John McCain Censors the Internet
(202) 224-2235.
By machiavel Posted in 2008 — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So, John McCain wants you to report the kiddie porn spam comments posted on your blog, or risk a fine of up to $300,000.
As a pander to what the Senator endearingly terms "the far-right base" it's probably good politics -- or at least someone in his office thought so. But, as legislation, it's very poorly crafted and shows a certain cluelessness when it comes to the medium he has repeatedly tried to regulate to death. It also dashes the hope expressed by some that McCain would represent a revival of the Goldwater-Gingrich "leave us alone" coalition that could drive a stake through the heart of Big Government Conservatism. As with CFR, as with Kyoto, as with the gun-show loophole, McCain's answer is always to regulate first, and ask questions later -- the essence of Big Government "conservatism."
Read on...
Think the threat to your blog is overstated? Well, just read the legislation. Or listen to McCain's aides to get a sense of legislative intent. As Declan McCullagh writes, McCain would expose content providers like RedState to the same liabilities as big ISPs like Verizon and Comcast:
Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain's proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme--and even stiffer penalties--on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites. ...
According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service. ...
Because "social-networking site" isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites. The list could include: Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, media companies like News.com publisher CNET Networks permit users to create profiles of favorite games, gadgets and music.
Even a seemingly innoccuous site like RedState, where profanity will get you booted (no thanks to government) trips no less than three of these provisions. Are we a message board, a social networking site, or an instant-messaging service (thanks to our super-secret, underground editor chat)? And moreover, why is McCain getting in the business of defining such sites when the definitions will be obsolete six months from now?
Thankfully, Senator McCain's staff provides further clarification:
A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.
In case you hadn't seen the two white boxes up top, RedState is a site "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use," at least to its fullest extent. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of independently hosted blogs have a membership requirement to post comments. And each of said blogs have been targeted with hundreds of spam comments and trackbacks, often left without the knowledge of the author. If one of those comments happens to contain kiddie porn, are they now liable?
And it doesn't stop there. Get this. Senators McCain and Schumer have introduced a separate bill to create an "e-mail sex offender registry." Sex offenders would need to submit their e-mail address and IM handles like they do their physical address -- as if it wouldn't take them right about 15 seconds to create a new one without any trace of it.
I'm all for doing everything we can to protect kids. But he doesn't get it, does he?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Mitt Romney and the Minimum Wage — Comments (54) »
John McCain Censors the Internet 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
BLogs have been deemed entirely too unregulated. McCain doesn't want me to say what I think. He wants me to say what HE thinks. This is purely a lever by which King John The Fat-Headed can shut down political speech that he can't dominate w/ a media strategy. The man reminds me of Francisco Franco.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
McCain's got about as much a chance at winning the nomination as Daffy Duck (who I don't believe is running).
John McCain has yet to meet an extension of the Federal Government he didn't like.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
People in love with this man could not be more foolish or dangerous. If it's even possible, my loathing of him just quadrupled. There is not a freedom this pompous self-promoter won't trample.
Seems McCain-Feingold was just the foreplay to a royal scr#wing.
on paying the citizens he plans on turning into cops? will we get little badges?
Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.
Wow! That's quite a libertarian stance you are taking. I'm impressed.
While we all deeply despise child pornography, libertarians and conservatives both, to do what McCain suggests is an even more dangerous path to take.
Anyway, great to see my beloved RedState moving more libertarian. Perhaps this is a turnabout caused by our election losses? Perhaps even mainline Conservative Republicans are starting to realize, ya can't piss off your libertarian supporters and expect to win elections. (Internet Gaming Ban -- cough, cough).
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
I'm much interested in libertarianism, nor I am buying the "Appease libertarians now!" sales pitch. It's that, even from a social conservative point of view, this is a horrendously bad idea.
Restriction of the free press (which darn well includes sites like RedState.) Substituting government for parents. Blech.
It's quite enough that child pornography is illegal; trying to catch a few more people looking at pictures can't possibly be worth this.
Maybe McCain is going for the Democratic nomination for president. Because I surely don't see how he has a chance for ours, if he's going to do things like this.
The ReligiousRight™ and SoCons. After all, we (I'm one of 'em) just HATE child porn and would do ANYTHING to stop it.
