IQ Test for Politicians

The law we most need we will never have because those that would have to vote for it aqre the subject of the law. I think we need to have a law that states all persons who wish to hold political office has to take an IQ test and score better than a monkey to be eligible to run.

This is a reprint of an article from zdnet

Controversial plans to create an Internet red-light district would be revived under a new U.S. Senate proposal.

On Thursday, two Senate Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, introduced a bill called the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006." The 11-page measure would require the U.S. Department of Commerce to work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit organization that oversees domain names, to develop plans for a domain name system that would house material deemed "harmful to minors."

This goes back to the age-old question, Who gets to decide what is or is not obscene?

That material, according to the bill, includes any "communication," image, article, recording or other "obscene" matter, including actual or simulated sexual acts and "lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast."

Ahh, there we have it. Now who gets to add things onto that law that they find offensive later on down the road?

"By corralling pornography in its own domain, our bill provides parents with the ability to create a 'do not enter zone' for their kids," Pryor said in a statement.

Which can now be done with filters as effectively as with it having it's own TLD.

On a second note. These are LEGAL businesses right now. Who is going to reimburse them for all of the money they have spent on promoting the link to their current domain name?

I'm not advocating for pornography here. I'm advocating against the governemnt being able to tell you that for one reason or another you must move your business and eat the cost of doing so.

He is also a sponsor of a legislative proposal to levy a 25 percent tax on Internet pornographers.

When they begin to tax anything it always begins with "it's for the children orr it's to protect the children." This is the foot in the door to tax all things Internet.

The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending. Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department.

And forcing them to do so at their expense will result in civil court liabilities for the taxpayers. Soon tax money will be spent to finance the move to a new TLD.

It's unclear whether the measure will go very far. First of all, it could be struck down as unconstitutional, said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Well, DUH!

Courts have determined that regulations restricting speech "must serve a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored and the least intrusive method of meeting the compelling need," Johnson wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com.

The Supreme Court has decided that protecting children is a compelling interest, but because there are a host of "less intrusive" means of accomplishing the same goal, such as filtering and blocking software, the law probably wouldn't stand, he said.

Lets hope not. Next it will be .democrat and .republican and you will have to blog in only those areas that you belong in.

More to the point, creating a virtual red-light district could actually undermine the politicians' goals, he argued: "Establishing a domain like this in essence sets out a flashing neon sign to minors and others that they can find porn here."

Dogged by similar complaints from an unlikely coalition of conservative family groups and the pornography industry, recent proposals for the .xxx domain have not fared well.

The new legislative proposal has met with opposition from the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group that has charged that .xxx domains would grant yet another opportunity to flood society with pornography.

More idiots who don't understand the problem enough to be making opinions.

The xxx TLD neither hinders or enhances the amount of pornography online. The major corporations like General Motors and AT&T have for years been the biggest distributors of porn in the US, while the stockholders of those corporations turn a blind eye because it makes them money. They are probably in the same groups that are talking about the scourge of online pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult entertainment industry, also voiced disapproval, saying the relocation project was unnecessary and would lead to the "ghettoization of protected speech."

Give me a break. What" It will make porn look bad?

Last summer, ICANN approved the concept, marking a complete turnaround from its objections in 2000. But a firestorm of protests followed, including pleas by the Bush administration to put any action on hold. ICANN twice delayed its decision and ultimately decided last December to postpone a vote indefinitely, saying it needed more time to review the details.

Proving that ICANN is a total joke that cannot make a decision until a major corporation or a politician tells them what decision they should make.

Any politician who thinks this is a good plan doesn't have a high enough IQ to run for office.

Commentary by Chris McElroy
More things that just piss me off