More on Bruce A. Taylor: Bush Administration Porn Czar.
 

We need to work on this this together....Im going to post whatever I can find in the hopes it might help some of you when the gov't goes through on its plans to target the top 30 internet porn companies for tax-evasion....

What follows is testimony transcript from Bruce A. Taylor of The National Law Center for Children and Families, and future head of the Bush adminsitration task force on Porn...about the .kids domain.

Is the sky falling yet or are you going to sit around with your thumb up your ass and at least educate yourself?

EDITED NOTE: 12clicks had to go and play devils advocate. This isnt about protecting children or anything else related to that. It is 100% about controlling the policies that shape the Internet.


*********************

I. A Dot Kids domain furthers a substantial governmental purpose:

This act will help solve the problem we face today of giving our children and grand-children access to an Internet, WWWeb, and Usenet that have inordinate amounts of ?adult? and pornographic and inappropriate materials, while balancing the ability of adults to use interactive computer services for lawful purposes without endangering such younger users. Among all the beneficial and potential means of balancing the means for making the Internet safe for children and/or providing a safe haven on the Internet for children, a separate and safeguarded Kids domain could provide an online playground, school, and library that real kids could enjoy and learn from without interfering with the content on the rest of the domains of the World Wide Web or other online services for adults or children. Building kids their own space in cyberspace is the least we can do for them amid the vast universe of information and services that the rest of us need or desire for ourselves. Whatever we adults do with our space, under the law or outside the law, need not and should not pollute the computer environment for those younger ones who need us for their protection, nurturing, education, and entertainment.

Whatever success or frustration there may be to make ?the Internet more safe for children?, whether through laws, law enforcement, voluntary Good Samaritan efforts, or parental supervision, a Dot Kids domain can be that safe-haven for the kids to go until we adults achieve more success in giving them safe-access to the public areas of cyberspace or until, if we continue to fail, they are old enough to fend for themselves as adults in the electronic adult world they will inherit.

For these reasons, I support efforts to create a children?s domain on the Web where the rules are written for their protection and the adults who build and supply that domain are bound by those rules. I adamantly oppose the creation of a ?dot porn? or ?dot sex? domain, because I don?t think we should elevate the pornography syndicates to a seat at the World Wide Web consortium or legitimize their ill-gotten gains and because I don?t trust them to stay on their own vice domain and get off the cash-cow of the dot com domain. They?ll take the red-light district and fill it with porn and prostitution, but they?ll never leave our children and families alone in the rest of cyberspace anymore than they do today. The pornography industry, by its very nature and purpose, has no respect for public morality and no respect for human dignity. Their nature is to exploit and their purpose is to seduce customers into continual addiction in pursuit of profit. Those are clear battle lines, on opposite sides of the law, and no one should expect more clarity or compromise than that. On the other hand, I do not oppose a Dot Kids domain, if created and operated for their benefit instead of ours. There are practical problems to face and solve, but I do not believe there should be serious constitutional problems with carving out a safe-zone for children, even though we don?t surrender a vice-zone for adults.

Constitutionally, the creation of a domain for minor children that is limited to information and images that are lawful and appropriate for them should be found by the courts to be within the surpassing governmental interest in protecting and educating our children. There will surely be challenges to the act, similar to those lodged against the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA), and the Children?s Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA). Such challenges will not likely oppose the creation of the Kids zone, but will seek to enjoin the rules set by Congress to restrict the presence of pornography and other harmful or objectionable content within the zone. There is even a probable likelihood that a judge will enjoin the restrictive conditions for the Kids domain during the years of litigation over the legal objections raised to those conditions. Congress should consider, therefore, making the existence of the domain conditional on the application of the conditions for the domain, so that the domain will not remain online as a ?combat zone? for kids if the courts strike down the restrictions against unprotected and inappropriate materials. Instead of adopting a ?severability? clause that could separate the domain from its child-safety conditions, the act could require or allow the domain to be closed in the event the protective conditions are taken away.

II. A child-safe Dot Kids domain is Constitutional:

A separate domain for minor children can and should be governed by the constitutional principles of what is lawful and appropriate for minors, rather than adults, and the ability or effort to service and protect children in their own zone would not affect the ability of adults to engage in protected activities on any other domain. In a children?s zone, there would be no constitutional violation in prohibiting the display or dissemination of sex or nudity that is ?indecent?, soft-core adult pornography that is ?harmful to minors? or ?obscene for minors?, hard-core adult pornography that is ?obscene? even for adults, or ?child pornography? that sexually dhahahahats children. Children have no constitutional right to any of those types of materials and adults have no constitutional right to display or disseminate such materials to minors.

