Attorney General Calling for Draconian Internet Pr0n Standards

If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gets his way, which of the two graphics will be considered online porn – the one on the left or the one on the right?

According to Declan McCullagh, Gonzales is pushing for very unreasonable porn standards on the Internet:

One of the three new laws is on the remote verge of common sense:

A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen “absent any further actions by the viewer.”

The second is one is laughable, at best. They’re telling me I can’t take nude models and parody them as Barbie dolls?

A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive “words or digital images” in their source code–for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs.

This one really shows how incredibly stupid they are (emphasis added):

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.

Please remember to vote Republican in November, as someone has to have the moral courage to save us from dungarees. Thanks to IanC DAP for the tip.

10 Comments
  1. I used to have some ASCII art of a hot naked girl.

    I’d post it but I’m afraid HoT isn’t rated for that sort of material!

  2. Err… thanks?

    The tip I sent was a link to an article from the NYT rebutting the FDA link.

    Much as I like to take credit, honesty prevents me from taking it when it’s not due…

  3. Ian – my bad. On the road and I only get a few minutes on the Internet at a time. Still trying to get to the FDA link, but will probably have to skip alcohol and sex to cover it tonight. Priorities, priorities…

  4. >On the road and I only get a few minutes on the Internet
    >at a time

    On the road, eh? Well, tonight our Fuhrer said that those who drive too much are a national security threat. You always did strike me as the subversive type…

  5. God save us from politics! These morons are going to screw up the internet so badly we’ll all have to wear RFID tags just to sign on, swear allegiance to the jerks who think up this drek, and set technology back 20 years.
    I don’t know about you but this is the reason I have joined so many on line grass root movements and I do mean a lot since Bush started with the moralizing ridiculousness . I have been trying with all my heart and soul to curtail his stupidity. This newest line of fertilizer is just another step to bring us to heel. Sounds a bit over the top? It is if you do not mind being told your freedoms are no longer yours. Even porn is something we should have the right to choose. It’s not the porn it’s the act of taking by fear, and political muscle our rights to be Americans. That means the freedom to choose how we want to live. Otherwise why have a constitution granting us these rights.
    OK I’m done. Just sick of being told what I can, and can’t do. How about you?

  6. Stanley — Bush didn’t start it. Not even close.

    He *epitomizes* it. He is the man who swings down the sword, giving all others the permission to charge madly down the slope.