Gonzales to Propose Child Porn and Obscenity Prevention Amendments

[mongo]

Gonzales to Propose Child Porn and Obscenity Prevention Amendments
By: Larissa Gates
Posted: 1:29 pm PDT 4-20-2006

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday told an audience at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in Alexandria, Va., that he plans to send a new piece of legislation to Congress, the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.

He made the announcement during his prepared remarks regarding the protection of kids from exploitation over the Internet.

"This legislation will help ensure that communications providers report the presence of child pornography on their systems by strengthening criminal penalties for failing to report it," Gonzales said. "It will also prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet. I hope Congress will take up this legislation promptly."

# # #

That was the entire article, so no need, but here's a link anyway (WARNING - sexually explicit blah, blah, NOT work friendly, yada, yada) http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=265072

Why not just call this the "lets get rid of those pesky first and fourth amendments act of 2006?"
But remember, it's "for the children". Any takers?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. RW agenda! RW agenda! Let's trash the Constitution with crap!

[Marnieworld]

13. Amendment to the Constitution?

I just thought it would be added to some bill. They are seriously talking about changing the Consitution? Just BS pandering! What a waste. Aren't there some dying people getting some assisted suicide somewhere they can arrest? :grr:

[Xeric]

2. Because all the real crime has been taken care of

Slashdot.org has a discussion of this today:

New Internet Regulation Proposed
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has suggested a mandatory website self-rating system. The system, very similar to one suggested under Clinton's administration, would require by law all commercial websites to place 'marks and notices' on each page containing 'sexually explicit' content, with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment." From the article: "A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive 'words or digital images' in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen 'absent any further actions by the viewer.'"
http://news.com.com/Gonzales+calls+for+mandatory+Web+labeling+law/2100-1028_3-6063554.html

Sounds like more thought crime legislation to me. Good to know our government has its priorities in order.

[MrModerate]

3. Pornography is perfectly legitimate for adults . . .

As I believe has been proved in court case after court case. Child pornography is another thing entirely, where the main focus should be (IMO) on the producers.

Child pornography is plenty evil, but hardly the most important thing the Justice Department could be focusing on right now.

And since when does the Justice Department (i.e., an arm of the administration) submit legislation? I thought they had to convince congresspeople to sponsor bills. Have they decided to disregard Congress entirely?

[killbotfactory]

4. I like how he combines stopping child porn (good)

With censorship (bad)

Now anyone who votes against this will be "supporting Child pornography", because the object to the censorship part.

gotta love politics.

[zbdent]

5. Ahhh, I love the smell of

the new wedge issue in the morning . . .

RWers propose restrictions so strict that you can't say "geez" because it's a shortening of "taking the Lord's name in vain" (Jeezus H. Christ!) . . . and Dems say "Whoa, tone it down a little . . . you won't be able to ask for research in a medical library about cancer!"

RWers start screaming that Dems want to have the "all-child-rape/torture/snuff" channel on free TV . . . corporate media laps it up with nary a glance at the legislation . . .

[blm]

6. This is their hot emotional issue for 2006 election cycle. Immigration and

gays needed a third leg.

I am obviously against child porn as is 99.5% of this country, but I don't trust BushInc with ANY power over the internet. They will USE the narrow issue of child porn to insert their will into every other area. Places like DU and bartcop already get screened and filtered on many computers, while they leave RW sites alone.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. They want to shut down the internet like China did!

They don't like the truth being easy to get at!

[ShortnFiery]

8. It's their BACK DOOR entrance to expand spying on people

on the Internet ... "Save the Children" will morph into spying on little old ladys' against war's tea party chat rooms.

This man is slime. :puke:

[populistdriven]

9. A Wedgie for Repuke Consumption by the US Attorney General

He should be ashamed of himself except he is a Republican so he knows no shame.

[Initech]

10. What's next - shutting down the thoughts in your head?

Oh wait they already have such a system in place. It's called "Fox News".

[OneBlueSky]

11. related . . . "Rethinking Sex Offender Laws a Tough Sell" . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041901862.html

[mongo]

15. Tough sell on DU too

whenever the subject is brought up. Great for bringing reactionary vigilantism out in force.

[Marnieworld]

12. Not just about children

Don't forget Jesus!

:hi:

[mongo]

14. and don't forget the poor kittens