My first suggestion is to amend Section 2 of the act, subsection (b)(2), to expand the ?Green Light Approach? to exclude not just that which is legally ?harmful to minors?, but all unprotected materials from which minors may be protected, to wit:

?The new domain shall be available for voluntary use as a location only of material that is considered suitable for minors and shall not be available for use as a location of any material that is harmful to minors or obscene for minors (as used in 47 U.S.C. § 231 and explained in the Report to accompany H.R. 3783, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, H. Rept. No. 105-775); indecent (as used in 47 U.S.C. § 223 and explained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, Report for Pub. L. No. 104-104, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. Leg. Hist. 200-11); obscene (as used in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1460-1470); or child pornography (as used in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, 2252A, and 2256).

Check out

http:// energycommerce.house.gov /107/hearings/11012001Hearing408/Taylor701.htm


for the rest of it. I've added spaces in the parent domain to eliminate linking direct to the site.

so whats the prob with a voluntary .kids domain ?

dude, are you a pedofile or can't you read?

Nothing ...

its a masked attempt to piggyback general anti-porn legislation.

I've been in favor of the .kids idea all along. What's the problem?

It is? More details, please.

Listen...im not trying to start shit...go back and re read the text. Strip out all the references to kiddiy pr0.

The US Administration is trying to define accessibility to the internet.

Read some of the quotes "Decent citizens shouldn't have to avoid their libraries to avoid being assaulted by a porn addict's choices. Privacy screens will only turn library terminals into peep booths."

- The acts he quotes were all other acts intended to control the internet.

"Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA), and the Children?s Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA). "

- "A separate domain for minor children can and should be governed by the constitutional principles of what is lawful and appropriate for minors, rather than adults, and the ability or effort to service and protect children in their own zone would not affect the ability of adults to engage in protected activities on any other domain."

- wants to make the internet ZONED for what is right or what is wrong.

I think they should also do a .xxx for adult . Create a red light district on the web that kids cant go to. That way this can be dealt with once and for all.

"until we adults achieve more success in giving them safe-access to the public areas of cyberspace or until, if we continue to fail, they are old enough to fend for themselves as adults in the electronic adult world they will inherit"

So the choices then are this....

- .kids domain to protect kids

- the internet and the people who decide its future fail

Thats a slippery slope to put people on.

You can ask him about it here:
[email protected]

Probably an auto reply with a slammer virus attached.

well, you can read.
I guess its not that then.

A) Apparently you can't spell.

B) You can't read between the lines.

C) Go back under your rock kid.

:321GFY

You need to be beaten with a rubber hose.

whatever. its abundantly clear that you have a hard on for playing devils advocate and criticizing EVERYONE. Maybe if you stopped being so angry and bitter and lashing out at everyone, you might get somewhere. Remember, you can always see a psychiatrist.

This is the last time I will respond to you as I have grown really tired of your lame gimmick. You offer nothing. At least with others on the board whom I disagree with, I can try to put myself in their perspective. But since you're so much like a whining spoiled bully who reduces every constructive argument or debate into a petty insult contest, I am choosing to simply leave you in your sad lonely world of hate.

:321GFY

that would be a major pain in the ass. would be better to have sites with adult material register with a regulatory body instead.

hahahahahaha. Listen chump, just because you want to prey on kids doesn't mean the rest of us do.
I *want* our kids protected from internet porn.
You don't.
Do you hang out in aol chat rooms looking to pick up pre-teen dates? :1orglaugh

MrPopup -

I agree with the original post and all of your replies.

12clicks - You are a smart guy. You know the ONLY way to protect children from internet porn is to either not let them access the internet at al, or only allow access while under direct adult supervision.

How in the fuck do you think a .kids domain would help? Of course, it WOULD be a great place for pedophiles to hang out and create sites.

No, its not the only way. It's the only way *you* are letting yourself see.
Once the government believes your above post, they *WILL* shut porn sites down. you better hope they never do because once you make the argument porn vs kids, I promise you, porn will lose.

bad idea. so is a a .kids domain. As soon as you segragate it is easy to control.

Lets say they make a .xxx domain and force all adult sites to use it. It will be a huge pain in the ass for one but more importantly it will allow for fast and easy censorship. All the government then needs to do is force ISP's to block access to all .xxx sites it could be really ugly.

thats what makes a .kids so right and Mrs.Popup so wrong (again).

you segrigate the kids, not the porn.
or put so even the mrs. popups can understand, you make a kids version of the net.

the only thing that worries me is that it could start with a .kids domian. If they do that and it works well then it will be easy to say " it worked well with kids so why not porn" and we go down a road that will be hard to go back on.