He's standing in a mine field. He's not going to like the result of this one. And BTW, McCain will never run as a Democrat. That's too much even for me to buy.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
It seems to me this legislation would require that the blog owner read every post in response to every blog entry. While I suspect that the folks at Redstate do that anyway, what about particularly heated topics? And what about responses posted many months after the initial blog entry? If someone at Redstate posts something that upsets everyone so much that it generates 500 lengthy replies, do you have to read each of them to fulfill your legal duties, and do you have to continue monitoring the blog entry to additional responses from now until the end of time?
This legislation would encourage blogs to remove the comment ability.
the very real possibility that some troll would, from a public access computer, post nasty stuff solely so they can report the site on which they posted? the possibilities are endless.
Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.
That was my first thought.
If posting a little child porn on conservative blogs is what it takes to stop those fascists, then by Gore, then that is what they will do. After all, Che didn't become a hero for liberals everywhere without getting a little blood on his hands.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
What if you have a very small blog and you head out for vacation for 2 weeks, and some such finds your blog on the day you go out of town and posts stuff covered by this act? Do you have to pay $300K simply because you wanted to get offline for a couple of weeks?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I’m going to wager a guess that by "social-networking site," they were probably thinking more about MySpace.com or similar services than someone who posts spam in the comments section of someone’s blog. RedState would probably qualify as a “message board” although I think that they were concerned with a number of other boards where “inappropriate” material is often posted.
It’s a first draft of a Senate bill that has just been announced and will probably be amended in either the House or the Senate or conference committee. Doubtlessly the authors will be holding hearings and that would be the opportunity (as well as contacting your Congressman) to get them to more specifically define this or any other ambiguous term. And if Congress doesn’t do that, the Agency charged with the enforcement of the statute will need to promulgate regulations to define those terms in order to enforce it which will require a notice and comment period and/or a chance for a hearing. Which IMO gives us at least several opportunities to get this fixed.
Other than that, the legislation seems like a pretty reasonable clarification of existing law although I think that registering email addresses when anyone can set up a new one in seconds is unlikely to be of much use. On the other hand, I used to work for the internet fraud department of a company that investigated online credit card orders and we found that most fraudsters would use a variation of the same name for the email addresses that they would use for placing multiple orders. Once you found the pattern, it was easier to detect and prevent them from posting orders. Maybe that’s what they’re hoping to do in this case.
at least for McCain and you is the concept of freedom of speech. McCain's objective here is to shut down those pesky bloggers. It's nothing more than an extension of CFR. With respect to this bill, it just needs to be KILLED. DEAD. Never to rise again.
Hopefully, we'll get a case on what's left of CFR and the Roberts court will consign that piece of legislation to it's appropriate place in "legislative hell". Then maybe, just maybe, McCain will get the idea that his "ideas" aren't compatible with freedom.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Child pornography isn’t protected speech and that’s the only thing that this bill regulates.
Now if you want to argue that because it hasn’t (yet) defined some of the terms and may be overly broad and hence impose a burden on a lot of people that it probably wasn’t intended to cover, that’s a legitimate gripe. Which is why I suggested that bloggers and other interested parties raise that concern with their members of Congress who will be considering this bill and/or should it become law, take advantage of the notice and comment period when/if the appropriate agency publishes its proposed rules for enforcement, which will almost certainly include a definition of the undefined terms which have people so worried.
Of course its a freedom of speech issue. I agree that child porn isn't protected speech, but McCain will seek measures (see the original post) that will basicly shut down blogs because 99% of us can't implement the technology that will be requried to comply.
This bill is another obnouxous assualt on free speech by McCain and it needs to be KILLED. Any Republican who votes in favor of this piece of crap should face a serious primary challenge.
Nothing is in need of further definition.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I would guess that he doesn't, and you all know how upset folks got about the political discussions going on on the various blogs. I mean, no one trusts the media gods anymore, because of those d@?^ed bloggers.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion
So, set up a script that auto-forwards any post bearing a common profanity (use your existing filters as a look-up list) or *any* attachment (regardless of content) prefaced with text similar to the following: "Though We Can't Be Sure, We Fear This Forwarded Message May Possibly Contain Objectionable Content Per J.McCain Guidelines - Please Investigate Immediately Or Forward To The Appropriate Authority!".
Make sure it CC's a list of emails that includes every representative that votes for this bill.
Certainly, that would qualify as an adequate report.
I might be mistaken, but I think the following was attributed to A.Lincoln: "The surest way to repeal a law is to vigorously enforce it."
-ts-
--
What can not be remedied, must be endured.
