The Washington folks don't seem to learn. If this passes, it'll be struck down under the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ") in nothing flat.
To: John Jorsett
Also, I should have highlighted that last paragraph.
In addition, the bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain.
In other words, Landrieu wants the U.S. to mandate a '.porn' domain. That she believes the U.S. Congress can regulate an international network in this way is just breathtaking.
To: John Jorsett
I'm not sure that the Constitution could be twisted to prohibit secret videotapings of private homes. If I discovered that someone was spying on me with video cameras secretly inserted in my home and I also found out that there was no legal recourse against it, I'd resort to lethal vigilantism. I do think that the attempt to establish a .prn domain and force all websites with "adult" content to abandon .com and move to .prn will fail; it's completely unworkable because not every adult site is hosted in the US and it's going to create a mess with the hundreds (if not thousands) of domains already in existence. You'll also have problems with web hosting services that allow users to host "adult" content but are not specifically designed for such.
3 posted on
04/19/2002 10:30:13 AM PDT by
Dimensio
To: John Jorsett
This is a way to stop reporters from doing undercover exposes of sleazy politicians.
5 posted on
04/19/2002 10:31:34 AM PDT by
B Knotts
To: John Jorsett
Didn't you know that the founding fathers put in the interstate commerce clause so that congress could institute "central planning" and legislate everything?
6 posted on
04/19/2002 10:33:44 AM PDT by
Sam Cree
To: John Jorsett
Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain. And what federal or international regulatory body will decide ahead of time what content is harmful? And how will you keep minors away from the .prn websites? And this means public "discussion" groups like yahoo.COM will have to close, too?
This seems like more "for the children" grandstanding legislation. May I also suggest a .hat domain for all the hate groups? And a .pol for politics and a .spm for all the Spam and a .jnk for junk and a .rel for religion? Oh, and .pam for Pamela Anderson.
Next: an internet tax to pay for web marshalls.
7 posted on
04/19/2002 10:36:43 AM PDT by
Procyon
To: John Jorsett
Mirrored after Louisiana's new law, the Landrieu legislation would make "video voyeurism" a crime punishable by up to three years in prison in case of adult victims, and up to ten years in prison when a child is involved. "In the privacy of our own homes, none of us should have to wonder whether or not we're being secretly watched
--------------
I have conflict over this issue. The iooirtunity for abuse of intrusion becomes serious here. On the other hand, net sites that encourage and coordinate sex with kids are not a private matter. In this issue I'll side with protection of privacy even though I deplore what is being committed in privacy. I don't want eventual leftist monitoring equipment in every home.
9 posted on
04/19/2002 10:39:18 AM PDT by
RLK
To: John Jorsett
Typical liberal nonsense - instead of amending the Louisiana peeping Tom law to include video cameras, they make an unconstitutional effort to create a new federal crime.
11 posted on
04/19/2002 10:55:32 AM PDT by
mvpel
To: John Jorsett
This doesn't need a FEDERAL crime statute to deter non-consent video taping in private areas. The federal courts are not a good place to enforce laws on criminal conduct unrelated to a federal issue. The states have better criminal systems in place, so it should be a state law and state punishment. One unhappy lady in La. shouldn't be the reason to expand the federal criminal code.
12 posted on
04/19/2002 10:59:09 AM PDT by
RicocheT
To: John Jorsett
You know what? I'd support this crap if they included a ban on
all video snooping, like drug-related video snooping by the DEA, traffic-light video snooping--which is just a moneymaking racket--and "street surveillance" (which is going into effect in most major cities).
As it stands, this foolishness is going to fail.
To: John Jorsett
If this passes, it'll be struck down under the 10th amendment Not too sure about that. Since Roe v. Wade discovered a Constitutional 'right of privacy', guaranteeing privacy becomes one of the delegated powers.
19 posted on
04/19/2002 12:06:40 PM PDT by
Grut
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson