on the fringe.' Do not kill the man for what others says.
What a good little parrot you are Scott! Care to add anything else you've heard other people say or would you care to express an original thought? If you had done any research you'd realize how stupid you sound. I challenge you to prove one word you said about Ron Paul. You know something more common these days than intelligent, patriotic people posting comments about Ron Paul? Idiots like this muckraking without an ounce of proof. Scottgaertner.net, your resume makes you seem like an intelligent, if ego-centric, guy.(Seriously, who puts bad pics of themselves on their resume?!) Try doing some research and then expressing yourself. I suggest you start with Candidates@Goole: Ron Paul. View it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
anthony: The problem is, I hear/read stuff like this all the time. Check out craigslist, ron paul supporters spam the local news section with their garbage all the time.
Why shouldn't I judge someone by the company they keep, by the people the attract? There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy.
"There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy."
Nazis would support democrats against communists. Does it follow that democrats are nazis or that "there is something that caused the intolernat nazists to come out to support such party"?
Goddamnit, Engadget. I'd like to remind you editors that this is ENGADGET, with an emphasis on "GADGET".
Unless Mr. Paul is releasing a new cell phone with a 5 megapixel camera, 64MB of RAM and a 4.1" VGA touchscreen, I don't want to hear about him or any other politician. There's PLENTY of other politics blogs out there and I'm pretty sure if you guys really wanted you could request from Weblogs that a new one to be started.
Scott/eugene: Your post is nothing but a shameless ad hominem fallacy of association. By your logic, if a crazy with a keyboard posts 'kill bunny rabbits' on a Clinton blog then Clinton's platform is thus to kill bunny rabbits.
@eugene:
As I know that guilt by association logic is employed (usually) only by children, I am glad to know morons such as yourself won't be voting this election cycle.
Okay, if the overtly religious and racist bloggings by his supporters aren't enough, here's some of ron's own words:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Further, while all you ron supporters would like to say that just because religious nut jobs and racists support Ron, that his has no bearing on Ron... why hasn't Ron come out and condemed these guys? Why does he accept their donations?
Of course, maybe Ron supporters don't see anything wrong with an american for white christians.
Again, since these are out of context, I can't make 100% truthful translations of them.
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Or, reworded for the ignorant "Going by DC's (ridiculous) criminal justice system, 95% of the cities criminals are blacks". Now, since I'm literate, I read that as "DC's c.j.s. is, probably unfairly, persecuting its black civilians."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
This one's trickier, since there is absoluately no context and no belying vocabulary. My take? "I (Ron Paul) define 'sensible government' as maintaining a free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Therefore, (3rd party) opinion polls consistently show that about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Dumbing it down further... "Only about 5% of blacks, as poll resultes show, share my (Ron Paul's) political opinions." I grant you it could have been worded a little clearer/politically correct.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
This is just a statement of experience, as far as I can see. Maybe he's never been robbed by a white teenager, or a Mexican one. If he had, perhaps his statement would reflect _that_ experience. I can't really speculate anything else; no context.
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
Statement of political opinion. Many Americans believe that the Israeli government gets overly-preferential treatment. That being said, I don't know much about their lobbying and therefore cannot attest/speculate any further.
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
Sigh. Why are people still illiterate in this day and age. "Based on an objective reading of this resolution, it would seem that all of the terrorists [Lebonese] and all of the innocents/victims [Israelis] are on opposing sides. This seems unfair, especially considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among the 'terrorists' (Lebonese)." Dumbing it down more: "This resolution says that all of the Lebonese are terrorists and all of the Israelis are innocents or victims. Which seems unlikely, as the Lebonese have higher civilian casualties."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
This is just a statement of logic. Any entities of power are going to vie against each other. Religion claims God surpasses the state, and since you can't really argue against that, secular government tries to more directly undermine religion's authority by limiting its interactions. Nothing in there says that he is _for_ the Christianization of our federal government. It just expresses that he believes the founding fathers wanted Christianity in the government, which I happen to disagree with. Churches are more successful at teaching morals and civility---that is, after all, part of their purpose, whereas it is not part of the government.
(I, for one, welcome the destruction of Christmas as a holiday.)
