drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

National Stoner Initiative

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.
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."
During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions--a position first reported by CNET News.com--and indicated that legislation might be necessary there as well. Internet service providers say they already cooperate with police and appear to be girding for a political battle on Capitol Hill over new regulations they view as intrusive.

[ cf Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law ]
Well yes, I think we all oppose
since it has shown a higher ratio of signal to noise over the whitehouse.gov site that was discreditted over the last few years by putting up False And Misleading Information - such as the suggestion that the President had been going over every word of his state of the Union Address - which was Non-Operable as soon as the President Learned that he was not suppose to say the Sixteen Words that lead ultimately to Scooter Libby Getting Indicted On The Obstuction of Justice Charge.

So yes, if someone had been able to prevent the Criminal Conduct at Whitehouse.gov then America would be a far safer place today...

But does the Attorney General need to threaten ISP's??? Does he not support the President's Prerogative to Detain Anyone for any reason without a court case? So why impose that evil liberal excessive governmental regulation in the hope of being able to fish out something that could be made to look like court evidence, if there had been any intention of taking the matter to court, rather than simply rendering the target to any one of the Fully Co-Operative Nations that will be willing to do the Torturing For US!!! without wangling about who gets the DVD and distribution rights...

ah yes, now which side are these folks really planning to land on? The Side that Supports the President? Or the Side Of EVIL!!!!

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Is praying for the death of a president like a bad thing?

    Pastor Of Gun-Toter At Obama Event Prayed For Obama To Die Or are they really atheists, and hence do not believe that prayer is anything more than…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.