WARNING: Senator Ted Stevens Strikes Again! The Internet Tubes Are In Danger!

[BoyAlley]

Senator Stevens recently introduced Senate Bill 49, which has just become publicly known as the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. This act is far more extensive than the DOPA, and breaks into three sections: Protecting Children, Deleting Online Predators and Children?s Listbroker Privacy.

The first part of the bill would force video service providers to prevent the distribution of child pornography over their services - sites most at risk would be Pornotube and its ilk, which have no real way of establishing whether a person in a clip is a child or not. It also means that sites wouldn?t be allowed to post adult material on their homepages, and that internal pages containing adult material must contain a special mark. Site owners who fail to comply would face a 5 year jail sentence, but this only applies to sites based in the US.

Section 2, meanwhile, is DOPA: The Sequel. DOPA, you?ll remember, would ban access to social networks and chat rooms in US schools and libraries. Banning MySpace, Bebo, Xanga, YouTube or Friendster in school sounds like no bad thing, you might think. But the DOPA bill was so extensive that it could have meant Wikipedia and many news sites were also banned - any site, really, that allowed users to sign up. The terms of this new bill are the same - schools would have to filter sites that are offered by a commercial entity; allow the creation of profiles; allow blogging or journals; allow users to enter personal information or enable communication between users. In short: almost all interactive websites would be blocked. The new bill adds another requirement, too: ?monitoring the online activities of minors?, which sounds like schools would have to track the sites kids visit. There?s one exception, however: the sites can be unblocked if a teacher is supervising the child (however, many teachers don?t have the ability to disable filters).

http://mashable.com/2007/01/28/ted-stevens-ban-myspace/

Don't remember who Ted Stevens is? Let him teach you about the internet tubes!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1lYiDo0DjSk

[BoyAlley]

Thank GOODNESS this man's no longer chairman of his committee. Probably the best result of Democrats taking over Congress.........

[the source]

that guy is beyond confused.... and funny

[pocketkangaroo]

Will we see any board Republicans post in this thread or will they all conveniently miss this one?

[stickyfingerz]

For every Republican retard there is a democrat retard.. The force is balanced.

[nation-x]

in my opinion if you are in this biz and you say you are a republican then you are suffering from delusions or are simply uninformed of what a republican is.

[Hollywood376]

Maybe they should try spending all the money they spend on committees, meetings, bills, etc on some TV commercials that say "Parents, where the fuck is your kid right now, and what are they doing?"

No, that's wrong too, because the parents that are not aware of their kids WANT the government to control all the things that may not be appropriate for their kids, because then they don't have to do it.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by nation-x

in my opinion if you are in this biz and you say you are a republican then you are suffering from delusions or are simply uninformed of what a republican is.

Another one that is unaware of who actually introduces bills that are against our industry. Perhaps you will enjoy having a federal internet tax for all money made online eh?

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

For every Republican retard there is a democrat retard.. The force is balanced.

Yes there is.

What are your thoughts on this Republican backed bill?

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Yes there is.

What are your thoughts on this Republican backed bill?

Hey Im the first one to say when something is retarded, and this is retarded lol.

[polish_aristocrat]

if there was an .xxx domain already, Im sure this guy would try to make it mandatory for us

[Splum]

Hey BoyAlley whats wrong with this bill? Just from browsing your short snippet those rules look like common sense to me. Matter of fact Youtube already does provide a warning page on adult material. Myspace and like sites SHOULD be banned at schools how can you argue otherwise? Also it says teachers can unblock sites, so school administrators could unblock places like Wikipedia from the get go.

This just isnt that much to get worked up about for our business is it?

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by nation-x

in my opinion if you are in this biz and you say you are a republican then you are suffering from delusions or are simply uninformed of what a republican is.

It should be, if you are in this business and pro-government, you are uninformed. Both Democrats and Republicans hate porn and will shut it down for a boost in their poll numbers. You won't find any people in congress who support the industry.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Hey BoyAlley whats wrong with this bill? Just from browsing your short snippet those rules look like common sense to me. Matter of fact Youtube already does provide a warning page on adult material. Myspace and like sites SHOULD be banned at schools how can you argue otherwise? Also it says teachers can unblock sites, so school administrators could unblock places like Wikipedia from the get go.

