Mandatory Website Labelling Bill In Congress Already

[Carrie]

I've always said it's not a republican thing, it's not a democrat thing.
Ask any congressman (or woman) if they want their kid stumbling upon a site with a girl taking it up the ass from a big black guy, and they'll all universally say "hell no".

It's got nothing to do with the letter after a politician's name.

The bill will go through.

I've already got my sites labelled with ICRA, was planning on doing RTA this week but now that I see this, I guess I'll just hold off until I find out what labelling service the gov't deems we should use. (Probably some new gov't database that takes all of our info and stores it and violates our privacy and to top it off, doesn't work worth shit...)

Sigh.

[dbndc]

This is something that has been known for sometime. S.3499 was introduced in the Senate on June 13, 2006 and H.R. 5749 was introduced the House on July 10, 2006. Both bills contain language requiring "warning marks on commercial websites containing sexually explicit material."

So, this hasn't showed up out of the blue at the last minute.

[gaybucks_chip]

and actually, I believe that 4472 requires something to this effect as well, and it's already law.

[IdolKnights]

Someone needs to put together a Bill for a underage internet.

Browsers default to .gov or .edu sites and can only access .com .net .org once configured

[XXXWriterDude]

This is something that has been known for sometime. S.3499 was introduced in the Senate on June 13, 2006 and H.R. 5749 was introduced the House on July 10, 2006. Both bills contain language requiring "warning marks on commercial websites containing sexually explicit material."

So, this hasn't showed up out of the blue at the last minute.

Very true. The government has been saying for quite a while "Do it, or we'll do it for you," which is exactly why the ASACP started work on the RTA label. There's no reason why the government shouldn't accept that.

I also don't believe that labeling should be voluntary. It should be enforced on all adult sites. Again, we're producing content for adults, and adult sites should be labeled as such.

It's all just for show anyway. It's not going to change anything. But it is a show of one's commitment to the protection of children.

[desslock]

re: Government Protection of the Children

Well I disagree. Government required labelling, however well intentioned, violates our freedom of speech.... specifically how we are allowed to say things and express ourselves.

And that is all such a law would accomplish, because we all know that the law would not extend to any of the countless websites outside the United States.

What ought to be advocated as a solution is the superior solution of using filtering software, as it does not limit its effectiveness to within the United States, nor does it abridge our civil rights.

Steve

[XXXWriterDude]

What ought to be advocated as a solution is the superior solution of using filtering software, as it does not limit its effectiveness to within the United States, nor does it abridge our civil rights.

Steve

Does it abridge the civil rights of movies to make them use G, PG and X ratings for their movies?

True, it's not mandatory that they use them, BUT everyone knows that if you don't, your movie will basically get blacklisted and fail miserably. I think that's how it should be in the adult business.

Meaningless or not, effective or not, ratings represent something we should all be striving for.