Bush FCC Chairman Considering 'Porn-Free Internet'

[Hissyspit]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Bush FCC chairman considering 'porn-free Internet'
RAW STORY
Published: Monday December 1, 2008

Bush Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is still considering a proposal to create a free, porn-free Internet, according to today's Wall Street Journal:

The free Internet plan is the most controversial issue the agency will tackle in December. Mr. Martin shelved plans to consider a wider variety of sticky issues pending at the agency, including a request by the Hollywood studios to hobble TVs and set-top boxes so studios can offer copy-protected theatrical releases sooner.

The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children. The FCC's proposal mirrors a plan offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_FCC_chairman_considering_pornfree_Internet_1201.html

[Bragi]

1. Don't let the door hit you on your way out /nt

[Aristus]

2. Not exactly a business-friendly policy.

Why does he hate America?

[amdezurik]

17. not very school friendly either

you gotta know what will be "filtered out", things like breast cancer info and real history and other "dangerous" things for instance. And it would no doubt exchange "free" for tons and tons of commercials, just like TV...20 minutes of commercials every half-hour. All at a much louder volume then the shows you are trying to watch, I would expect that if you tried to turn on a pop-up blocker you would have your account charged.

[Joszef Pelikan]

3. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zazen]

7. I believe illustrations of child pornography are clearly exempt from 1st amendment protection

These Lolita images (whether cartoons or CGI) fall outside the criteria established by the Supreme Court for protected speech.

They're also masturbatory and not "ideas" or simple "aesthetics," and you and the 5 million guys who use this crap know it.

[Occulus]

10. And i believe you have no clue how incredibly hard these images are to produce.

It is considered the pinnacle of CG art, to be able to produce photoreal images such as these.

Edit: here's the mesh for the first one.

[zazen]

13. So? Since when does the sophistication of technology render it harmless? Weapons are complex too.

[Occulus]

15. Beauty and technical skill are harmful to you?

Should David have a fig leaf?

[zazen]

16. the "beauty" of deliberately sexualized children? why the garter belt?

Yep, it's harmful to children. Hope you read up a little on it.

[Occulus]

20. That looks more like a leotard used in dance to me

and I don't see what is particularly sexualized about it.

[zazen]

23. a dance at a Thai brothel, perhaps?

[Occulus]

30. Rather say, this one

from istockphoto, a royalty-free stock photography site.



Looks identical. Maybe he used it as a reference photo.

[noamnety]

72. Really? That looks identical to you?

You didn't notice that one's wearing a long sleeve leotard in addition to leggings, while the other is ONLY wearing leggings? Willfully unobservant, methinks.

While it's technically not a garter, that's semantics. There's no question the point of the first image is to sexualize the girl. Perhaps instead of being angry at someone on DU for calling out an image for sexualizing girls, you should be angry at a culture that finds a need to portray girls as sexualized commodities.

[Wednesdays]

53. Where's the child in the photo?

:shrug:

It's a digitally-created image, therefore no child involved, therefore no child exploitation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Which children were harmed in the production of those images?

[Orrex]

41. I'm not sure it's that simple

If I'm reading it right, the 2003 PROTECT act requires that CG images must demonstrate obscenity rather than simply showing images of minors. Regarding The Miller Test in particular, these images clearly demonstrate artistic value, in terms of advancing the artform itself, even if some find the images objectionable.

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm most assuredly not advocating for child pornography; I'm just stating that in this case the existing statute doesn't seem to apply.



And in any case, the quality of the CG is phenomenal.

[moggie]

46. Not sure how we got diverted into the subject of child porn, anyway

The proposal is to filter out "pornography and other material not suitable for children": which means not only images of consensual acts between adults, but probably anything which would upset a wingnut parent. Say goodbye to information about sexually transmitted diseases, for example, or anything which might persuade a gay kid that they're normal and not hell-bound.

[Occulus]

47. I recall an old story about AOL, back before they actually "went online"

This was back during the days AOL was an "online service" and not an "internet service provider". It may be apocryphal, but there was this story that AOL had a list of 90+ "dirty words" you couldn't say or you would get a TOS violation. The story goes that one of the words was "breast", and that they autodeleted the entire American Breast Cancer Society forum because of "breast" in its title.

This is where we will end up if these rules are put into place.

(By the way, it was the first example image I posted upthread that zazen got his knickers in a twist over, but his discomfort with it only serves to prove the point: a great many informative, educational, and especially artistic works will vanish if any two-tiered internet division is foisted upon us.

