NEWS.COM - Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law
Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.
A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.
The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006. . .
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6063554.html
+++++++++++++++++
What the heck does the substance of this bill have to do with exploited children?
Is there really any doubt that when you go to a porn site, especially one with a warning page, that it is about.. porn?
Why can't parents be responsible for their own kids? Adult content blocking software has been commercially available for years.
Even if this were enacted, it would most likely be overturned in the courts for impinging on free speech.
I support GWB on his foreign policy, but this anti-porn crusade is absurd. This is the 21st century, not the 18th century.
Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.
A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.
The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006. . .
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6063554.html
+++++++++++++++++
What the heck does the substance of this bill have to do with exploited children?
Is there really any doubt that when you go to a porn site, especially one with a warning page, that it is about.. porn?
Why can't parents be responsible for their own kids? Adult content blocking software has been commercially available for years.
Even if this were enacted, it would most likely be overturned in the courts for impinging on free speech.
I support GWB on his foreign policy, but this anti-porn crusade is absurd. This is the 21st century, not the 18th century.
Comment