Senate Approves Web Labeling - GoFuckYourself.com

Brooklywood · 06-28-2006, 12:20 PM

It still has a way to go before it becomes law, but this bill proposes mandatory web labeling.

This topic will be covered at the XBIZ '06 Summer Forum. On July 13 @ 11:30 a.m. "Uncle Sam is Watching You," and at 2 p.m. "Protect Your Business," expect XBIZ seminar panelists to discuss this issue.

What do you all think?

Senate Approves Web Labeling; Bill Faces House Battle
By Steve Javors
Wednesday, June 28, 2006

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=15739

WASHINGTON ? The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, with the backing of the Bush administration, approved an amendment to a wide-ranging telecommunications bill that would require mandatory website labeling on pages that contain explicit sexual images.

The entire communications bill still has a way to go before it can be signed into law, however. It must receive a final vote from the commerce committee and then the full Senate. The bill also would have to be reconciled with a House of Representatives version, championed by John Kyl, R-Ariz., which does not contain a mandatory labeling provision.

Both proposals were prompted by a speech from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in April, who called on Congress to act quickly to ?prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet.?

According to CNET News, which has seen a copy of the bill, websites must not place sexually graphic images on their homepage, and they must rate ?each page or screen of the website that does contain sexually explicit material,? according to a system to be determined by the Federal Trade Commission.

Webmasters who fail to properly label their sites would face up to five years in prison, according to the proposal.

?This will protect children from accidentally typing in the wrong address and immediately viewing indecent material,? Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said. ?[Politicians] have to take a bold step in this world of danger to our kids, and there are some people out there who prey on young children and they use the Internet and other methods to feed their sickness.?

First Amendment Attorney Lawrence G. Walters offers a different point of view.

?Forcing speech on a publisher is problematic,? Walters told XBIZ. ?I?m not against voluntary labeling. In fact, we need to do that to ward off government regulation. Many adult sites label their content with warning pages, but it might not have been widespread enough. I think the government will find that voluntary labeling is pervasive among adult sites, but we don?t have a uniform system. Most adult sites already comply.?

Walters mentioned the video game, music and movie industries as examples of the effective use of self-labeling.

?Unfortunately, web content has been fractured and inconsistent with labeling because of how unwieldy the international web is,? Walters said, citing the Internet?s tremendous worldwide scope and operations. ?Depending on the final wording ? and it still has a long way to go yet ? I think this [bill] would technically be hard to enforce given how much content is out there. It?s unfortunate the adult industry couldn?t do enough to head off this type of legislation.

seeric · 06-28-2006, 12:24 PM

and that helps kids not be exposed to porn how?

seems to me they are going in the wrong direction.

Quote:

?This will protect children from accidentally typing in the wrong address and immediately viewing indecent material,? Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said. ?[Politicians] have to take a bold step in this world of danger to our kids, and there are some people out there who prey on young children and they use the Internet and other methods to feed their sickness.?

fuzzylogic · 06-28-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

and that helps kids not be exposed to porn how?

seems to me they are going in the wrong direction.

perhaps software can prevent browsers from landing on pages that are rated

GatorB · 06-28-2006, 12:27 PM

Yes I'm sure the Hun is working on his warning page and labels right now. Politicians are so stupid. America doesn't own the Internet. When are they going to get that?

Azlord · 06-28-2006, 12:29 PM

"The bill also would have to be reconciled with a House of Representatives version, championed by John Kyl, R-Ariz., which does not contain a mandatory labeling provision."

I don't get this... does it mean Kyl is for or against the labeling??

seeric · 06-28-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes I'm sure the Hun is working on his warning page and labels right now. Politicians are so stupid. America doesn't own the Internet. When are they going to get that?

making things harder on usa adult when other country wm's and corps wont follow the same rules pushes adult out of the usa eventually, and with it goes the tax money the gov makes.

idiots.

biting off the hand that feeds them while shooting themselves in the foot in the pursuit of stopping kids from seeing porn.

but it looks good on paper though, so i guess thats whats im sure they care about.

Brooklywood · 06-28-2006, 12:30 PM

The bill makes no mention of preventing kids from accessing these pages; just that they be labeled properly, according to a ratings system devised by the Federal Trade Commission.

How big will the warning labels have to be, and how prominently will they be featured on each page? What about sites hosted overseas?

seeric · 06-28-2006, 12:33 PM

i'm gonna stop now.

i got too much to do to be pissed off at an inept govt today.

