Senator McCain doesn’t understand the InterWeb
Sometimes when someone tries to do something good they get confused and screw up something else. This is often referred to as the law of unintended consequences. Case in point would be Senator John McCain’s new bill to crack down on child pornography on the Internet. No one wants child pornography on the Internet but the problem is that this bill is so broadly written it could be used to shut down a website with an innocent picture like this.
It is an important cause and something must be done but this bill is so poorly written it could be used to harm people that have nothing to do with child pornography. If this sounds a little like the War on Drugs or the War on Terror there may be a reason. Could it be Congress Critters? Senator McCain is not alone in not understanding the Internet.
From CNET News:
Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.
The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.
After child pornography or some forms of “obscenity” are found and reported, the Web site must retain any “information relating to the facts or circumstances” of the incident for at least six months. Webmasters would be immune from civil and criminal liability if they followed the specified procedures exactly.
McCain’s proposal, called the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act” (click for PDF), requires that reports be submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which in turn will forward them to the relevant police agency. (The organization received $32.6 million in tax dollars in 2005, according to its financial disclosure documents.)
Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain’s proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme–and even stiffer penalties–on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.
More after the jump…
Import Update see comments
“I am concerned that there is a slippery slope here,” said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “Once you start creating categories of industries that must report suspicious or criminal behavior, when does that stop?”
McCain’s proposal comes as concern about protecting children online has reached nearly a fever pitch in Washington. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave two speeches recently on the topic, including one on Friday in which he said “we must do all that we can to protect our children from these cowardly villains who hide in the shadows of the Internet.”
But the reporting rules could prove problematic for individuals and smaller Web sites because the definitions of child pornography have become relatively broad.
According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.
McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes.
And in July, for instance, Congress overwhelmingly approved a bill that made it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like “Barbie” or “Furby” to trick minors into visiting their sites and viewing sexually explicit material.
Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she’s planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes.
Cathy Milhoan, an FBI spokeswoman, said on Friday that the FBI “continues to support data retention. We see it as crucial in advancing our cyber investigations to include online sexual exploitation of children.”
In addition, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and McCain said that they’ll introduce similar legislation dealing with sex offenders and social-networking sites in January.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
No. 9 – Uncle wants me to ask you to post some more pics for him.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
If I had been asked who would be most likely to come up with something ths, A) Stupid, and B) Threatening to the First Amendment, I would have immediately guessed Senator McCain, AKA douche-bag.
Such a law would serve to convict approximately zero child porn proliferators, but, and this is the main point, it would open the doors to more anti free speech idiocy, no doubt with McCain in the lead.
But who in their right mind would ever, ever want to oppose anything labeled as “Anti-Anti-Child Porn”? Not me, certainly. Just give it the right label and you got it!
December 13th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
I suspect McCain is not as clueless as he appears. I don’t think Congress Critters like the freedom of the Internet.
Is it possible that in a few short years what we do here today will not be possible?
December 13th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
UPDATE:
McCain’s office is worried about this. They have taken the time to email Glenn Reynolds to “clarify” what Senator McCain “really meant”.
Also a good time to point out to McCain’s office that this story was posted here at 11:59 AM. It was not posted until 4:21 PM on the InstaPundit site. Catch up Congress Critters, you could have had the the critique 4 hours earlier.
I would point out to Mr. Pablo Chavez of Senator McCain’s office that he should read the bill in greater detail. If it affects the MySpaces of the World it affects all blogs.
This is a glaring blunder for Senator McCain and his staff. It is big of McCain to request amendments to the bill AFTER the world has learned of how this bill will affect free speech.
Senator McCain, should you have considered that to begin with?
From Glenn Reynolds AKA InstaPundit:
December 13th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I used to think the Senator’s problem was, that he’d had his head slammed up agains the wall one too many times when in Hanoi. I’m not so sure about that now.
Lately, I think it’s because the poor boy has spent his entire life in institutions, to wit:
Second-generation Navy brat.
USNA.
USN.
Prison.
United States Senate.
People who’ve spent a lot of their lives in institutions are famously unfamiliar with liberty.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:00 am
Actually, it’s the Inter-tubes,not the Inter-Webs that work the best.
That should fix is the problem.
Tell John to try the InterTubes for better results.
If only, all of the problems in the world were that easy!
December 14th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Dammit, USCit, I was trying to be serious, there. I even made up a fictious Web address because I’d read that a blog spt url would trip Uncle’s spam filter.
This is serious!
December 14th, 2006 at 8:54 am
It doesn’t matter what the good Senator INTENDS or MEANS to say. What matters is what the legislation can be INTERPRETED to say. If the bill doesn’t adequately reflect Mr. McCain’s intentions, it needs to be re-written.
The Second Amendment is a prime example of how things can be twisted beyond any recognition of the original intent. Stating things as clearly and plainly as possible is paramount.
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
— Lyndon Johnson
(Yes, I know how ironic the source of that quote is…that’s part of the reason it is so apropos)