Would it still be legal to call McCain a "weenus" on this blog right here?

Because he is a weenus..

Which one of you pee'd in John's wheaties this morning?

I'm not surprised by this move by McCain.  It seems to me that blogging gives people more power than the people in power  are comfortable with.  I'm sure Olyblog makes quite a few people very nervous.  Of course they will make this look like the legislation is designed to protect children, we know what they really want to accomplish with this legislation.  Ordinary people with too much power will be shut down.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Just think street ordinance, only bigger and more vicious.

Maybe some of the legislation isn't a bad idea. But some is unwelcome here, by this blogger. Would it be okay to tell McCain to crawl back into the log he crawled out of?

There is just so much wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. I'm an absolute momma bear when it comes to protecting children, but this move by McCain is at best misinformed and at worst blatantly manipulative of people's natural inclination to want to keep young people safe.

I've been online (perhaps way too often) for almost a decade. I also work in the online side of the adult industry, and view hundreds of adult sites each week as part of my job as a reviewer. I've been a member of many online community sites like livejournal, friendster, myspace, neopets, okcupid, blogger, and more. I have come across authentic child porn exactly ZERO times during the course of this. If I'm not finding the stuff, it is one smart and determined six year old that can manage it when Mom and Dad aren't watching. Most of that material is distributed in a very covert manner that people don't just run across on accident. Many "huge busts" of online child porn rings are actually misrepresentations of events. For example, you can research Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche. I think I've received perhaps three letters in the last decade as porn reviewer from folks who had tripped upon child porn and needed to know how to turn it in. Note: The government didn't have to THREATEN the populace for them to naturally do this. When someone of good conscience finds the stuff, they do the right thing and don't need threats.

I think what troubles me most is language that hints at it cracking down on child porn OR some forms of "obscenity". Who is to determine what is obscene? When will people stop using this completely arbitrary language? Even in the case of "child pornography" you can run into some truly ridiculous situations. For example, if you check out the extensive and completely draconian U.S.C. Title 18, sections and 2256 and 2257 measures that all sites that display "sexy" pictures must meet you'll find that sites that are run by 40 year old women are having to bend over backwards to make sure that they aren't busted by police for showing their own (quite obviously adult) images. If every person isn't documented extensively in each image, you could be investigated for child porn. Add on top of that the stricter rules about obscenity governing even the adult industry and often times singling out sexual minorities like the Leather community (even after the addition of warnings and code and passwords to keep minors out) and it all just starts looking a little too convenient for the government to threaten folks and find something to make them guilty of if they need to.

I think that this particular move is chilling because it so obviously is targeting the ability to form communities and discuss current events.

Okay, moving beyond even all this we also need to discuss this idea of the web full of sex offenders...

First off, sex offenders can be everywhere. They do not simply wait around on the web. The internet didn't invent them.

In fact, they are often banned from computer access altogether and can be sent back to prison if they are found on it. Probation officers can do random sweeps of their home looking for any net ready products like the Xbox and send them back into incarceration. If they happen to be one of the Offenders allowed access, they can randomly have their computers taken from them and completely analyzed for content. Every email. Every picture. The authorities do NOT have to find child porn to bust them, often something as innocuous as a swimsuit photo of an adult woman can get them into trouble. I'm quite serious.

We have to decide exactly what our goal is with Sex Offenders as a society. If they are irredeemable, then we shouldn't pretend to offer a system in which they receive treatment and then are released amongst the rest of us to make a life. If, however, we plan on NOT killing or exiling these people from society then we have to figure out how to allow them community support and integration after they have served their time. I doubt that banning them from participation in the use of a tool needed for most jobs these days is going to help with that. I doubt that disallowing them the chance to talk with others in a safe and anonymous place online where they can move past their crime is going to be particularly helpful in socializing them either.

I'm not being blind to the fact that some will misuse the tool, but danger can exist anywhere. The more of a sense of community that people have online, the more folks will keep an eye on their neighbor naturally and protect themselves. A good example of this was a few years ago, when I suddenly developed an online fan who posted vigorously and often in my journal while getting pushy and bizarre about the idea of asking me out. I was one of those folks that allowed online discussion, and concerned online friends said that they happened to know that the person in question was a convicted (and quite violent) rapist and sent me his info so that I could check it out with the police. He was. I was never put in danger, he left, parole officers were informed, and that was the end of that. If I hadn't felt comfortable to allow online discussion and had that community of people keeping a watchful eye on me, I could have been in a lot more jeopardy.

I just can't see an informed argument for this type of a measure. Child porn is covered under pre-existing rules and is far from unregulated at this point. What exactly does this measure targeting bloggers and online community spaces really intend to do? Why is it needed?

I think government power is the only real benefactor here. A government gains quite a stranglehold on a populace that it has convinced not to trust their sense of community or own judgement.

I'm sad to see McCain jump on this bandwagon, as I've always had a certain amount of respect for him before.