|
"The Internet is a cesspool"
AP | Submitted by: anonymous
E-mailing someone a pornographic picture could be a misdemeanor and sending it to a child would be a felony under legislation proposed Monday. "The Internet is a cesspool," said Sen. Mike Friend of Omaha, who introduced the bill (LB142) at the attorney general's request.
|
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:11
In other news; scientists have determined after tortuous meticulous study that the empirical evidence supports the inescapable conclusion that Sen. Mike Friend of Omaha and the Attorney General are both mounds of steaming fly-blown excrement.
From: stripes919 [anal seepage]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:17
This whole story is rotten! First of all, I'd be wary of anyone named "Friend" and I'd tell him I don't need him looking over my shoulder.
From: friend [with Machete]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:21
Hi Stripes Be afraid, be very afraid!
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:30
Aulduron, on the surface, it does sound like it will help prosecute genuine harassment, but: ""The Internet is a cesspool," said Sen. Mike Friend" and "and [the law] would in some cases make it illegal to send a "visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct."" I what cases would that be? Could someone be prosecuted for sending (legal) porn to a willing, of age recipient? This stinks of someone trying to sneak his puritanical morals in through the back door. Even if sen. Friend himself isn't uptight, imagine how loopholes could be engineered into this and exploited.
From: piscivore [Michael C. Scott]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:33
Yes, the internet is a hot, steaming cesspool. It's also a wonderful library. What was the explosive charge in US Navy torpedoes during the 1898 Spanish-American war, and what was the equivalent in TNT? All available online.
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:37
E-mailing someone a pornographic picture could be a misdemeanor ----------------------------- What if they want the "pornographic" picture? What is considered porn? Are cute nudes that only show ass porn? I'm confused.....
From: doughnutman
[guesswhy]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:38
This makes me just a little bit nervous. What if you send a naughty pic to a friend and then that friend finds out you are banging his wife? The ungrateful prick could turn you in. I rename this law, "How to get revenge on an ex(friend, spouse, whatever) Law."
From: kwijibo
[A fat, balding north-american ape]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:44
Fuck this, they should be able to polygraph victims of sex crimes. Why should someone get a cloak of protection even before a crime has been shown? Want to fuck someone's life up? Just accuse them of a sex crime. The accuser is beyond reproach and the accused is screwed from the word Go. Polygraphs aren't admissible in court but they are valuable tools which can assist a trained investigator.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:51
...""The Internet is a cesspool," said Sen. Mike Friend" ... Well, much of it is a cesspool. and ..."and [the law] would in some cases make it illegal to send a "visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct."" I what cases would that be? Could someone be prosecuted for sending (legal) porn to a willing, of age recipient? ... In some cases, not all. Without reading the bill itself, I'm assuming that it's a crime only if you don't want it. There should be a law against sending anyone anything they don't want. ...This stinks of someone trying to sneak his puritanical morals in through the back door. Even if sen. Friend himself isn't uptight, imagine how loopholes could be engineered into this and exploited. ... He's not pushing anything through the back door. He's pushing it through the front door, like he's supposed to. He was elected by the people to push their values through congress, like every other legislator in the country.
From: toddsputnik
[todd sputnik LLC]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:51
"The thing that interests me - just like any father - is we're looking to add a layer of protection" for children and other vulnerable people, Friend said. ____________________________________ As a closted gay Republican, I want to personally thank Senator Friend for being a friend to me, a "vulnerable person," for watching out for MY interest and protecting ME from the cesspool which I routinely wallow in. I want to thank those who make it a job, no --- a life mission -- to protect me from MYself. Without people like Senator Friend to protect ME from people like ME, I shudder to think about what a free internet would be. I am now asking him to submit a bill to the Nebraska legislature to ban rotten.com from Nebraska internet servers. Join me. Join "friend."
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 13:52
LOL...RIP Rotten! _________________ But seriously, I actually think the proposed law sounds pretty reasonable, as described in the article (capitalization emphasis is mine): <<<The bill would allow prosecution for HARASSMENT of adults and children alike, although the consequences would increase exponentially if kids were involved. Telephone, computer and other electronic INTIMIDATION could be a misdemeanor, which could land a perpetrator up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. But if the violator were over 18 and KNEW or had reason to believe the recipient was YOUNGER THAN 16, he or she could spend five years in prison on felony charges and pay a $10,000 fine. ... People who send unsolicited junk e-mails could also be prosecuted, Friend said, although it would be difficult to find the senders and pin the crimes on them.>>> ______________ So this is a LOCAL state law, and does not prosecute for sending porn to CONSENTING adults. So if Nebraskans want to spend their time in their little unicameral legislature arguing about the threat of exposing minors to porn (as opposed to making their state more pro business, for example), it's okay by me. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I don't think that there are any constitutional issues here.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:06
Of course the internet is a cesspool. Now what's to be said to its detriment?