2HousePlague · 06-28-2006, 12:39 PM

If you don't do for yourself, others will do for you --

2hp

Tom_PM · 06-28-2006, 12:40 PM

Well, it's fine on the face of it. We need to know the labels, we need to know the exact 100% precise instructions. "every page or screen" implies even a raw .jpg, so break out the ole php or perl dynamic label gun for images, lol.

wargames · 06-28-2006, 12:42 PM

Its like clockwork every 3 months some other bullshit law to deal with

jollyperv · 06-28-2006, 12:49 PM

Nothing will happen as usual.

GatorB · 06-28-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Well, it's fine on the face of it.

Not when non-American webmasters don't have to comply. How about when ISPs are require to block access to sites with certain lables?

Tom_PM · 06-28-2006, 01:00 PM

Well, nothing we can do about non-american webmasters, as usual.. so I guess if they make us do it, we'll do it or risk some punishment.

I only have links to content on other peoples domains because of 2257. I sure wish they'd spell that one out in black and white still.. Else who knows whats applicable content anyway

Tom_PM · 06-28-2006, 01:01 PM

I will definitely use some sort of server automation though to slap whatever warning I may need to without any effort of manual labor, I can tell you that much, lol.

GatorB · 06-28-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Well, nothing we can do about non-american webmasters, as usual.. so I guess if they make us do it, we'll do it or risk some punishment.

I only have links to content on other peoples domains because of 2257. I sure wish they'd spell that one out in black and white still.. Else who knows whats applicable content anyway

Isn't PimpRoll based out of Canada? So your site wouldn't necessarily have to comply with these laws.

Tom_PM · 06-28-2006, 01:03 PM

Right, well I'm in the US and I was referring to my own personal stuff, I should have made that clear.

Dagwolf · 06-28-2006, 01:05 PM

What would be the point? They'd only be able to arrest U.S. webmasters who didn't comply...

tony286 · 06-28-2006, 01:08 PM

got to love those republicians lol

seeric · 06-28-2006, 01:25 PM

this thread needs more upskirt

polish_aristocrat · 06-28-2006, 01:29 PM

ahhhh

well better this than .xxx

btw ICANN is holding another meeting now, the .xxx guys said there will be present, but I hope that their "reconsideration request" will be denied

bdld · 06-28-2006, 01:30 PM

well if there's a law at least there'll be a uniform way of warning/labeling, right now i'm unsure if i'm in compliance.

tony286 · 06-28-2006, 01:32 PM

its far from becoming a law also you have to remember this is election time and the republicans are in trouble so they are pulling all the stops. Gay marriage, flag burning and fighting porn, its all a smoke screen lots of activity and nothing will get done.

Mr. Romance · 06-28-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

If you don't do for yourself, others will do for you --

2hp

true....

Mr. Romance

detoxed · 06-28-2006, 02:07 PM

I love labels

Intruder · 06-28-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzylogic

perhaps software can prevent browsers from landing on pages that are rated

This already exists - Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, CYBERsitter, SafeSurf ...

06-28-2006, 12:20 PM	#1
Brooklywood Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SoCal Posts: 380	Senate Approves Web Labeling It still has a way to go before it becomes law, but this bill proposes mandatory web labeling. This topic will be covered at the XBIZ '06 Summer Forum. On July 13 @ 11:30 a.m. "Uncle Sam is Watching You," and at 2 p.m. "Protect Your Business," expect XBIZ seminar panelists to discuss this issue. What do you all think? Senate Approves Web Labeling; Bill Faces House Battle By Steve Javors Wednesday, June 28, 2006 http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=15739 WASHINGTON ? The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, with the backing of the Bush administration, approved an amendment to a wide-ranging telecommunications bill that would require mandatory website labeling on pages that contain explicit sexual images. The entire communications bill still has a way to go before it can be signed into law, however. It must receive a final vote from the commerce committee and then the full Senate. The bill also would have to be reconciled with a House of Representatives version, championed by John Kyl, R-Ariz., which does not contain a mandatory labeling provision. Both proposals were prompted by a speech from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in April, who called on Congress to act quickly to ?prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet.? According to CNET News, which has seen a copy of the bill, websites must not place sexually graphic images on their homepage, and they must rate ?each page or screen of the website that does contain sexually explicit material,? according to a system to be determined by the Federal Trade Commission. Webmasters who fail to properly label their sites would face up to five years in prison, according to the proposal. ?This will protect children from accidentally typing in the wrong address and immediately viewing indecent material,? Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said. ?[Politicians] have to take a bold step in this world of danger to our kids, and there are some people out there who prey on young children and they use the Internet and other methods to feed their sickness.? First Amendment Attorney Lawrence G. Walters offers a different point of view. ?Forcing speech on a publisher is problematic,? Walters told XBIZ. ?I?m not against voluntary labeling. In fact, we need to do that to ward off government regulation. Many adult sites label their content with warning pages, but it might not have been widespread enough. I think the government will find that voluntary labeling is pervasive among adult sites, but we don?t have a uniform system. Most adult sites already comply.? Walters mentioned the video game, music and movie industries as examples of the effective use of self-labeling. ?Unfortunately, web content has been fractured and inconsistent with labeling because of how unwieldy the international web is,? Walters said, citing the Internet?s tremendous worldwide scope and operations. ?Depending on the final wording ? and it still has a long way to go yet ? I think this [bill] would technically be hard to enforce given how much content is out there. It?s unfortunate the adult industry couldn?t do enough to head off this type of legislation. __________________ Steve J. Managing Editor, AVN www.avn.com ICQ: 263271084 AIM: AVNSteveJ