In the 2008 election, I think Republicans need a broad, consensus building Republican in order to win. The Republican brand has been severely tarnished, and we cannot risk running another candidate that we hope can squeak by. The only two candidates running that have the potential to really win big is McCain and Giuliani.
Personally, I can't stand McCain, he truly is a big-government in every sense, and I fear he is all too willing to do whatever it takes to please the Mainstream Media. If it comes down to McCain and Hillary, of course I'll vote McCain. Anything is better than the Clintons in the White House again. At least McCain will be a hawk on the War on Terror, nominate conservative judges, keep spending under control, support Social Security reform, etc.
That leaves Giuliani, who I admire, despite a few of his stances on certain social issues. I think he could really restore the Republican name as he is solid on issues most Conservatives care about such as taxes, spending, crime, hawkish defense, school vouchers, Constructionist Judges, etc. He would be very much like an Eisenhower-type figure, a smart, tough, capable leader widely respected across the United States.
I also believe a Giuliani candidacy would have long coattails, and could restore a Republican controlled Congress. The next Republican needs to be a consensus figure, not a candidate we hope the American people will elect purely because they hate Hillary so much. Hillary is going to be tougher than a lot of people think. One thing the Clinton's are good at is winning elections.
Whoever the Republicans nominate, I think we need to come together once the primary is over and unite behind our nominee. Now that we are in the minority, we really don't have the luxury of demanding absolute idelogical purity, or else. We can all find conservative attributes in the leading Republican nominees that make them better choices than electing a Liberal Democrat like Hillary Clinton.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Who can oppose something called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act"? Do opponents of the Act automatically qualify for membership in NAMBLA?
If a bill has the potential to silence wide swaths of speech all over an issue that has nothing to do with the speech being discussed, then it deserves to never see the light of day. Few bills have the ability to chill online speech as much as this one does, and I think that's every bit as much the point of this bill as the idea of "protecting children" (while actually doing very little to actually stop the practice; perhaps McCain et al. need to do some research as to the typical environments that child predators operate in, as I'll tell you that the Internet ranks pretty low on the list).
Somewhere, the editorial staff of the New York Times is smiling over a bill like this.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
It's aimed at RedState. And Kos. And Hugh Hewett. And every blogger that allows comments.
This legislation is the reason why I frequently refer to McCain as "the most dangerous man in the US". He will expend political capital on this issue, as he did on "torture", and he won't have any problem labeling opponents of this clap-trap as defenders of NAMBLA. He, of course, will do it in 500 words, speaking very softly and patiently, with his grandfatherly look, pleading with us to help him protect these unfortunate children from the plague of child porn.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I was so far toward McCain and now...I don't think I could vote for him. I really don't.
Wow.
I'm a big McCain fan but this is just idiodic. I'm hoping is was just an idea pushed by a stupid staffer and he didn't think it through, but if he starts pushing this sort of foolishness in any major way I'll have to rethink my support.
This is his baby.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I am guessing you haven't really studied McCain that well. This is classic McCain. He does this sort of thing all the time. When you disagree with the man, he responds, "*fill in the blank* is more important that so-called freedom of speech."
He has the lowest opinion of the 1st ammendment of any of the top 2008 candidates.
Jimmy Carter is still around or he could make a push for being the Most Stupid Person In The History of Man.
And this is what the GOP wants to offer up in 2008?
-Miles Christianus
"this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."–Patrick Henry
This is what happens when people who have absolutely no knowledge of the internet, try to regulate it.
I understand what he's trying to do. He's just going about it in a horrible way. Push for stiffer penalties, better education of children, better training for officers on this subject. But don't force website owners to be the internet police.
The saying "throwing the baby out with the bath water" never fit better.
that Sen. McCain does have good intentions in introducing this bill, (which is not to say that there's no pandering involved), this is simply a bad idea. I strain to think of even one "undesirable" behavior which regulation has ever curbed, never mind that attempting to regulate something as nebulus and decentralized as the internet. While I think that we can all agree upon the importance of protecting our childeren, knee-jerk, poorly conceived regulation is far from the answer.
Good intentions don't count for much in my book though. Boxer has good intentions when she pages through a picture book of pistols trying to decide what to ban next. The fact that she has good intentions doesn't give me any comfort.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that this sort of thing is one of McCain's most consistent tendencies. It's like a discomforting mix of progressive and reactionary thinking.
If John McCain gets the Republican nomination in 2008, I will vote 3rd-party. He's shown no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community