“The Cyber Safety For Kids Act of 2006″
Boing Boing has alerted us to this: Two senators, Mark Pryor (D - AR) and Max Baucus (D - MT) have proposed a bill that would call for the creation of a new top-level domain, .xxx. If the bill is enacted into law, any website featuring material “harmful to minors” would be required by law to move to the new .xxx domain, or face penalties that are yet to be determined.
The bill goes into detail about what constitutes “harmful to minors.” It’s copy-protected, so here’s a screen capture:
Wow. Can we stack a few more ambiguities on that?
For instance…
- who defines “the prurient interests?”
- who defines “lewd?”
- who defines “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors?”
This is pretty serious to me. My novel, and the podcast and e-book of same, includes a brief scene that features an under-the-clothes nipple grope.(1) If this bill is passed into law, will I be forced to change http://www.bravemenrun.com to http://www.bravemenrun.xxx, and be lumped in with every porn site on the net? Or does “Brave Men Run” have serious literary value for minors?
I would argue, of course, that it has value for everyone. But would the Secretary of Commerce?
My next novel, “Light of the Outsider,” features at least one sex scene featuring more than two parties, “occult” elements, and graphic violence.(2)(3) What are my chances of remaining part of the dot-com majority with this future book / e-book / podcast if the Cyber Safety For Kids Act of 2006 is passed into law??!?
I know I don’t have all of you on this one… and I may be over-reacting (or prematurely reacting, perhaps.) But I believe, with every bit of my conviction, that no government, let alone the government of the country that has freedom of speech codified in its very DNA, has the right, or the obligation, to categorize, marginalize, or police what people create.
Yes, no matter how bad it might seem. That’s right.
For those of you who agree, I invite you to blog on this, podcast on it, and, yes, write your congressman. If you want to read the bill, here’s a pdf.
I care about this. If you create content — any content, in any medium, on any subject… you should, too.
Finally… if you’re a patriot, this bill should piss you off. Think on it.
(1) Now you really want to read it, don’t you?
(2) And yet, if we are to go by the guidelines set forth by Pryor and Baucus, violence isn’t in the same horrible space as sex. At least not yet.
(3) I so totally can’t wait to see what kind of AdSense ads this post dredges up..!
5 Responses to ““The Cyber Safety For Kids Act of 2006″”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think you may be over-reacting to this bill, although I would agree that any impingement on freedom of speech has to be thoroughly scrutinized. But, the language says it has to be “obscene” a term that is has been very thoroughly litigated over many years, or it must meet all 3 of the other definitions (see key word “and” in section B. iii.) to the proverbial “reasonable person”. The key phrase is “taking the material as a whole”. Inside of your works, the “nipple grope” and the other scenes are very minor compared to the works a whole. They aren’t designed to “pander to the prurient interest” like “Hustler’s Barely Legal” or similar website. The bill is designed to move adult erotica, which also have a right to be published on the net, to a top-level domain. That way, my 8-year old son wouldn’t easily stumble across “Transexual Paradise” or some-such website and see things that aren’t intended for him. Even those materials that would go to the .xxx websites aren’t being censored off the Internet, just moved to a top-level domain that can be more easily blocked by parents. I’m not sure why that is a bad idea or why I’m not a patriot if I believe otherwise? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility towards our youth.
Thanks for your comments, Bill.
To answer your questions at the end:
The concept of moving certain domains to a top-level, dot-xxx domain is a bad idea and serves no effective purpose, in my mind, for a few reasons:
1) The original top-level domains have nothing to do with content, only the nature of the originator: dot-com is commercial web sites, dot-net is web sites pertaining to the actual operation of the internet, dot-org is non-commercial or not-for-profit web sites, and dot-gov is web sites directly tied to the United States government.
Just about every adult site I’ve ever seen (eeek — Selznick has seen adult web sites? Another illusion shattered!) is commercial in nature. Why should they require a different top-level domain based on their content?
By the same argument (it’s to protect our kids) would the following be acceptable?
– Sites that pander to hate must use a dot-kkk top-level domain, so that children don’t have to see racist comments and imagery.
– Anti-Semitic web sites must use a dot-nzi top-level domain, so that children aren’t exposed to prejudice and propaganda.
– Christian web sites must use a dot-inri top level domain, so that non-Christian children aren’t exposed to propaganda and faith-based “science.”