From: synesthesia [you'll figure it out]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:10
I think it should be illegal for a child to see its own genitals. So all underpants should be chained permanently to the child. Also the Bible. It's full of sexual references. Burn it!
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:25
I should account for poor journalism. Reading the article, the law seems a little vague about the part of some cases of sending porn. When it comes to legislation I am suspicious by nature. More often than not, someone in the background is trying to foist something through. I just have very little faith in the process today. Aulduron, you assume that sending porn will only be prosecuted if it is unwanted. With all of the anti-porn crusading going on almost everywhere in the US, why do you feel comfortable making that assumption?
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:39
...Aulduron, you assume that sending porn will only be prosecuted if it is unwanted. With all of the anti-porn crusading going on almost everywhere in the US, why do you feel comfortable making that assumption? ... Because nothing has yet led me to believe otherwise.
From: doughnutman
[guesswhy]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:52
My problem with any law is that the person who received the porn can change their mind at a later date and claim it offended them. I can see someone using it as a defense at a divorce proceedings. It is more he said she said and the only ones who profit are the lawyers as usual.
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:55
I have an inherent scepticism towards any legislation until I fully understand it. I guess I need this guy to be proven right, while you ask me to prove him wrong. I can't prove him wrong. I just don't trust anything like this until it is proven that I can.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:56
How often do you send porn to people? I spend quite a bit of time watching porn, but I've never sent it to anyone, and I've never had a friend send it to me.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:01
I must come clean....I sent my brother the link to 'eel-girl'. (remember...the one with all those wiggly eels shooting out of that Japanese chick's ass after being placed there by a funnel?) I hope I shall not be prosecuted retroactively!
From: doughnutman
[guesswhy]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:10
I have never sent porn to anyone either Alduron, but it has definitely been sent to me or at least the link to a site. On rotten, their must be 100's who have linked some of the bizarro, nasty stuff to someone.
From: nomercy4u [ROD]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:13
another free choice taken away children should not be allowed full internet access the parents of the child or owner of computer should be responsible but to tell a grown adult what they can read or see is bullshit
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:14
The article does not make it clear that the law will keep its hands off of communication between consenting adults. Maybe the draft is clear. I don't know that. I know, Aulduron, that you are not asking me to do anything. Poor choice of words. While I will scoff until this is proven good, you seem to be keeping an open mind until it is proven wrong. I think both attitudes are needed in any society. Otherwise there would be no one willing to be a check or a balance, and there would be nothing done. Cheers!
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:19
I don't believe it mentions linking anywhere. It mentions telephones and e-mail. ...another free choice taken away children should not be allowed full internet access the parents of the child or owner of computer should be responsible but to tell a grown adult what they can read or see is bullshit ... This law is not telling anyone what they may or may not look at. It punishes people for harassment, and intimidation. There are many cases of people using pornographic images to harass others.
From: azdollarbill [Jim Jones]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:36
...""The Internet is a cesspool," Yes, isn't it wonderful? Where would we be without Porn? We would all be out raping and pillaging, instead of wallowing in the wonderful cesspool of Porn.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:51
...Yes, isn't it wonderful? Where would we be without Porn? We would all be out raping and pillaging, instead of wallowing in the wonderful cesspool of Porn. ... Porn doesn't stop anyone from raping or pillaging.
From: lordpakul [Lord Pakul]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:55
Cesspool sounds sort of stagnant or static. I prefer the more dynamical "open sewer" metaphor. Anyway -- Just a click or two away from perdition!    http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/pornography/
From: niebelung [oregonian]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:05
"The Internet is a cesspool" *** Isn't it sort of redundant to post that on rotten.com?
From: azdollarbill [Jim Jones]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:05
From: aulduron [Aulduron] Date: 10-Jan-2007 15:51 ...Yes, isn't it wonderful? Where would we be without Porn? We would all be out raping and pillaging, instead of wallowing in the wonderful cesspool of Porn. ... Porn doesn't stop anyone from raping or pillaging. -------------------- Well, if we are talking about a certified nut case, you are correct. Normal people do not rape and pillage, whether or not they look at porn. I was being sarcastic, next time I will so label my witticisms as such.
From: powderedtoastman
[Michael]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:24
here's what I don't get - how is porn and mailing it to somebody else a bad thing? I agree that children shouldn't be able to see any of it. But us adults... why should the government care if I send my buddy a stroke pic? It's like the issue of banning porn is like a pile of shit to these people, and they're the flies. No matter what you do, they'll always come back to feed on it.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:33
I don't think the internet is a cesspool, more like a fresh steaming pile of barnyard wastes of all sorts scooped up into one place and if you don't like it, stay out of the barnyard or wear hipwaders. 