This just isnt that much to get worked up about for our business is it?

Aren't you the Libertarian? Why exactly should Myspace and other social networking sites be banned at schools? Isn't it up to the school to decide?

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Splum

Hey BoyAlley whats wrong with this bill? Just from browsing your short snippet those rules look like common sense to me. Matter of fact Youtube already does provide a warning page on adult material. Myspace and like sites SHOULD be banned at schools how can you argue otherwise? Also it says teachers can unblock sites, so school administrators could unblock places like Wikipedia from the get go.

This just isnt that much to get worked up about for our business is it?

That's a very fair question indeed. Let me give you my take on it:

"The first part of the bill would force video service providers to prevent the distribution of child pornography over their services".

Of course, NO legitimate member of the adult entertainment industry stands for CP in any way shape and form, and we all want to see it vanish and those responsible punished. However, after a second look at this clause, how does one prevent the distribution of child pornography and prove the are doing so? For social networking sites, and porn sites, you prevent it by VERIFYING THE AGE OF ALL PERFORMERS THAT ARE UPLOADED. What does that sound like? How about 2257 all over again, but this time with no exceptions even for user uploaded content.

We ALL want to see CP go away, but this provision could effectively do away with ALL nude content on the internet, that isn't properly indexed with 2257 docs. Adults should be allowed (and the Constitution of the United Stated demands they be allowed) to post nude and/or sexual imagery of themselves. Anything that limits or regulates the protected speech of adults shouldn't be something we as an industry support.

Protect children yes, stop children from being abused and exploited of course, but limit the free speech of consenting adults engaged in legal activities? No.

It also means that sites wouldn’t be allowed to post adult material on their homepages, and that internal pages containing adult material must contain a special mark.

This section does away with voluntary labeling like is used in the mainstream movie industry, and in our industry with ICRA and RTA, and mandates labeling, the details of which would be up to the government. Want to have to include a giant visible "THIS SITE IS SINFUL AS DETERMINED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" image on every one of your pages, instead of (or along with) just an invisible meta tag?

Also, it requires no adult content on the main page of your site, regardless if you have it properly labeled or not. Now, while many of us, myself included, already have warning pages on the homepage of our sites, having the government regulate such makes some people uncomfortable, myself included.

Section 2, meanwhile, is DOPA: The Sequel. DOPA, you’ll remember, would ban access to social networks and chat rooms in US schools and libraries.

Many of us have problems with the government banning ANYTHING from libraries. It was a favorite tactic of the Nazis, and is still common practice in the most repressive countries in the world. We don't really want to go down that path do we?

[interracialtoons]

I just find it interesting that the US claims to be the "leader of the free world" yet it seems like we have less freedom than those we say we lead.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

How about 2257 all over again, but this time with no exceptions even for user uploaded content.

See my second comment.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Adults should be allowed (and the Constitution of the United Stated demands they be allowed) to post nude and/or sexual imagery of themselves.

I agree that it should be legal, but shouldnt there be some sort of regulation here, sadly there isnt any, even voluntarily. Also just to help me update my research on user uploaded nude content can you cite me some legal cases I can reference please, thanks.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

This section does away with voluntary labeling like is used in the mainstream movie industry, and in our industry with ICRA and RTA, and mandates labeling, the details of which would be up to the government. Want to have to include a giant visible "THIS SITE IS SINFUL AS DETERMINED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" image on every one of your pages, instead of (or along with) just an invisible meta tag?

I personally think mandatory labeling would help legitimize our industry, actually having one of those tags on the front would be a selling point, look at what labeling did for the CD market.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Many of us have problems with the government banning ANYTHING from libraries. It was a favorite tactic of the Nazis, and is still common practice in the most repressive countries in the world. We don't really want to go down that path do we?

I dont buy that slippery slope analogy. Libraries probably should be exempt from this bill but the government does control them so it is their perogative. Its not like there are plenty of private areas to get information(book stores,internet) libraries these days are quite irrelevent.

You never told me your stance on banning social networks at schools?
BTW thanks for a normal decent conversation about this subject.

[Jman]

God I love my country

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Aren't you the Libertarian? Why exactly should Myspace and other social networking sites be banned at schools? Isn't it up to the school to decide?