In summary, if you're illiterate, you probably don't like Ron Paul.
ho hum
Please Engadget, I don't want to know your political affiliations. I just want tech reporting, plain and simple. If I wanted tech opinion I'd go back to reading Gizmodo.
ummm did engadget express an opinion here?
no
this is editorial
Ditto. Regardless whether I agree or not, quit trying to endorse or scuttle products/laws/etc. It's obnoxious.
It's a blog. Deal with it. Baby.
Personally I like the crying.
Reminds me I am still alive. And his lungs are healthly! etc.
Technically everything a person writes has an opinion/slant to some degree. Whether the choice of words, punctuation, emphasis, etc. Or However, it is possible to remove a great deal of this, as Techdirt's coverage of the same issue will show us. They don't refer to RP in the title of the post, and seem to only mention it to keep from being reamed in the comments by his supporters. Excerpt: "Only two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans, one of them was Ron Paul)."
it is a valid "opinion" as it relates to the censorship of the internet/encroaching shutdown of public communications, it doesn't bring up affiliations or non-related political agendas- if you want to read a tech site, don't expect to not hear opinions in favor of technology or shut up
Everyone always bashes engadget for being
1. Apple fanboys and
2. biased in some form
The /real/ problem here is that, unless I'm really missing something, we /still/ don't have 'edit post' buttons. The rest I can get over.
The thing about the web is you can't really take content down, it just gets posted somewhere else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but an Act that I think encourages people to go looking won't help. I've never 'bumped into' this kind of content, you have to want to find it, or somebody has to give you the link.
Oh and yay Ron Paul for sense.
I, for one, am glad to see Engadget stepping outside of it's "comfort zone" of strictly talking about the tech and including the politics which effect how we're allowed to use it.
I don't know anyone who's actually done their own research of Ron Paul and NOT thought he was a great candidate. Here's hoping we'll see him in office in 2008, so B.S. laws like this one (and other ones with misleading titles such as the "PATRIOT Act" and "No Child Left Behind") squashed.
I have done my research on Ron Paul and chosen not to support him. I agree with a smaller government, but Ron Paul wants a crippled government. He wants to cut federal funding for arts and sciences as much as he can. I shouldn't need to tell you why this is a bad idea. Furthermore, he isn't really a libertarian so much as a states rights advocate - had he lived 150 years ago, he would have supported slavery, and had he lived 50 years ago, he would have supported segregation.
@thethirdmoose
Saying he'd support segregation or slavery is a strong misinterpretation of his stance: he's for eliminating federal-level involvement on state issues. You're really stretching.
And as for federal funding for arts and sciences: where do you think that federal funding comes from? Taxing the people who live in the states! Why take the money from those people, then just give it right back? Instead, let the states deal with it as they see fit -- then you get what you want, and I get what I want.
I think your research has been from major media (who favors the candidates who accept "donations" from company lawyers), rather than unbiased coverage. We're off-topic though.
@Bing
"he's for eliminating federal-level involvement on state issues"
That reminds me of JENA. Local/State was screwing over a few African Americans who were clearly being sentanced wrongfully.
Had Federal involvement been in place from the start it would have not gotten even close to the point it is now.
So I disagree with eliminating federal involvement as you state hes trying to do.
>He wants to cut federal funding for arts and sciences as much as he can.
This really isn't anything new. Most arts and sciences are funded privately anyway, and even PBS gets a larger share of its funding from the private sector than it did in the past. Unlike Republicans of the 90s, Ron Paul would rather the money go back to the taxpayer instead of funding another agenda.
>had he lived 150 years ago, he would have supported slavery, and had he lived 50 years ago, he would have supported segregation.
What evidence have you found to support these claims? I am guessing none, since you obviously didn't know Ron Paul is over 70 years old, so he was very much alive 50 years ago. Or are you that bad at basic math?
"Had Federal involvement been in place from the start it would have not gotten even close to the point it is "
Or it would have been much worse. I am sure you know federal programs that made things worse. If the federal government made only good decision, of course it would be preferable!! Only it does not. It is much easier to overthrow a bad decision locally.
@AJ
"he's for eliminating federal-level involvement on state issues"
Isn't that one of the reasons why we have STATES? We do have a US Constitution and every State has a State constitution.
Besides... Do you really think that our Founding Fathers would mind?
Quoting Matthew:
---------------
moose:had he lived 150 years ago, he would have supported slavery, and had he lived 50 years ago, he would have supported segregation.