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:35
Normal people do not rape and pillage, whether or not they look at porn. -------------------------------- Tell that to the Roman Legions, Gengis Khan, Atilla, and the villagers at Mei Lai and Nanking. Damn......what fun; I was born too late!
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:52
From: doughnutman [guesswhy] Date: 10-Jan-2007 14:52 My problem with any law is that the person who received the porn can change their mind at a later date and claim it offended them. I can see someone using it as a defense at a divorce proceedings. It is more he said she said and the only ones who profit are the lawyers as usual. -------------- Yes, I see what you mean here. There needs to be a brief statute of limitations here. What if one had send a pics of porn to a buddy, then they have a falling out. So does that mean his former buddy can have him prosecuted? Also, what if an adult had sent a pornographic image to another adult, and the other adult had objected, so the person who had sent the porn in the first apologized, and promptly discontinued sending anymore porn? Does anyone here really think they deserve prosecution? And I find it interesting the bill focuses on pornographic images, leaving out sexually worded e-mails. In MANY cases, those may be more personally offensive and disturbing to others, rather than a viewing random pornographic image pulled off the internet.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:00
... Also, what if an adult had sent a pornographic image to another adult, and the other adult had objected, so the person who had sent the porn in the first apologized, and promptly discontinued sending anymore porn? Does anyone here really think they deserve prosecution? .... Then that should come out, and be taken into account at the trial. ...And I find it interesting the bill focuses on pornographic images, leaving out sexually worded e-mails. In MANY cases, those may be more personally offensive and disturbing to others, rather than a viewing random pornographic image pulled off the internet. ... I assume that's already covered by current harassment laws.
From: odubya23
[odubya23]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:27
How about printing or broadcasting troop movements and supply lines for the enemy to learn? ------------------------------------------------------ Either you are a babyboomer or someone with way too much fear in his mind to think that A) there is an enemy. B) To do to him what he would do to you is morally correct.
From: odubya23
[odubya23]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:30
I would characterize this as a "public" censure. Dig it ------------------------------------------------- The public had very little to do with that execution. I resent it was done with my money. And almost every one in the whole fucking world with a computer or a television has seen it, if it did take place, I have my doubt. Not a strong argument for censorship, anyway.
From: ltjackboot
[name]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:30
'People who send unsolicited junk e-mails could also be prosecuted,' -That's pretty much all I needed, how much is a 2 bedroom in Nebraska?lol
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:31
From: aulduron [Aulduron] Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:00 ***... Also, what if an adult had sent a pornographic image to another adult, and the other adult had objected, so the person who had sent the porn in the first apologized, and promptly discontinued sending anymore porn? Does anyone here really think they deserve prosecution? ....*** Then that should come out, and be taken into account at the trial. ------------------- Nonetheless, what a waste of taxpayers' dollars, if it got to the point of trial. ------------------- ***...And I find it interesting the bill focuses on pornographic images, leaving out sexually worded e-mails. In MANY cases, those may be more personally offensive and disturbing to others, rather than a viewing random pornographic image pulled off the internet. ... I assume that's already covered by current harassment laws. *** ------------------ Your assumption may or may not be right. It should have been clarified in the article, but wasnt, due to piss-poor journalism, as I would think mentioning whether or not sexually-explicit worded e-mails would be relevant as well.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:37
...Either you are a babyboomer or someone with way too much fear in his mind to think that A) there is an enemy. .... We've been to war many times since the boomers were born, including now. ...Nonetheless, what a waste of taxpayers' dollars, if it got to the point of trial. ... The police don't go around laying in wait to make harassment cases against people. Someone would have to make a complaint to the police. If anyone is wasting tax money on it, it's the person reporting the crime, not the police or court.
From: pontiuspilatus
[Pontius Phallus Pilatius]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 17:40
This is a worldwide mistake. Rapists don't slow down because they don't see porn. Children don't grow up being rapists because they see porn. Sexual related crimes happen where people are not able to satisfy their needs, and in the same time, do not respect others enough to understand that everybody's freedom is of higher value than their own sexual needs. If I would simply let my feelings go, then I would probably have raped half of Asia, including Russia, and South America. But I don't, I know and understand that you need to ask first. Then you need to get an OK. Whether you pay for it or not (and you'll always pay sooner or later) If it was for me, I'd not sentence a rapist for the act; I'd put him in jail forever, because he(she) took the liberty of taking someone else's freedom.
From: niebelung [oregonian]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 18:45
I saw an article recently about a group of bloggers who plan to attend and report on congressional committee hearings via the Internet. I wonder if they will find a way to criminalize that sort of activity. Shining a little light into the dusty corners of capital hill could have a big effect, and be a positive reflection on the Internet. Unless the bloggers turn out to be like the big TV networks, so wrapped up in their own ideological agenda that they don't report things honestly.