06-28-2006, 12:30 PM	#7
Brooklywood Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SoCal Posts: 380	The bill makes no mention of preventing kids from accessing these pages; just that they be labeled properly, according to a ratings system devised by the Federal Trade Commission. How big will the warning labels have to be, and how prominently will they be featured on each page? What about sites hosted overseas? __________________ Steve J. Managing Editor, AVN www.avn.com ICQ: 263271084 AIM: AVNSteveJ

06-28-2006, 12:39 PM	#9
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	If you don't do for yourself, others will do for you -- 2hp __________________ tada!

06-28-2006, 12:40 PM	#10
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Well, it's fine on the face of it. We need to know the labels, we need to know the exact 100% precise instructions. "every page or screen" implies even a raw .jpg, so break out the ole php or perl dynamic label gun for images, lol. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-28-2006, 12:42 PM	#11
wargames Kliris Join Date: May 2003 Location: ca Posts: 10,423	Its like clockwork every 3 months some other bullshit law to deal with __________________ ICQ 212-115-582 Email Steve at Vas Media Group .com

06-28-2006, 12:27 PM	#4
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	Yes I'm sure the Hun is working on his warning page and labels right now. Politicians are so stupid. America doesn't own the Internet. When are they going to get that?

06-28-2006, 12:29 PM	#5
Azlord Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: City... City of Satan Posts: 2,651	"The bill also would have to be reconciled with a House of Representatives version, championed by John Kyl, R-Ariz., which does not contain a mandatory labeling provision." I don't get this... does it mean Kyl is for or against the labeling??

06-28-2006, 12:33 PM	#8
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	i'm gonna stop now. i got too much to do to be pissed off at an inept govt today.

06-28-2006, 12:49 PM	#12
jollyperv Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 3,927	Nothing will happen as usual.

06-28-2006, 01:00 PM	#14
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Well, nothing we can do about non-american webmasters, as usual.. so I guess if they make us do it, we'll do it or risk some punishment. I only have links to content on other peoples domains because of 2257. I sure wish they'd spell that one out in black and white still.. Else who knows whats applicable content anyway __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-28-2006, 01:01 PM	#15
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	I will definitely use some sort of server automation though to slap whatever warning I may need to without any effort of manual labor, I can tell you that much, lol. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-28-2006, 01:03 PM	#17
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Right, well I'm in the US and I was referring to my own personal stuff, I should have made that clear. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-28-2006, 01:05 PM	#18
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	What would be the point? They'd only be able to arrest U.S. webmasters who didn't comply... __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

06-28-2006, 01:08 PM	#19
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	got to love those republicians lol

06-28-2006, 01:25 PM	#20
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	this thread needs more upskirt

06-28-2006, 01:29 PM	#21
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	ahhhh well better this than .xxx btw ICANN is holding another meeting now, the .xxx guys said there will be present, but I hope that their "reconsideration request" will be denied __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

06-28-2006, 01:30 PM	#22
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	well if there's a law at least there'll be a uniform way of warning/labeling, right now i'm unsure if i'm in compliance.

06-28-2006, 01:32 PM	#23
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	its far from becoming a law also you have to remember this is election time and the republicans are in trouble so they are pulling all the stops. Gay marriage, flag burning and fighting porn, its all a smoke screen lots of activity and nothing will get done.

06-28-2006, 02:07 PM	#25
detoxed vip member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 17,798	I love labels