(Just for the record and to satisfy the empty-headed out there in the blogosphere, I do not condone or support hate, anti-Semitism, or the restriction of content in any medium!)
2) It should not be the responsibility of the content provider to police the people who access their content.
You mention that your eight year old son won’t stumble across an adult web site if content-blocking software blocks the dot-xxx top-level domain. Allow me to suggest that your eight-year old son should not be on the internet at all without adult supervision. And if you’re there helping your son use the World Wide Web and something comes up you don’t want him to see, you can have a conversation with him about it. That way, parenting is shifted from the government to the parent, and perhaps the child learns something about these things.
Also, of course, there are already content rating systems in place that are similar to those used by the motion picture, television, and gaming industries, and software that blocks content based on the rating, or the presence of a rating at all.
3) Blocking content doesn’t work.
Sure, you could set up your content blocking software to keep all dot-xxx web sites off your browser. But that won’t stop children from finding the stuff. Kids go after what they’re told they can’t have… it’s part of growing up, exploring boundaries, and learning about the world. It’s curiousity, and it’s natural.
Also, of course, if they can’t see it at home… they’ll go to a friend’s house where they can.
4) Even with the dot-xxx domain, a content-blocking application is still required.
5) The dot-xxx top-level domain will not affect adult sites originating from countries other than the United States, as the law would have no jurisdiction in those countries. Many, many, many adult sites are from outside of the United States… rendering the dot-xxx law useless.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that Senators Pryor and Baucus don’t know and understand this, and that the bill’s primary purpose is to show their constituents they are actively concerned about these issues… this is a senatorial election year, after all.
Finally, I didn’t say you weren’t a patriot if you believe otherwise. Refer to the original post — I said “if you’re a patriot, this bill should piss you off.” There is a difference, and the distinction is an important one.
You stated, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility towards our youth.” I agree, actually. It’s simply where the responsibility lies that I have issue with. I believe the responsibility lies with the parent (or adult supervisor, in the case of libraries, schools, and other public and semi-public places where the World Wide Web can be accessed.
I do not believe that children should be exposed to pornography, or graphic violence, for that matter, before a certain age and without adult guidance and supervision. Additionally, I don’t believe the state should provide that guidance and supervision for us.
I really appreciate your taking the time to comment, Bill!
HERE, HERE!! they’re OUR children and therefore OUR responsibilty. parents need to do the parenting. to let the government into your home and set guidlines is akin to having the Joneses and the Smiths down the street make the rules for your family. would you really just sit back and let a couple of people you only know by name run YOUR household? tell you what you can and cannot read etc.? (my son can’t read huckleberry finn in his school library-why? because IT’S NOT THERE!! SOMEONE deemed it inappropriate!) I for one will not! this tearing down of the constitution and the bill of rights must stopped! whether mindfull of it or not our government with this administration and it’s religeous fanatic supporters at the helm is on track to becoming an american version of the taliban! they know they can’t have a full frontal assault on our rights and freedoms the way the nazis did, so they slip their iron fist into a velvet glove, tell you ‘it’s for the good of the children’ or ‘to protect us from terrorism’ and slowly chip away one right and freedom at a time until we have none.
like cable t.v. and sattelite radio the internet is a purchased media. it is something that is bought and voluntarily brought into one’s home, and it is up to the individual who made the purchase to decide how and by whom it will be used in their home. various channel and content blocking software programs give us the ability to regulate what can and cannot be seen and heard through these media, allowing the INDIVIDUAL to determine what is and is not appropriate according to their own principles and morals -one’s cup of tea is not always another’s-. but when we sit idly by while the government is allowed to decide for EVERYONE what is considered obscene or inappropriate and begin to regulate and censore what is on cable t.v., sattelite radio and the internet -again- things PURCHASED AND VOLUNTARILY BROUGHT INTO OUR HOMES what is to stop them from regulating ANYTHING we purchase? how would you like to go to a Borders and have to show i.d. and fill out a registration form and have a fifteen day waiting period while they do a background check on you because you wanted to but a copy of Catcher In The Rye? or have you mother’s door kicked in by jack-booted thugs because she was reading about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s sex life in the Enquirer? give a government too much power and they WILL abuse it.
I appreciate your obvious passion regarding this subject, David. Thanks for your two comments.