From: assgasms [A$$gasms]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 18:49
I suppose "hot horse cock in blond pussy" counts as pornography?  If a 10-year-old emails another 10-year-old a picture of a third 10-year-old in a reindeer suit doing an armadillo dressed as an elf, is it still a felony?
From: assgasms [A$$gasms]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 19:45
Maybe so Todd, but I know what really goes down in Vista... 
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 20:01
The world is a ghetto. Therefore, it is now illegal to be poor. Seriously, how do dickwads like this guy get elected? I will tell you how. Because Omaha is full of assholes.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 20:04
Omaha has no exlusivity on that particular malady.
From: heystoopid [ian deal]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 20:22
Oh goody , so this means all the replacement hard drives bought on EBay, complete with unerased data after a simple quick format and then when these machines are booted up and when the Internet Porno Cops come a knocking on your door, you get a 35 to 50 year hard time(3 strike rule) at the over crowded 3 to a bunk bed at Club Tennessee, or Club Texas habitual criminal retraining facility , for some one else's crime, now that be truly rotten!
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 20:28
No Ian....the entire business was conceived as a trial balloon which shall go over like a Led Zeppelin. (no Moon or Page input please) Buit we tried.
From: why
[Because]
Date: 10-Jan-2007 20:31
Planet Earth is a Fucking Cesspool. The "Internet" being part of it makes his statement partially correct. Other than that he's just another Geek.
From: genkimon [genkimon]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 01:50
But the internet... Is for porn! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7997646050642417046
From: mrhappy [Pubert Spindlewicker]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 02:30
I think that sometime in the course of my lifetime I'll see the Internet get to the point where things that would be completely illegal offline in reality will also become illegal to do online.
From: cracker666
[honkey Infidel]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 04:35
From: toddsputnik [todd sputnik LLC] Date: 10-Jan-2007 19:23 assgasms [A$$gasms]: That picture is illegal in 49 States. Except.... Florida. WRONG todspunk, Washington State is the horse fuck honorable mention state. California is way closer than Florida. (remember this, if you desire horse porn, ask assgasms or sandy71!)
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 05:56
From: daredevil [CameronVale] Date: 10-Jan-2007 16:35 Normal people do not rape and pillage, whether or not they look at porn. -------------------------------- Tell that to the Roman Legions, Gengis Khan, Atilla, and the villagers at Mei Lai and Nanking. Damn......what fun; I was born too late! -------------------------------------- No, you weren't. You should join the Army. I suspect they are gearing up for a good pillaging any day now.....Iraqi villagers will be the targets and there will be plenty of opportunity for a whole "Mei Lai" moment.....enjoy!
From: saladtosser [Salad Tosser [Tossin' Salad]]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 08:00
the funny thing about all this is that had the law project only been presented as an attempt to modernize anti-harassment laws, no one would bat an eye. also, mike and aulduron, keep in mind that you rarely get someone convicted for harassment with a single incident unless you can show intent. Otherwise, you have to show a trend of harrassment (several emails of porn after being asked not to send it)
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 11-Jan-2007 10:06
Agreed, Saladtosser. It takes a pattern and/or an unequivocal demonstration of intent to convict on Harassment. Will this law change that? I don't know, so I don't trust it until I do know. Ant before any Trolls get to it (or maybe the Troll issue is OK now. I haven't really been around much lately): No, harassment does not mean Her Ass Meant anything.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 12-Jan-2007 08:12
Aulduron, even if the bill is genuinely INTENDED to fight intimidation and harassment, that's no excuse to pass a law that is CAPABLE of jailing someone for enjoying their civil liberties. Remember, they told us that the Patriot Act would only be used against terrorists before it was passed.
From: annidez [annidez]
Date: 12-Jan-2007 09:53
What exactly constitutes pornography anyway? Seriously. Dictionary.com mentions "obscene" so I looked up that word: 1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty 2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd 3. Repulsive; disgusting 4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous In that respect, not trying to start a war discussion, but what about the images we see coming out of Iraq? That stuff gets sent directly into our homes via free TV. This law is being drafted by the same people who were outraged when those photos of the flag draped caskets in a the cargo hold of plane. These are topics (not images) that fit definitions 1, 3 and 4 in my opinion. I'll kill the first cop who breaks down my door and confiscates my computer. http://www.lamermelculo.com/video.php?id=682
From: guardian [Guardian]
Date: 12-Jan-2007 16:39
Brainspore, you're right about the government saying that the Patriot Act would only be used on terrorists, and not be used on the American public. This link says otherwise: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/18460prs20040617.html I just hope the 2006 Military Commissions Act won't be invoked on the American public. This legislation subverts the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. Yikes!
Updated: 17-Jan-2007 10:28
| 
