FA+
Shop
Democrats Vote to Illegalize Drawn Porn?
18 years ago
There was a post concerning this on one of my LJ political communities. Basically, under the untouchable banner of "ZOMG Protect the Children!" the Democratic party has voted to include drawn porn or anything remotely similar in a list of illegal images.
"The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000."
Now, I'm not personally a fan of yiff or all the crazy sexual shit that gets drawn and posted on this community, but I am a major supporter of the First Amendment and the freedom that art necessitates. This, to me, is potentially a major threat to artistic freedom that should not be ignored by people of this community. They say that it's all to protect children from exploitation and abuse -- which are fine aims, if genuine -- but how does (any and all) drawn pornography exploit children? As far as I can see, this is yet another attempt to curtail freedoms and rights using the "ZOMG Protect the Children" red herring.
Here's the 'article' that was linked to in my political comm.:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-98.....l?tag=nefd.top
Additionally, I think it should be noted that all the Democrats and all but 2 of the Republicans (Ron Paul -- WHEE RON PAUL! -- and Paul Broun) voted this through in a very questionable manner.
[Edit] Here's the full Act document --> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...../~c11048bqoA::
Of specific interest -- I think... the legal jargon is annoying -- is (Section 2258A)(b)(5)
[Edit 2] The bill seems to be changing rather rapidly and the section I sited earlier has since become a lot shorter and no longer relevant. I'm not sure what's going on, but I will try to keep you posted.
"The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000."
Now, I'm not personally a fan of yiff or all the crazy sexual shit that gets drawn and posted on this community, but I am a major supporter of the First Amendment and the freedom that art necessitates. This, to me, is potentially a major threat to artistic freedom that should not be ignored by people of this community. They say that it's all to protect children from exploitation and abuse -- which are fine aims, if genuine -- but how does (any and all) drawn pornography exploit children? As far as I can see, this is yet another attempt to curtail freedoms and rights using the "ZOMG Protect the Children" red herring.
Here's the 'article' that was linked to in my political comm.:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-98.....l?tag=nefd.top
Additionally, I think it should be noted that all the Democrats and all but 2 of the Republicans (Ron Paul -- WHEE RON PAUL! -- and Paul Broun) voted this through in a very questionable manner.
[Edit] Here's the full Act document --> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...../~c11048bqoA::
Of specific interest -- I think... the legal jargon is annoying -- is (Section 2258A)(b)(5)
[Edit 2] The bill seems to be changing rather rapidly and the section I sited earlier has since become a lot shorter and no longer relevant. I'm not sure what's going on, but I will try to keep you posted.
"We haves to saev teh children from teh wuuuuurld!!!"
Fuck the children!
...And then draw it! HA!
And incredibly uncool. Time to bone up on this.
1) Say it's to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
2) Terrorists. Terrorists are everywhere. Terrorists could be watching you RIGHT NOW. Oh the HUMANITY!
I often wonder why only the narrow minded and often ignorant make it to power... or maybe that's just what we're led to believe?
RON PAUL!
hehe...
Congress has not voted on it yet, though the hope is that they are more sensible than the House, and no, it hasn't gotten to the White House. Though, if it were to reach Bush, I'd bet he'd sign it.
Bearing in mind I'm a Libertarian and thereby biased in favor of Ron Paul, I don't think this is an attention grab attempt. I have two reason for thinking it is a genuine move on Ron Paul's part; 1) this was a rather hushed up topic, so not the best arena in which to do something for the attention, and 2) voting against increased government control over the content the public can view/access is in keeping with his history of Libertarian-leaning voting.
There is no way that a bill like this can pass. I want my porn damnit!
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi.....3791eh.txt.pdf
From this source:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/06/.....ages-ron-paul/
Here's another link of it --> http://www.readablelaws.org/index.p.....vice_providers
The section in question seems to have changed. It's much shorter. I searched for this and read a few of them, and they are all this shorter version. The only thing, other than a possible cover up, that I can think of is that they are currently reworking the bill.