Speaking of books, the state legislature is considering a bill that wouldmake an individual or a company liable for civil damages if they produce, publish or distribute any dangerous or obscene materials that causes someone to commit an act of terrorism or a felony.
The bill will be heard today and is expected to draw many opponents who argue that the proposal infringes on First Amendment rights. Here's the full story. What do you think?
Arizona Moms Editor Yvette Armendariz shares stories about raising her kids and tips for busy parents in her Time-starved (goddess) Mom blog. She and her husband are raising two children, ages 8 and 11.
It's the "Or a felony" part
It's the "Or a felony" part I'm most afraid of. And who is to decide what is "obscene?"
I'm reading "Lolita" by Nabokov and I'd imagine there is someone out there who'd call this classic obscene. If someone has sex with a minor after reading it, it seems like someone COULD sue Nabokov's estate and the publisher, maybe the library for having it at all.
How about we just try people for felonies and not try to pass the blame on?!?!
I did not read the article (
I did not read the article ( I don't like to go away from this site, because it can drop me - makes it a pain to get back ) anyway I do not like the idea of holding others accountable for others actions. We have become such a society of blaming others. When did it become ok to say you don't have to be held responsible for doing something stupid all on our own. Someone made me do it. It's like our children who fight with each other stating the other made me do it. It's always someone else's fault. Stand up and be accountable.I hope this bill is defeated soundly.
KarilouMomof2 is a discussion leader for arizonamoms.com living in Tempe. Her daughters are 9 and 6.
Warning -- this is a Civics
Warning -- this is a Civics diatribe (and I don't really take myself this seriously):
I think the sentiment is well-placed, but I don't think this legislation would achieve its purpose: to get people to stop posting dangerous or obscene materials.
The problem is with the word "causing". Let's say I look for a web site that explains how to build a bomb, find the site, build the bomb, and set it off in an old wooden outhouse.
Legally, it would be tough to argue that the web site caused me to blow up the outhouse. After all, I searched for the instructions.
Also, there's the fact that, of the millions of pages on the web, only a fraction of those pages are hosted in Arizona. What if I got my instructions off of a web page originating in Duluth? Or Zurich?
I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment. However, I think we've gone overboard with First Amendment arguments. What we need are federal (not state) laws that prohibit these activities based on existing law. I am not certified to work with explosives, so it is against the law for me to build a bomb. Giving me the instructions, if it helps me build a bomb and blow up an outhouse, makes the poster an accessory.
Finally, I think that the bill tries to regulate too many things at once. It would take a lot more than a single law in a single state in the United States to get all dangerous or obscene materials off the web, even if that were possible.
If I were Queen of All the Land (and, some days, it pains me that I'm not), I would work toward federal legislation that puts the problem in the hands of ISPs. After all, AOL, Cox, MSN, etc. are the ones who profit the most from public use of the internet. Each ISP would have to have a public policy regarding objectionable material, make the policy available to users in plain English, and then break links with sites that violate the policy. They already have to means to do it.
Let's say ISP A has a policy that it won't break any links, no matter what the content, and ISP B has a policy that will break links with sites that give instructions for building bombs (or with whatever content). As a consumer, you choose who to subscribe to. If you choose ISP A, you can always go with the Playboy argument (i.e. I just get it for the articles).
Personally, I think the majority of people would prefer not to stumble across violent, pornographic, or other inappropriate pages. If the links are broken, then those sites don't get listed in search engines, and don't get any hits. The quickest way to go broke is to host a website that no one sees.
On a lighter note, I remember when I was travelling a lot for work, so I was using a company laptop. I really wanted a nice leather carry-on case for my laptop, and I wanted a leather jacket. I happened to be on Long Island at the time. Stupidest search on a company laptop: +leather +laptop or apparel +"New York". This hick from the sticks sure got an education.
I found this part
I found this part interesting: "Material describing or depicting sexual conduct is described as "obscene" if the average person in a community would find it offensive". Hmm, I consider myself an average person, but I know that something not offensive to me could definitely be considered offensive by my neighbor who also considers herself average. I get the point of the bill and have no problem with its intentions. However, it is way too vague.