How long after the establishment of a government-controlled .kids domain do think it will be before they create a government-controlled .xxx domain and/or legislate what can be shown on .com and .net?

Beware! This guy and his cronies don't want to create a child-safe corner of the net - they already have that with the filterring software out there and the domain classification services such as NetNanny - they want to create a porn-free net, simple as that.

Bruce Taylor believes there is a cell in America for every one of us legal pornographers. Read how he really feels here, and then see if you still think this is about creating a McPlayland on the net: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/taylor.html

The bottom line is Bruce Taylor wants to get the US Government into the website classification business, and that simply cannot be good for any responsible pornographer. Patriot Act meet Obscenity Legislation.

Interesting link, thanks

One quote for people who don't want to read the whole interview, its pretty long.

OK Coole,
That was freakin scary to read.....
He lumps alot in his def. of Obscenity
Gay, spanking, even blowjobs......
That is very scary........
And he doesnt even like blow jobs........Who the hell doesnt like blow jobs? :)
:helpme

"You were in the meeting with John Ashhahahahaha on that Thursday, a few weeks ago, when many people came to ... advise or talk to the attorney general about this. What's your general characterization of the meeting, the tone, and the result?

The meeting with the attorney general was more of a pleasant occasion for the attorney general to hear from pro-family groups from all across the country that, "Yes, we really would like to see the Justice Department do obscenity cases, just like you're going to be doing a lot of other cases. But we think obscenity has been ignored. It is something that should become more of a priority. You've always done drug cases, you've always done some child porn cases. But you really need to get back into doing obscenity."

When General Ashhahahahaha said, "Listen, I'm going to be the nation's prosecutor. I'm going to enforce all the laws. But I also think obscenity is one of those laws that I should enforce," the pro-family groups and the citizen groups who were represented thought, "Well, good, we've accomplished our concerns here."

They didn't ask us what to do; we didn't tell him what to do. I probably gave him more advice about what he should do than anyone else did, but that's just because I'm kind of a die-hard prosecutor. But it was really more of almost a social meeting. On a general category, we asked him, "Is obscenity going to be a crime priority for the Justice Department?" and he said, "Yes." That was pretty much all the groups wanted to hear, so we'll take him at his word."

Scary, scary, scary stuff indeed.

.kids is a fantastic idea.
.xxx is a terrible idea

pedophiles are finding children without .kids, but .kids would create a "safe zone"

.xxx would be a way for them to isolate all adult content and it would make it easier to prosecute.

not going to come back to debate this, but it's an old argument.

I don't give a shit what they do - I've made my money and am out. So what other ways do you see besides what I said?

sure, let's create .kids, then what? Who is going to control access? ISP's? Or on the individual users computer? Say, set up one account for the adults and one for the kids? Most 12 year-olds know more about the internet than their parents. They'll quickly find out how to bypass it and get back to the .com's

Once word gets around that .kids won't work, THAT'S when the porn industry is fucked.

And all that still overlooks the most common placde that under-age users are getting their porn - ICQ, Kazza, email, etc.

hooper - I only brough up pedophiles because 12clicks seems to think that anyone who is opposed to .kids is a pedophile

*** ****** Search Traffic 10/02/2000 ****** Goto.com ******** Other 8/1/00 8/31/00 - 0.04 """322,572.85""" NA - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now I see why you are so bitter. The market collapsed on you. At least now I know where everyone's mutual funds went. My sisters pension probably paid for your fucking poolhouse.

Bruce Taylor is a dangerous fanatic.
I saw him speak at a forum on Internet porn where he proudly spoke of putting people in jail for producing plain old hardcore porn (no fisting, watersports or anything extreme).

But your ignoring the real problem. Fine, set-up your little kiddieland. How do you suggest we keep the kids away from the .com's?

:thumbsup

The same way we keep kiddies away from Matches, Guns, Firecrackers, Busy Streets, Electircal Outlets.. Mommy and Daddy supervise them.

That's exactly what I said in my very first post on this thread. But 12clicks can't accept that. My guess is he's getting ready to launch a new program :glugglug

Any US adult webmaster out there ought to be doing everything they can to let the government know that if they shut down the US porn industry, the porn will still be on the web. More of it will be free. And it'll all be coming from parts of Europe, Russia, etc.