What evidence have you found to support these claims? I am guessing none, since you obviously didn't know Ron Paul is over 70 years old, so he was very much alive 50 years ago. Or are you that bad at basic math?
---------------
Uh, those two issues segregation and slavery, where states-rights issues. You'd have to be blind to miss that Ron Paul is a states-rights kind of guy, of course he'd be against abolition and integration. He would share the stance of all the other states-righters of the time...
I only learned about Ron Paul recently, I didn't know what the big deal was until I researched him myself, but like a lot of people I have realized that Ron Paul is the only hope this country has to really change directions. All the others are bought and paid for, standard politicians. I hope other engadget readers will also give Dr. Paul a chance!
These are great points. But it's not 50 years ago. Can you name something today that he would support that shouldn't be?
I'm not trying to flame or bait you, it's a sincere question.
"Furthermore, he isn't really a libertarian so much as a states rights advocate - had he lived 150 years ago, he would have supported slavery, and had he lived 50 years ago, he would have supported segregation."
And today, in 2007, he wants to end the Federal War on Drugs, which has become America's Apartheid (around 15% of drug users are black, while more than 50% of drug prisoners are black).
Unfortunately, for every good thing the Federal Government does, I can name 10 bad things. Federalism (state's rights) is how this country was meant to be run, and we should return to it.
How is mentioning "Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul" considered a political endorsement?
While it's true that Broun's name does appear buried within the text of the "article," it's obvious this piece was written to promote Ron Paul's position on the bill.
Ron Paul's name appears in an editorial comment in the title, accompanied by an irrelevant picture of Paul on a tractor, and only Ron Paul is rhetorically asked to explain his dissenting vote.
The author even creates new tags for the congressman, presumably to better categorize future Ron Paul spam.
I think most would agree that Engadget's primary focus only includes politics to the extent that it relates to technology users and industries. Reporting that the House has passed the SAFE Act and then providing an explanation of how it could affect citizens clearly falls within these boundaries. However, listing those who voted for or against the bill is secondary and, in my opinion, unnecessary in the context of this article.
When the thought polioce are knocking at your door asking for your hard drive are you going to ask for Dr. Paul?
Big congressional response -- the MAFIAA must be please. After all, if they accuse you of "stealing" music and movies and you try to claim your wifi access point is open and anyone could have done it, they can use this law to nail you otherwise. Either you were letting child pornographers use your connection or you were downloading pristine copies of "Battlefield Earth" -- which is it?
I completely agree. Where does this Act's reach stop? Just because they didn't find you guilty of kiddy porn doesn't mean they won't take you to court because they "happened" to find other things you were looking at? Is it just me or are Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul the only ones that can see where this law may go?
Shame, Shame, US Legislation. How far will they go to keep us "safe"?
Paul is the only one that will scale back the government... i don't see any other candidate talking of it.
After reading this bill a little further, I am concerned how in an effort to combat child pornography service providers, which is ill defined, are required to search for child pornography AND preserve child pornography on their servers, therefore duplicating existing, illegal content. Then you also have to ask yourself, how do you determine whether someone at an ISP is in possession of child porn for evidentiary purposes or because they too enjoy the illegal material. Child porn should continue to be outlawed but more emphasis should be placed on criminals who are actively abusing children instead of those who possess images, which becomes very legally murky. I am not a huge Ron Paulite, but it seems that he probably took the 1-2 minutes required to read the bill being passed.
Thethirdmoose has obviously lied about researching Dr. Paul. Saying that he would have approved of slavery and segragation are probably just the begining of a multitude of assinine comments you will make today. Do you have a list of these stupid remarks made before you go to sleep at night? Or do you find other like-minded trolls to help you out?
It's refreshing to see that he voted in favor of something that may make him look bad, even though he knew that everyone else would vote against it, but took the time to read the bill and vote according to what he knows is right.
What the hell are you talking about? Ron Paul voted against this bill; which seems kind of wrong since the bill is trying to make it easier for those sickos who keep child porn to get caught.
@ Jonathan Bergeron: No... it is limiting your constitutional right to have freedom of speech and freedom to surf whatever you want, what will be limited next dissent for the government? They aren't looking to limit child Pron they are seeking to limit your ability to inform yourself.
