"For the Children"
Ars Technica dissects the current Congressional stampede to enact a mandatory rating system for "adult" internet sites:
But it's even worse than you think. As these political stooges are tripping over each other in their rush to "protect the children" by further emasculating the First Amendment to the Constitution, it's worth remembering the most viable, easily-implemented, and effective measure--the .xxx domain proposal--was summarily shot down earlier this year. Their "reasoning," such as it was, involved some mumblings about not wanting to enable easier distribution and accessibility. Never mind that the .xxx proposal would've allowed parents to simply block the entire domain.
As things stand--and will continue under the proposed new legislation--it's not like porn is exactly difficult to find on the internet. Any twelve year-old can do it in a matter of seconds. But at least now that twelve year-old will see a big, stroboscopic, government-approved banner, which gravely warns him of the dire consequences should he click the "continue" button.
Rule by the unfit, indeed.
In April, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put out a call for Congress to pass laws requiring "web labeling" to protect children from pornography, and in an election year, that's like dangling pig bones from a rawhide rope at the rabid dog kennel.
But it's even worse than you think. As these political stooges are tripping over each other in their rush to "protect the children" by further emasculating the First Amendment to the Constitution, it's worth remembering the most viable, easily-implemented, and effective measure--the .xxx domain proposal--was summarily shot down earlier this year. Their "reasoning," such as it was, involved some mumblings about not wanting to enable easier distribution and accessibility. Never mind that the .xxx proposal would've allowed parents to simply block the entire domain.
As things stand--and will continue under the proposed new legislation--it's not like porn is exactly difficult to find on the internet. Any twelve year-old can do it in a matter of seconds. But at least now that twelve year-old will see a big, stroboscopic, government-approved banner, which gravely warns him of the dire consequences should he click the "continue" button.
Rule by the unfit, indeed.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 11:19
2 Comments:
Wow, I hadn't kept up with the situation on this issue. These issues remind me of the war on drugs and how successful "Just say No" was.
Yeah, the entire situation has passed into the realm of the absurd.
The .xxx domain proposal would have been the electronic equivalent of the "back room" at the video store. As kids, we all knew it was there, and we knew what was inside. Occasionally, you might be able sneak a surrepitous peek as a customer passed through the curtain. But, under no circumstances were we kids allowed to go back there.
Extending the analogy, the current internet porn situation has all the adult videos setting on the lowest shelf in the children's video aisle, and none of the employees of the video store give a damn who who rents them.
All the government is proposing in lieu of the .xxx idea is to slap big, colorful stickers on the boxes that read "THIS IS PORN! BAD! DON'T RENT ME, KIDS! (ESPECIALLY NOT YOU, MR. TWELVE YEAR-OLD GIANT WALKING HORMONE)." And the employees still won't care who they rent to, because the only way to enforce the labeling law is by...uh... well, it's not actually enforceable, really... but it's warm and fuzzy and it makes for some damned fine podium-thumping polemics during the mid-term elections.
Post a Comment
<< Home