Read that over to yourself 50 times and if you still dont see what an assinine statement that is, well there is no helping you.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by interracialtoons

I just find it interesting that the US claims to be the "leader of the free world" yet it seems like we have less freedom than those we say we lead.

Oh come the fuck off of it you are nothing but a spoiled brat you have WAY more comforts and freedom than 99% of the world. This is why we have no representation in our government because of people like you who think that any laws regarding the industry should be outrightly rejected without any analysis.

Personally I think there should be web hosting laws not allowing customers under 18 run adult oriented sites. Half of you kids wouldnt even be here fucking this industry up.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Hollywood376

Maybe they should try spending all the money they spend on committees, meetings, bills, etc on some TV commercials that say "Parents, where the fuck is your kid right now, and what are they doing?"

No, that's wrong too, because the parents that are not aware of their kids WANT the government to control all the things that may not be appropriate for their kids, because then they don't have to do it.

Parents all over the place, use the TV, and the internet as babysitters. that way they dont have to deal with the kids.

The sad thing is, that there are laws in almost every state that makes a parent responsible for thier childrens actions, but for some reason, it is a law that is never used.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Read that over to yourself 50 times and if you still dont see what an assinine statement that is, well there is no helping you.

Libertarian = small government, individual freedoms, etc. This idea is about big government telling people what they can and can't do. For a Libertarian like yourself, you have some very socialist views.

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by the source

that guy is beyond confused.... and funny

Yeah he definately needs to take a class on computers.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Libertarian = small government, individual freedoms, etc. This idea is about big government telling people what they can and can't do. For a Libertarian like yourself, you have some very socialist views.

Smaller government, individual freedoms having nothing to do with giving children access to social networks like Myspace at school. What the fuck is wrong with you? This has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth you freak.

By your piss poor analogy there should be no laws at all, are you some kind of anarchist? Are you mad because you wont be able to surf GFY while you are at your school anymore if this bill passes?

[DWB]

I keep hearing those ww dot com internets make money but destroy familes and kids.

Any truth to this?

[SmokeyTheBear]

i partly agree with some of that

Children shouldnt have access to wikipedia, nor an open internet..

Schools should be on closed networks..



some of the wording is way too general though

" It also means that sites wouldn’t be allowed to post adult material on their homepages"

huh ? no porn on any webpages period ? thats umm strange.

I think the guy is just a bit lost but generally has good points..

What he means is kids shouldnt have access to sites that anyone on the internet can instantly establish links to adult material.. all these video sites or blogs or even wikipedia offer the ability for someone to instantly post something offensive.. without offering some sort of screening process kid shouldnt haveaccess to these sites.. i agree

[notabook]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i partly agree with some of that

Children shouldnt have access to wikipedia, nor an open internet..

Schools should be on closed networks..

Children shouldn't have access to wikipedia...? It's a very useful tool to help in research, many times what is listed is properly cited so you can pull the actual source itself then use it in your own reports. If they had wikipedia back when I was in school/college it would have saved hours or more on each research assignment I had to do. Not sure why you don't think it's a good idea to let them have access to wikipedia.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Perhaps you will enjoy having a federal internet tax for all money made online eh?

If you are talking about the "porn tax" from awhile back, that was a sales tax proposal. Not webmaster income tax.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by notabook

Children shouldn't have access to wikipedia...? It's a very useful tool to help in research, many times what is listed is properly cited so you can pull the actual source itself then use it in your own reports. If they had wikipedia back when I was in school/college it would have saved hours or more on each research assignment I had to do. Not sure why you don't think it's a good idea to let them have access to wikipedia.

Yes incredibley useful to our children...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Riley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Smaller government, individual freedoms having nothing to do with giving children access to social networks like Myspace at school. What the fuck is wrong with you? This has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth you freak.

By your piss poor analogy there should be no laws at all, are you some kind of anarchist? Are you mad because you wont be able to surf GFY while you are at your school anymore if this bill passes?

Smaller government has everything to do with this law. It's up to the schools to decide what their students can and can't view online (along with parental input). The federal government has no business censoring innocent websites. Especially from guys who think an e-mail is called an internet and takes 4 days to get to his inbox because the tubes are clogged.