That would most certainly include blogs and forums such as this one.)

[Xithras]

58. Actually, they clearly ARE

The validity of laws against child pornography have been challenged, and their validity has been upheld because the government always falls back onto one indisputable point. You cannot produce child pornography without harming a child, which is a crime. That makes the pornography a "fruit" of the original crime.

It is not illegal to be a pedophile or to be physically attracted to girls under 18. It IS illegal to act on those impulses. It IS illegal to take photos of a child under 18. It IS illegal to have copies of the photos created during that crime.

Human generated child-porn, on the other hand, has no original victim. Whether rendered on a computer or painted on a canvas, the image comes from the artists imagination only. That makes it an expression of an artistic idea, and protected speech. With no victim in its creation, there is no valid legal argument for its prohibition.

When it comes right down to it, I'd MUCH rather have pedophiles spanking themselves to pictures of fake girls than to real ones. At least no children were hurt that way.

[Shiver]

5. So it's going to be an internet devoid of anything?

:shrug:

[sofa king]

35. Except advertisement and carefully managed links to corporate shills.

[hunter]

42. And stuff like this...

http://www.generationsoflight.com/generationsoflight/html/PurityBall.html

[Libertas1776]

6. ...

Thats like taking bread away from the peasants.
Take away someone's porn and HEADS WILL ROLL!

I am 100% fine with health care, social security, etc. that is "big" govt that I like.

But takin' my porno away, that government gone MAD. This guy won't be around for long.

[still_one]

8. I guess that fox.com would be affected /nt

[HopeHoops]

24. They do have the sluttiest shows

[GodlessBiker]

9. Well, that would exclude about 3/5 of Internet traffic.

[Ken Burch]

11. heheheh...he said "sticky issues"...heheheh

(...c'mon, you were all THINKING it...)

[Endangered Specie]

33. One should always be careful wording an article related to sex

:evilgrin:

[shraby]

12. They should have gone with the .xxx designation

for porn instead of .com then if someone accessed a porn site they'd know that's what they'd get. No surprises and easier for parents to block.

[Occulus]

14. Except that the examples I posted above *would* get a legitimate, non-porn site sent there

And the CG Society galleries are not pornographic in nature.

[zazen]

19. yes, my 13-year-old so frequently frolics around in her red silk teddy and garters

just another rendering of the freespirited, playful innocence of childhood

[Occulus]

26. The center image is a 3D model of a grown woman.

Interesting that so few see these as the works of art and supreme technical skill they are.

Photoreal CG art is not easy, by any means.

Maybe this will make you feel better about it:

American Beauty, by Henrich Kimerling

[B3Nut]

90. Wow, that's a brilliant work

And says a lot about our vapid consumeristic culture. Hats off to Herr Kimmerling, that's a work of genius.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Threedifferentones]

31. It seems you are referring to the middle image in post 4...

I agree the image is quite sexual, even "pornographic" to some tastes.

But a child? 13?

She definitely looks like a young woman, as do the other two, so why do you keep insisting it was made for pedos?

[Occulus]

32. Thank you for that

A quick look at the CG Society forum links for each of those pictures shows that, far from what zazen is saying, the images and the artists were given very high honors for their work. Coming from that crowd, that's quite an achievement.

Photoreal humans are, simply put, the very very most difficult images to produce. For example, in "Portrait of a Girl", look closely at her right elbow. It's not.... quite... correct. The folds of skin above the elbow joint are ever so slightly off from the proper anatomical location.

It's a flaw only another CG artist could ever find, but that should tell you (the editorial "you") just how picky these people are. In this case, "Portrait of a Girl" is nearly perfect- proper shaders used for the skin, the lighting is dead-on accurate, and even the hair- something notoriously difficult to do- is nearly flawless.

In short, it- along with most of the other images showcased there- is a masterpiece worthy of any artist's portfolio.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. Kevin Martin plans a career as a morality GOP southern politician. But so far, he has not delivered

any morality issues as FCC chair---no a la carte cable (he shook hands with the head of Disney and agreed not to recommend that at about the same time that ABC started production on "The Path to 9/11" which ABC deliberately turned into a ratings bomb, I guess because they did not want Republicans controlling Congress and passing a la carte cable). He has not cleaned up the airways. Now, he is trying to help his political career and the folks who sell porn by taking away all the free porn on the internet.

What a tool!

PS This effort would restrict birth control information.

[Gman]

21. Randall Graves said it best...

"What's the point in having an Internet connection if you're not using it to look up weird, fucked-up pictures of dirty sex you'll never have yourself?"

