Your Big Clothed Penis
As shown here in the lovely fuschia Undergear Extreme Silk Contour Thong.
Flash a photo of it on the Web and you might be going to jail!...if Christian Taliban, uh, attorney generalissimo Alberto Gonzales gets his way. Here's an excerpt from the CNet story by Declan McCullagh:
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.
The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.
...A critic of the proposal said that its requirements amount to an unreasonable imposition on Americans' rights to free expression. In particular, a mandatory rating system backed by criminal penalties is "antithetical to the First Amendment," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The morons. First of all, "inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images" won't kill you. If you happen to stumble onto a site like RealDolls -- "the most realistic love doll in the world" -- it might make you laugh. (Or just feel really sorry for the guys whose idea of a date is $6,000 worth of molded silicone.)
But, how about you do your own damn policing if you don't want to look at porn; say, by sticking to sites called CNN -- not BigDrippingVagina.com?
Please tell everyone you know that this could have been avoided by adopting the ".xxx" Web domain - but that ignorant people, insisting that this would "encourage smut" defeated the legislation.
That means that any and every .com title could contain links to "porn".
Most people have no idea that there is no way to guarantee the content of a computer file. "Field_of_Daisies.jpg" can be a virus, a picture of (duh) daisies, or Asia Carrera at "work". (I put "work" in quotes because I still have trouble with the question, "What do porn stars do in their time off?" even though Asia, now retired, actually answers that question on her site. Hey Amy, now there's a consultant for you should you ever need one!)
Radwaste at April 23, 2006 6:44 AM
Actually, when I have a show, the way other shows have experts, I want to have porn stars and phone sex workers instead of some white Armani-suited sex therapist.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2006 6:49 AM
This, of course, is merely a sop for the Religious Right. It's a nice gesture to them, but in the end it will solve nothing. The U.S. does not own the internet. Thanks to Al Gore's visionary support, we can say we started it, but there are other nations who have since jumped on board, and they aren't subject to U.S. laws. So, undergear.com might be required to have warning labels, but mikhaildoesthebarnyard.com isn't subject to AG Gonzo's idiot policies, and can flash their most recent animated gifs on their main page all they care to. And since browsers are not subject to national boundaries, it will do nothing to "protect" kids from "accidentally" seeing porn.
I'm with Amy. How about parents do their own policing? It's just very funny that I keep hearing that it's Democrats who are in favor of big government, while the reigning plutocrats disguised as conservatives keep sticking their collective nose where it doesn't belong. The Terri Schiavo case, for instance. And now they want to police the internet for us.
(Terri Schaivo is on my mind right now, because I just bought Michael's book and am about halfway through it.)
Patrick at April 23, 2006 6:59 AM
I can't understand why parents are afraid to talk to their kids about sex, but what the hell.
When my older son was "getting curious" and I was finding wild magazines in his room, I sat him down and told him that the stuff on the net and in those magazines was about as real as Professional Wrestling.
Most girls don't look like the gals you see in porn, most women don't want to DO the stuff you see in porn. Recognize it for what it is: a circus-- and you can at least store it in a more reasonable place in your mind.
Deirdre B. at April 23, 2006 8:11 AM
Incidentally, regarding the underwear model above:
woof.
Deirdre B. at April 23, 2006 8:13 AM
No, in this case it only destroyed the last remaining traces of my self-esteem!
Jim Treacher at April 23, 2006 9:17 AM
Doesn't like blowjobs... reading Michael Schiavo's book... You are a wild man! ;)
Jim Treacher at April 23, 2006 9:20 AM
This being an election year, we can expect to see a LOT more anti-porn/nudity/abortion/sex legislation from our good friends in the GOP. We'll be reminded of the war on Christmas, Easter, and Christinsanity in general. It's all just a smoke screen to hide what they've done to our country over the last 6 years.
Bill Henry at April 23, 2006 10:15 AM
They're still afraid people will break out new pictures of our government torturers indulgenging themselves at the expense of prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. That's why the need to put the lid on such graphics.
The whitehouse had to hire a Special Proctologist when Gonzalez arrived: no other doctor could see him.
He was advised to put hooks in his ears so he could pull his head out of his ass!
DOGSPOT!
http://electromagnet.us/dogspot/
dave at April 23, 2006 4:40 PM
You were correct, the "Real Dolls" site didn't kill me. I did, however totally creep me out.
Darry at April 23, 2006 6:54 PM
From Bush's home state
http://tinyurl.com/zm75e
what a bunch of hypocrites
Anonymous at April 23, 2006 7:14 PM
If you ever needed a deconstruction of what the current administration is really like, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/04/21/1145344276318.html
Tide turns on Dubya's Wreck by Mike Carlton
works for me.
opit at April 23, 2006 8:13 PM
"Please tell everyone you know that this could have been avoided by adopting the ".xxx" Web domain - but that ignorant people, insisting that this would "encourage smut" defeated the legislation."
THAT was a good idea! And yes, ignorant morons ar why it didn't pass.
But there is a problem, and "parents do[ing] there own policing" only works if you are present for every moment your child surfs. Actually, even then it doesn't work:
Children are TARGETTED by some perverts. I mean that quite seriously. I had a friend who did web development, and he found some sriously disturbing stuff... like the link in Yahoo under "Disney's Bauty and the Beast" (in the movies area) that, when clicked, was a no-warnings porn-site. That's just one example.
If thre were no examples of that stuff, very few people would be worried about it. Those who want the stuff can find and get it, and the rest of us can go about ourr lives without disturbance.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
That's not to say that this latest suggestion will work, mind you - as you correctly pointed out, the internet is not entirely owned by the US.
Deoxy at April 26, 2006 12:11 PM
Leave a comment