Social networking is the future and our schools should be embracing it and teaching students how to use it safe and properly. Banning sites like Wikipedia, news sites, informational forums/blogs, e-mail, and everything else that has social interaction. This is just setting kids further back in time and not preparing them for the future.

I believe in laws when they actually protect people. This law doesn't do that, it's just a way of censoring the web (which is the biggest threat to our government). Myspace isn't the problem, it's the fact that our country doesn't do shit about child predators. They get let off with probation, are allowed multiple offenses, and given light sentences because they are seeking counseling. Heck, the guy who doesn't have a warning page on his website will go to jail longer than a teacher who fucks a 14 year old student. Fancy that.

So I say it's fine for schools to ban Myspace and any other site they don't want kids going to. But that's up to the school, the trained professionals, not some old guy in Alaska who doesn't know what the internet is. This is shit you'd see in China, not the US.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Yes incredibley useful to our children...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Riley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson

I hope you are suggesting they ban all search engines too that link to more porn than any other website in the world.

After you've banned all the search engines, forums, blogs, e-mail, news sites, social networking sites, what exactly is left? Why bother even having computers connected to the internet?

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

It's up to the schools to decide what their students can and can't view online (along with parental input). The federal government has no business censoring innocent websites. Especially from guys who think an e-mail is called an internet and takes 4 days to get to his inbox because the tubes are clogged.

I am going to shock you... schools are owned by the government. *GASP* so NO its not up to "schools" to decide what students can and cant view online it is up to the GOVERNING BODIES THAT CONTROL THOSE SCHOOLS to decide. Sorry thats just how the system works.

Also I am almost 110% positive Ted Stevens did not personally write this bill.
Censoring is the act of denying outright, you can still go home after class and view Myspace buddy relax the government isnt going to censor Myspace at home.

They really allow you to surf Myspace and GFY at school anyways?

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I hope you are suggesting they ban all search engines too that link to more porn than any other website in the world.

After you've banned all the search engines, forums, blogs, e-mail, news sites, social networking sites, what exactly is left? Why bother even having computers connected to the internet?

Google and like search engines have adult filters. Who said anything about email or news sites my tinfoil. Relax dude this only applies in GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS so just ask you mom to put you in a private school and you should have no problem.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Splum

I am going to shock you... schools are owned by the government. *GASP* so NO its not up to "schools" to decide what students can and cant view online it is up to the GOVERNING BODIES THAT CONTROL THOSE SCHOOLS to decide. Sorry thats just how the system works.

You keep talking about how libraries and schools are "owned by the government". What you seem to be forgetting, is that they're controlled by LOCAL governments, not the FEDERAL government.

Often when control is taken away from the local population and handed over the cluster fuck in Washington, things tend to get worse, not better.........

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Google and like search engines have adult filters. Who said anything about email or news sites my tinfoil. Relax dude this only applies in GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS so just ask you mom to put you in a private school and you should have no problem.

Most news sites have comments and forums on them. That would exclude them from being used in school under this act. E-mail also falls under the definition if you actually read the act carefully.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Google and like search engines have adult filters.

Kids are far too stupid to figure out the 2 clicks it takes to turn that off on every single search engine.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

I am going to shock you... schools are owned by the government. *GASP* so NO its not up to "schools" to decide what students can and cant view online it is up to the GOVERNING BODIES THAT CONTROL THOSE SCHOOLS to decide. Sorry thats just how the system works.

Also I am almost 110% positive Ted Stevens did not personally write this bill.
Censoring is the act of denying outright, you can still go home after class and view Myspace buddy relax the government isnt going to censor Myspace at home.

They really allow you to surf Myspace and GFY at school anyways?

Technically they are owned by all 3 parts of the government but mostly controlled by state and local governments.

Being the Libertarian that you are, I'm awfully surprised at your stance of ownership of the schools. The Libertarian stance on education is complete separation between the government and the school so that the schools are open to teach students without ridiculous laws reigning down on them.

For being a Libertarian and all, you don't seem to agree with much of what they have to say.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

You keep talking about how libraries and schools are "owned by the government". What you seem to be forgetting, is that they're controlled by LOCAL governments, not the FEDERAL government. Often when control is taken away from the local population and handed over the cluster fuck in Washington, things tend to get worse, not better.........