[HopeHoops]

22. AOL, CompuServ, Prodigy, and others all tried this - it doesn't work. Porn=$$$$

[Cronopio]

25. American voters considering 'wanker-free FCC'.

Take a holiday, Kevin. You work too hard.

[liberalhistorian]

27. Ummm, yeah, okay.

Good luck with that one. lol

[Fearless]

28. So an ad-revenue driven Internet provider...

Will censor Internet availability, mostly to the poor I would assume, so as to do what? This can't be legal can it? If it is, how is this different than media censorship under Stalin? In China? How are we to believe that said censorship will stop at porn. After all what is porn exactly? Would Titanic be porn because it has a boob in it? Where do they draw the line? What is going to stop them from further dividing society into groups of haves (the rich) and have nots?

Idiots.

Fuck em.

NTF
:kick:

[Piewhacket]

29. A "smut free" zone on the internet? You mean...

the right-wing whack-sites will be filtered out?

Sign me up!

[jkappy]

34. I don't 100% trust this process, natch, but if

radical feminists were in charge of it I would. They are the only ones who have examined the issue in depth and understand it in such a way that i could support their legal actions.

online porn is a monstrous problem, and is there any male institution more sexist than porn??

[Piewhacket]

86. I don't understand..

Porn is a male institution that is sexist?

ok, I admit I'm not a radical feminist, so maybe
that's why I don't quite get it. Perhaps
it depends on what the meaning of "it" is.

explain, specifically what "monstrous problem" relating
to porn are you seeing that needs to be addressed?

[Sin]

36. It has to be posted :)

Two great addictions avenue q and wow :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpLsdhXgRt4

We all know the internet is for porn.

[clspector]

70. Crap, if I weren't on deadline,

I would so be playing WotLK right now. dammit. And the Alliance version of that isn't nearly as genius. And now I've said too much...

[benld74]

37. Kevin, Are you spending too much on it?

[JCMach1]

38. net neutrality (all bands)= democracy

at this point in time...

No way this should be allowed.

There is no filter that works without censoring. Once censorship is in-place, it just takes the flick of switch to turn into the Chinese, or UAE version of the net.

[hunter]

39. Wow. A special internet for children, pious prudish people, perverts and convicted sex offenders.

Of course the pedophiles and creepy drooling misogynists and dirty old men who masturbate in public will immediately figure out how to subvert this system for their own pleasures. They are most excited when they are skulking about in places they shouldn't be.

"Joey, do you like gladiator movies?"

Eeeeeewwwwwwww.

[Orrex]

40. I've heard it said that if they got rid of internet porn, there'd be just one site left

And it would consist of a request to bring back the porn.

(not my joke)

[Mari333]

43. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah!
isnt going to happen.

[moggie]

44. I don't think this is really about protecting kids

After all, they're not suggesting that only parents will be eligible for this free service. And if the government wanted to encourage the use of filtering software, wouldn't it be better to give people vouchers which they could exchange for such software? That would foster competition between software providers, allow parental choice, and allow childless adults to wank themselves into a coma if that's what they want.

This will establish a two-tier Internet. Freedom and speed for people with money, while poor folks get a hobbled experience: slow, sanitised, with dangerous material like sex education and certain political stuff stripped out.

[Occulus]

45. DINGDINGDING

We have a winner.

Remember the whole brouhaha over network neutrality?

This is that, repeated. And you can expect the fees for the "unrestricted" network to be higher than Internet access rates today, too. There will also be a chilling effect of creative works online as well, as zazen so perfectly demonstrated for me upthread. Look at how he reacted to "Portrait of a Girl", and imagine someone in the FCC feeling the same way.

All three of those images would be removed, and that would be a total shame, as they're stunning examples of CG art.

[Neshanic]

49. "Tell him what he's won Johnny for the true answer!"

[Robb]

67. You nailed it. Nothing but net.

When broadcast news wouldn't report anything that would embarrass the parent companies, folks turned to cable. It cost money.

Cable became increasingly affordable -- as it became increasingly beholden to corporate interests to keep costs down. Folks turned to the internet. It cost money.

A free, redacted internet. I can't think of anything worse, actually.

[hunter]

78. I don't know if I can take it that seriously.

People would be building tunnels to the real internet as soon as the service went online. In China they can arrest you for doing stuff like that. But if someone is using this free fake-internet service to tunnel through to the internet at large, what are we going to do about it here in the United States? Arrest them?

