so one day, John McCain walks into a talent agency...

[acroyear]

Slashdot | Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists:

"Senator John McCain has proposed a bill to extend federal obscenity reporting guidelines [CC] [MD] [GC] to all forms of internet communications. Those who fail to report according to guidelines could face fines of up to $300,000 for unreported posts to a blog or mailing list. The EFF was quick to slam the proposal, saying that this was the very definition of 'slippery slope', and citing the idea of 'personal common carrier'."

Hey McCain: FUCK YOU you FUCKING RELIGIOUS RIGHT TOADY.  You and Falwell and friends all being real nice and big butt-buddies now, aren't you?  You like 'em with a southern accent?  Or just with the big one you can suck on as long as the money keeps pouring in you fucking whore?

'nuf said.  That bitch McCain ain't EVER going to get my vote.

Comments

[margoeve.livejournal.com]

I may have to go over it with a fine tooth comb, but a word search through the the wording of the bill doesn't say anything about "obscenity" and is very "child porn" specific.

http://politechbot.com/docs/mccain.child.sex.offender.120806.pdf


Now, the feasiblity of the bill is another matter all together.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The item is a reference there to "section 1466A" which is the current legal obscenity definition.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

or more importantly, it's the fact that "is obscene" is there independent of certain other justifiably objectionable material (simulations of child-porn, for example) - all other terms are defined except that one. "obscene" is something only established by legal precedent and in most cases the court judgments have done little to make that a concrete definition, which is why this becomes questionable.

just like "indecent", it's something that the courts have continued to judge as being locally defined by community standards, utterly inapplicable to national and international communication systems like the 'net or satellite tv.

but in the end, obscene merely falls back on one man's "well, i know it when i see it" attitude and that is not the right way to judge art, humor, or any other cultural artifact, nor is it any reason at all to decide that someone else *can't* see it, nor should it.

thus the danger - if i decide to write up a web site that does "the aristocrats" joke in all it's gory glory, and with a little photoshop, make up a few picture aids to go with it, this law would say that in spite of my being in northern VA (where such material might be considered indecent but not obscene) and my site is hosted by a hosting company in California (where such material might be considered indecent but not obscene) or even in some other more open place like Holland (where it's not even considered indecent), i could be reported to the sheriff's office of Sarasota, Florida (where such material is called "obscene" by their local definition), and from there, ALL of my computers and harddrives, as well as those of my hosting company and my professional employer, could be subpoenaed and be legally required to be sent to Florida on a search warrant for "evidence".

this "locality" of application of such a definition is extremely dangerous.

it seems innocuous by itself, but when combined with other powers already attached to law enforcement investigation, leads to a huge abuse of power and a lot of punishment before trials. i've seen enough abuses of power and ignorance of facts on computer "crimes" already to know that the last thing law enforcement needs is any more rights to grab any computer they want on the flimsiest of claims.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

by the way, no computer ever searched by the FBI or the Secret Service for "evidence" ever comes back unharmed. if the hard drive is usable at all, you'll still likely find massive numbers of files missing.

and that's with "professionals". the amatures of some local yocal police department in the bumfuck south? forget it...