I agree with your statement but its run by the "government" period and those bodies determine what is and isnt acceptable in their forums. Hell local laws are most times even MORE restrictive than federal laws. I seriously dont see this bill as a huge danger, it should be tweaked a bit on wording and that probably will happen but its pretty solid compared to the ones Ive seen before it.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Being the Libertarian that you are, I'm awfully surprised at your stance of ownership of the schools. The Libertarian stance on education is complete separation between the government and the school so that the schools are open to teach students without ridiculous laws reigning down on them. For being a Libertarian and all, you don't seem to agree with much of what they have to say.

I wish all schools were private, that is a Libertarian view, and thats what Libertarians in general mean when they want seperation of schools and government. Unfortunately that will never happen, I send my kids to private schools on a related note.

What you have not commented on is the fact that this bill could be another step to help LEGITIMIZE our industry and thats what will help us.

I think you are being a bit too liberal about your stance on this.
REGULATION OF THE ADULT INDUSTRY AND INTERNET IS GOOD FOR OUR BUSINESS.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by Splum

Yes incredibley useful to our children...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Riley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson

OH NOES!!!!! You mean the interweb can be used to search for BAD THINGS? JESUS CHRIST PROTECT THE CHILDREN! Well golly gee we might as well ban the internet as a whole from children!!!!! LET'S TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER!! WE NEED .XXX RIGHT NOW!!!1111one .XXX WILL SAVE THEM FOR SURE@@!!! Excuse me while I go puke.

You're about as libertarian as Hitler was christian.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

I wish all schools were private, that is a Libertarian view, and thats what Libertarians in general mean when they want seperation of schools and government. Unfortunately that will never happen, I send my kids to private schools on a related note.

What you have not commented on is the fact that this bill could be another step to help LEGITIMIZE our industry and thats what will help us.

I think you are being a bit too liberal about your stance on this.
REGULATION OF THE ADULT INDUSTRY AND INTERNET IS GOOD FOR OUR BUSINESS.

That is where I disagree. I believe the minute you allow the government to put their foot in the door, they will continue to push farther and farther until they can completely censor something. The stance is not allowing government to put a label on social networking as evil.

Sure this would give temporary regulation to adult sites, but where would it stop. Does a warning page turn into forcing sites to verify all visitors with a credit card? Does this mandatory labeling turn into sites having to register with the government? Does blocking these sites in school eventually turn into blocking them from all US based ISPs (similar to what they made banks do with gambling)? Once you've let them in the door to regulate, they will regulate harder and harder.

But this issue isn't even about the adult industry to me. It's about censoring valuable resources for the sake of a false promise of child safety. This law won't protect any kids at all. Kids should be able to access search engines, news sites, wikipedia, and other resources that they'll need to use in the real world. Blocking all forms of social networking puts them at a disadvantage when they graduate.

I have no problems with blocking sites on the school level. Schools have rules about cell phones, handheld games, and everything else. There should be rules about internet usage as well. But it shouldn't be done on the federal level, and it shouldn't be so vague that virtually any website in the world can fall in the category.

[Hollywood376]

Originally Posted by notabook

Children shouldn't have access to wikipedia...? It's a very useful tool to help in research, many times what is listed is properly cited so you can pull the actual source itself then use it in your own reports. If they had wikipedia back when I was in school/college it would have saved hours or more on each research assignment I had to do. Not sure why you don't think it's a good idea to let them have access to wikipedia.

I don't know why wikipedia is held up like some kind of good source of information. wiki has a lot of information that is incorrect. I know one thing for sure, if you came into my university and cited wikipedia as a source in some research... you would flunk. Then everyone would laugh at you.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Hollywood376

I know one thing for sure, if you came into my university and cited wikipedia as a source in some research... you would flunk.

Wow, I didn't know you had a University.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by Hollywood376

I don't know why wikipedia is held up like some kind of good source of information. wiki has a lot of information that is incorrect. I know one thing for sure, if you came into my university and cited wikipedia as a source in some research... you would flunk. Then everyone would laugh at you.

Why don't people bother READING what they quote? I've bolded the parts just for you.