Arrest them! Confiscate their computer! They were using their free fake internet services to look at pictures of CONDOMS!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1371194,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,593783,00.html

Or heaven help us, this:



http://seen.by.spiegel.de/photography+genre_nude?&upl=a&order=ctime_d (not safe for work here in the U.S. or Iran.)

[bitchkitty]

48. NO NO NO NO!

Just like them to call this plan something other than what it is - a blow against net neutrality. So if anyone should oppose it, they would be called friends of child molesters. HELL NO.

[One_Life_To_Give]

50. Filter DU and Ask Alice, while allowing Freeperville

Since it's

required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children

When adults do't have options to bypass filters you can bet it's about blocking more than just SMUT.

[Wednesdays]

55. For the longest time Bartcop has complained about being filtered out

Yeah, gotta keep the dangerous sites away from young eyes...sites like liberal blogs, for example. :eyes:

[One_Life_To_Give]

56. Library Assoc been fighting filtering

Columbia U runs "Ask Alice" and groups have been trying to get it filtered from Library computers. Can't have young kids learning about Safe Sex, and dozens of other questions young kids need to learn about.

[Sanctified]

51. I don't see a problem with blocking Porn on a free service. n/t

[Oak2004]

57. "free service" = only service accessible to the poor = two tiers of information access

People who can pay get access to a full range of information. People who can't have access to whatever the government and corporations decide is suitable for them to see.

Remember it's not just "porn" they intend to filter. They intend to filter anything controversial. Such as, for example, this website. We need government policy to break down the barriers to information access for poor and working class people -- not institutionalize it.

I assume you did not see the consequences of such a policy. Because if you don't have a problem with government policy deliberately keeping poor people ignorant, maybe this isn't the right discussion board for you.

[Sanctified]

59. Like Public Television?

This is a free service, it's there to give access to information but not be a replacement for a paid service. The Government is looking for a private company to take over and offer this service so I would assume they would include provisions which would protect the private company from losing money on the venture. If a private company was to take this over and include complete access to the internet through a free service no one would pay for the paid service.

[Oak2004]

62. And universal internet access, paid for via taxes, would be a bad idea for democracy how? nt

[Sanctified]

63. But they are not talking about an option paid for via taxes.

They are talking about a private enterprise offering the service separate from the Government.

[Zhade]

66. Define porn. Then explain why blocking free speech is acceptable.

NT!

[Sanctified]

69. Free speech does not apply here. n/t

[TommyO]

80. If the government is involved, it most certainly does apply here!

[Sanctified]

81. The Government is selling off something it is no longer using.

It is putting in provisions in the sale that the private company offer a free service, which will include no porn. The Government could most certainly sell the airwaves out and not have a provision for any free service period, or the Government could keep the airwaves and invest in the technology and resources required to be their own ISP and give the shit for free.

[TommyO]

83. It is part of the public airwaves, any government restrictions on it

are subject to constitutional review, and free speech rights will win out over draconian controls.

[Sanctified]

85. Once sold it will no longer be part of the public airwaves.

Plus these are the same airwaves that currently today have no porn on them.

[Piewhacket]

87. good discussion, but...

The government doesn't "sell" the airwaves, it licenses their use.
Licensing conditions are subject to constitutional limitations,
for example, they must pass a full first amendment analysis.

The real question then is: does this "scheme" pass.
Thats a complicated question which has, in the end,
a simple answer.
NO.

Your first clue that NO was the correct answer was when
the FCC ChairPuke first proposed it.

[Sanctified]

88. The Government does and can sell public airwaves that it no longer uses.

They are selling these airwaves just like they previously sold the airwaves that are now being used by some Cell phone providers.

[Piewhacket]

89. Egad!... I need to get out more...

Technically its a license.... I think.
Practically, this is way more serious than I thought.
Criminal enterprise is just too mild a term for it.
Kinda like selling Alaska to Murdoch for a nickle.

I was asleep. Thanks for waking me up.
Keep shouting dude, this needs more attention!
http://www.newamerica.net/files/archive/Pub_File_808_1.pdf

[TommyO]

79. Who will be doing the blocking?

Who will determine what is "porn" and what isn't?

I certainly don't want the AFA and the Parents Television Council determining that.

[done_left_austin]

52. They can take this internet from my callused dead hands. (n/t)

[Doctor_J]

54. What's Clarence Thomas going to do?

:shrug:

[sarcasmo]

76. Google him and Long dong silver.

[daleo]

60. A porn-free internet

That would be like an ice-free glacier.