It will only make him look bad to those who aren't paying attention while our freedoms are removed in increments. This reminds me of the so called 'Patriot' act, which takes a few days to read and was uploaded to the Congressional computer system 15 minutes before the vote was scheduled. Calling such a travesty 'The Patriot Act' was cunning. If you disagree with it's Orwellian pronouncements are you unpatriotic??? I think not.
Did you know that all that's required to search your home is a 'National Security Letter', which is government beaurocrats writing their own search warrants? A 'domestic surveillance program' allows for spying on American's phone calls, emails and any other electronic communications without a search warrant. Your home and office can be searched by government officials without notification. The list is staggering and Andrew Napolitano has written about what exactly has gone down while we weren't paying attention in his book 'A Nation of Sheep'.
It's time to wake up and regurgitate the stupefying, freedom eroding pabulum being spoon-fed to us through the mainstream media, or in the words of Sinclair Lewis:' When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.'
http://www.blacksheepnews.com/
This is ridiculous. All these legislations against things of this sort and pretty soon were going to need government permission just to own a computer with internet. How about going after the people that are producing and engaging in the content, and leaving the general public out of worry of even signing on. I can see this escalating into a lot of controversial cases like "you knew that pornographic pop-up was coming" or "your neighbor was looking at child porn so now you have to pay fines/get jailtime." America is becoming a bunch of whiny, worrysome idiots. If you don't like something don't look, but go after the people physically harming, killing, robbing, stealing, and worry less about people watching videos on their personal computer.
Once again Engaget posts an article w/o doing any research and therefor posts a flat out lie in order to try and make a point. The bill is in fact available for public viewing at thomas.loc.gov, and has been available for viewing for a while. It also does not requre anyone to be "on the lookout". In fact it states expicitly that the law does NOT require that anyone monitor in any way shape or form due to provacy issues. It explicitly states that the only requirement is to report anything that the operator is made aware of and you can only be punished if you "knowingly and willfully" fail to report what you are made aware of.
@Tom,
Where? Our search only pulled up a summary (linked in article) and older versions of the bill.
Thomas
Go to thomas.loc.gov
Type HR.3791.EH in the Search Bill Text box
Select "Bill Number" below the box
I just searched for "Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online" on thomas.loc.gov. H.R.876 and S.519 are the old versions of the bill. H.R.3791 is the current one that just passed in the House. If you click on the [H.R.3791.EH] link in the search results it brings up the text. if you are already looking at the summary page for the passed bill, just click on "Text of Legislation". Happy reading. At least this is a short bill. ^_^
thanks, post updated as it does not seem to require pro-active monitoring of usage or data.
Thomas
You are quite welcome. I happily take back what I said about in the beginning of my post. All is well in the world.
This is scary...How long will it be before Internet access in the US becomes as restricted and monitored as it is in China?
The duty of educating and protecting children ultimately belongs with their parents, not with the government.
I can't see how the legislation would stand up to constitutional law, since it is overly broad and vague. Nobody will ever get prosecuted on this law, it would simply get overturned if it came up for judicial review.
Can anyone see a very sgnificant reduction in public WiFi? No more ging to Starbuck's to surf...
So apparently nobody actually read the bill. It requires ISPs (or anyone "engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce") who find out about child porn to report it, or risk fines. In fact, it explicitly states
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."
So no, if someone uses your open access point to surf for kiddie porn, it's not your problem, unless you *know* they are doing it. Then it is your problem (and IMHO rightfully should be).
"Welcome to Starbucks, here's Ron he will be your content advisor during your browsing experiance. Beware any content Ron finds innappropriate in the least bit will be reported to officials. Enjoy your chocolate frap and have a great wi-fi journey."
Why would Ron be there? He....voted against it...
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
The law also says "child pr0n and Pr0n laws." Since I live in Utah, all the pr0n on the internets will become illegal because the girls aren't wearing pasties and a thong.
Oh please. I live in Utah too and you know you are wrong. Even here in the reddest state in the Union, they could not outlaw porn.
Umm, shouldn't it be SAFE-O?
Anyway... Ron Paul, that was awesome-o!
This country is done. There is no going back, there is no rolling back anything. If we hadn't killed our education, our degrees might mean something overseas. Of course, it might not be so bad mopping a floor or two for a living in a country where you could get that universal health care and smoke weed.
I'd still like to think that America's salvageable, but I'm going to university in Canada anyway, getting my degree and a Canadian passport while I'm at it. I've also been thinking of New Zealand or Japan.