Children shouldn't have access to wikipedia...? It's a very useful tool to help in research, many times what is listed is properly cited so you can pull the actual source itself then use it in your own reports. If they had wikipedia back when I was in school/college it would have saved hours or more on each research assignment I had to do. Not sure why you don't think it's a good idea to let them have access to wikipedia.

Notice I didn't say citing WIKIPEDIA. I said pulling the actual CITED SOURCE on Wikipedia so you can use THAT source in your own report.

Jesus.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by notabook

Children shouldn't have access to wikipedia...? It's a very useful tool to help in research, many times what is listed is properly cited so you can pull the actual source itself then use it in your own reports. If they had wikipedia back when I was in school/college it would have saved hours or more on each research assignment I had to do. Not sure why you don't think it's a good idea to let them have access to wikipedia.

its a very usefull tool , but its also editable so theres no way to stop me from posting a GOATSE pic on it at any time. Any site that allows live updates without screening means theres a chance adult material can be on it..

Closed networks are the only way to go.. This doesnt mean wikipedia is OUT it just means that an open etwork cant be connected to a closed one or its not really closed.. In an ideal world . the teacher would be the only one who would have access to the open connection . If a child wanted an item from wikipedia it would be sent to the admin/teacher to add to the closed network. they would review the contents on the open network and add it to the closed network for students to use..

Done and done. puts the power out of the students and into the teacher once again. This way they can explain the context of what they are reading.. and filter out anything problematic

[Fizzgig]

So we're getting our tubes tied?

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Want to have to include a giant visible "THIS SITE IS SINFUL AS DETERMINED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" image on every one of your pages, instead of (or along with) just an invisible meta tag?

While I hear what you are saying you over dramatize things. That would never happen word for word but if it did more ppl would click on it.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Closed networks are the only way to go.. This doesnt mean wikipedia is OUT it just means that an open etwork cant be connected to a closed one or its not really closed.. In an ideal world . the teacher would be the only one who would have access to the open connection . If a child wanted an item from wikipedia it would be sent to the admin/teacher to add to the closed network. they would review the contents on the open network and add it to the closed network for students to use..

Done and done. puts the power out of the students and into the teacher once again. This way they can explain the context of what they are reading.. and filter out anything problematic

Unfortunately that is not a very realistic expectation from a teacher, who is already overburdened by teaching and supervising a class of 30-40 students (all a while getting paid fairly minimally and getting little to no respect from their students). The only option would be to hire more teachers to help supervise the content of open sites (in order to keep the children away from all the scary dangerous things in the world, like michael jackson wikis and britney spears lyrics) and add whatever content the students request to the CS from said sites… and I honestly just don't see this happening.

So you have the option of: A. Allowing the child access to an incredibly useful tool in which 99% of the time he or she will never see anything ‘bad’ on.

OR

B. Banning it outright from schools, allowing no access to it whatsoever.

I think I’d rather go with choice A.

[billybathgate]

Originally Posted by Splum

Yes incredibley useful to our children...

en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Gonzo

For the Muppet, see Gonzo (Muppet).

Gonzo is very popular as a pornographic niche.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by notabook

Unfortunately that is not a very realistic expectation from a teacher,

Start expecting more from teachers then..

Originally Posted by notabook

So you have the option of: A. Allowing the child access to an incredibly useful tool in which 99% of the time he or she will never see anything ?bad? on.

and the other 1% is child molesters hate propoganda and goatse..

at what age would you let your child openly surf wikipedia..

You have no problem with kids seeing potentially anything ? because thats what it is..

Its not a hard concept. if it can be edited anywhere by anyone LIVE then ANYTHING could be on it.. Think of the worst thing you could possibly think of.. Thats what any child could and most likely will see.

Its like giving kids access to google ..

Originally Posted by notabook

OR

B. Banning it outright from schools, allowing no access to it whatsoever.

I think I?d rather go with choice A.

or use some common sense , have a closed network with no access to unmonitored outside sites.. period .

Sorry i dont take the "thats the best we can do " option. I take the " my method actually works and doesnt hurt kids"

Spend what they do in a week in iraq/afghanistan on the kids for a year they would have plenty of money to have network mods..