Flame On l0nleegurl21

Senator Staton is putting forward legislation about MySpace, etc.

The measure would make it illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission. Senate Bill 59 also would force MySpace.com and FaceBook.com to allow parents or guardians to have access to their children’s Web pages at all times.

Senator Staton is a good friend. I’ll refrain from comment on this.

14 comments

  1. griftdrift says:

    Someone needs to explain to Sen. Stanton that the internets are not a series of tubes. You don’t just pour things in. You also don’t just put a valve in place to shut things off.

  2. ColinATL says:

    How in the hell does he expect MySpace or Facebook to police this? And what about all the other lesser-known bulletin boards and comment-enabled blogs? You’re next, Peach Pundit!

    Sen. Staton should write a bill that instead makes it MUCH easier for parents to get and use “nanny” type software on their kids’ computers.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    There is a difference between theory and practicality. In theory his idea is good. In practicality, it’s not.

    It’s about parents being responsible enough to take care of their kids.

    How about this, parents, watch how your kids use the internet. Senator Stanton could propose a bill for that.

    Or better yet, Senator Stanton could propose a bill that allows underground access to their kids room via secret passage way that only the parent knows about. That way, the parent can keep an eye on the kids at all times.

    Or what about this, no more single family homes. Because we can’t trust parents to watch their kids, Senator Stanton can pass a bill that says any parents that the government suspects may not be responsible enough to take care of their own children live in public multi family housing with an onsite nanny to watch over both the parents and the kids and yes, that nanny would be allowed a secret underground passage way to keep an eye on everyone!

  4. SpaceyG says:

    Oh Lord. Here we go with the (someone elses) values-based legislation – one more time. Stick this raging dope in the tubes with that trans-fat rep and the HB1 retards and see what pit they all slide into. Just make sure they output outta their tubes somewhere in Alabama, not here.

  5. dogface says:

    Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but methinks Sen. Staton wants to be known as the first legislator to regulate it.

    The bill must have drafted by someone in a cave, who’s never used the Internet and who has no clue has it works.

    Further, Station’s bill is a trial lawyers wet dream.

    Did Cecil get beat up by some techno-geeks when he was growing up? With him, it’s one bill after another to micro-manage technology and more government regulation of the Internet.

    And I thought conservative Republicans were of the “less government” ilk.

  6. HeartofGa says:

    Perhaps we can just have the user show the computer a photo ID. You know, just hold it up to the screen.

  7. StevePerkins says:

    > Sen. Staton should write a bill that instead
    > makes it MUCH easier for parents to get and
    > use “nanny” type software on their kids’
    > computers.

    Walking into CompUSA or Wal-Mart and laying down $19.95 is a convoluted process that regulation would simply?

    There may be some good intentions behind your “meet ya in the middle” instinct to compromise. However, when it’s a silly idea to regulate something in the first place, it’s okay to just plainly say so.

  8. DMZDave says:

    I really hate these bills that throw in the towel and surrender parental and personal responsibility to the state.

  9. grabbingsand says:

    How in the hell does he expect MySpace or Facebook to police this?

    Quite frankly, I’m sure he does not expect MySpace, Facebook or any other social networking site to police anything at all, not actively. The very idea of having that much control over user registrations is patently ludicrous. He know this, I’m sure.

    So instead, the end result would be that social networking sites would be held responsible for acts of malfeasance perpetrated on their under-age members via the network. The potential alone for that much liability to fall into the lap of any networking site will probably be enough for them to either curtail their services drastically, or shut down completely because the risk is too high.

    And yet, when the site is shut down, the ubiquitous tribe of “online predators” still remains. They’ve only lost one of many avenues. They’re not hurt.

    This bill is just another one of those public grabs for low hanging fruit that will do nothing to hinder or reduce online crime.

    And while I agree with Grift’s sentiment that politicians should steer clear of issues they don’t understand, I’ve a sneaking suspicion that Staton is well aware of just what the Internets can do and how they work.

Comments are closed.