[nc4bo]

61. Porn free today, all available free information tomorrow. The Chinese like it too I hear...

bastard.

Not defending porn (It's your thing, Do what ya wanna do) but I am defending internet freedom.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

64. Sounds like China

First they block the p0rn then what gets blocked next?

[w4rma]

74. That's the point. The corporates want the filter structure in place to do that. (nt)

[Zhade]

65. Yeah, that'll last about five seconds.

NT!

[fascisthunter]

71. lol... good luck with that cracka!

[and-justice-for-all]

73. If you dont want to see porn, then dont Google for it or

type in the address for it; Dont ask and you shall not receive.

Parents are the ones that need to be aware of what their kids are doing, not the Government. There are already internet safe guards that and be utilized to filter out what you do not want your kids to see, parents just need to get off their ass and implement them and become active in their kids lives.

[sarcasmo]

75. Get that Junkie out of my life.

[FVZA_Colonel]

77. "If you took all the porn off the internet the only website left would be www.bringbacktheporn.com"

- J.D., Scrubs

[Danmel]

82. THe Internet is for Porn (coutesy of Avenue Q)

KATE
The internet is really really great
TREKKIE MONSTER
For porn
KATE
I�ve got a fast connection so i don�t have to wait
TREKKIE
For porn
KATE
Huh?
There's always some new site,
TREKKIE
For porn!
I browse all day and night
TREKKIE
For porn!
KATE
It's like i�m surfing at the speed of light
TREKKIE
For porn!
KATE
Trekkie!

TREKKIE
The internet is for porn
KATE
Trekkie!
TREKKIE
The internet is for porn,
KATE
What are you doing!?
TREKKIE
Why you think the net was born?
Porn porn porn

KATE
Treee�kkie!
TREKKIE
Oh hello kate monster
KATE
You are ruining my song
TREKKIE
Oh me sorry, me no mean to
KATE
Well if you wouldnt mind please being quiet for a minute so i can finish?
TREKKIE
Me no talkie
KATE
Good

I�m glad we have this new technology
TREKKIE
For porn
KATE
Which gives us untold opportunity
TREKKIE
For por�oops, sorry
KATE
Right from you own desktop
TREKKIE
For ---
KATE
You can research browse and shop
Until you�ve had enough and your ready to stop
TREKKIE
FOR PORN!!


Trekkie!
TREKKIE
The internet is for porn!
KATE
Noooo
TREKKIE
The internet if for porn!
KATE
Trekkie
TREKKIE
Me up all night honking me horn to porn, porn, porn!

KATE
That�s gross you�re a pervert
TREKKIE
Ah, sticks and stones Kate monster
KATE
NO really, your a pervert
Normal people don�t sit at home and look
At porn on the internet
TREKKIE
Ohhhh?
KATE
What?!
TREKKIE
You have no idea
Ready normal people?

NORMAL PEOPLE
Ready--- ready ----ready

TREKKIE
Let me hear it!

TREKKIE AND GUYS
The internet is for porn!
PRINCETON
Sorry kate
TREKKIE AND GUYS
The internet is for porn!
PRINCETON
I masturbate!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
All these guys unzip their flies
For porn, porn, porn!

KATE
The internet is not for porn!!

TREKKIE AND GUYS
PORN!, PORN, P---

KATE
HOLD ON A SECOND!

Now i know for a fact that you, Rob, check your portfolio and trade stocks online

ROB
That�s correct.

KATE
And Brian, you buy things on Amazon.com

BRIAN
Sure!

KATE
And Gary, you keep selling your possesions on Ebay

GARY
Yes I do!

KATE
And Princeton, you sent me that sweet online birthday card

PRINCETON
True!

TREKKIE
Oh, but Kate-
What you think he do . . .after? hmm?

PRINCETON
. .yeah

KATE
EEEWWWWW!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
The internet is for porn!
KATE
Gross!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
The internet is for porn!
KATE
I hate porn
TREKKIE AND GUYS
Grab your dick and double click
KATE
I hate you men!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
For porn, porn, porn!
(harmonizing) porn, porn, porn, porn
KATE
I�m leaving!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
Porn, porn, porn, porn
porn, porn, porn, porn
KATE
I hate the internet!
TREKKIE AND GUYS
Porn, porn, porn, porn

TREKKIE
The internet is for

TREKKIE AND SOME
The internet is for

TREKKIE AND ALL
The internet is for PORN!

TREKKIE
YEAH!

[TommyO]

84. Great, now I'm going to have to listen to the soundtrack again!

For the umpteen millionth time!