It is a known fact that there are many unscrupulous people around, who exploit and abuse minors whether it is online or anywhere. Many mis-use their position in society to target these minors and take advantage. The true depth of this outrage I think is still unknown, and if anyone has followed events, we all know that the Bush administration is on a crusade to protect these minors, well, so they say.
It is a fine line between censorship and protection. How such laws like the current 2257 protect minors is still open for debate but it is law. Prosecution so far hasn’t really yielded a whole lot of bad guys but has targetted normal folk who make a living from selling legitimate adult content. Today the US Congresss will let the mob loose just as has happened to some degree in the United Kingdom.
In prepared testimony to be delivered today to the subcommittee, the president of the center, Ernie Allen, credits Mr. Barton as the catalyst for the initiative. Under the program, the testimony says, the center will confirm the presence of illegal images on reported sites and provide the Web addresses and related information to the service providers. Those companies will then take down such sites if they are based on their systems or will block their subscribers’ access using filters. ( NY Times article )
While there is no doubt in my mind that such sites need to be shut down, my problem is in who are the one’s to make that decision? Should it be some nameless group and committee or should the legal system be the final deciding factor? We have seen the US Government go after sites that had Military personnel on it and shut them down, but the courts eventually altered much of that. Plea bargains were made but at least it was done under the supervision of a Judge. Should this matter, even more important, be handled by a pseudo group claiming that they have the best interests of the children at heart, be the deciding factor?
Frankly this smacks of censorship not because the goals are wrong, but how they plan to achieve it. To let some nameless group determine what is ‘objectionable images’ without confirmation or proof, is simply wrong. I know for myself there are some I have seen that I would think were under 18, and yet in seeing the identification find they are actually 21. So unless this group of self proclaimed advocates have a way to verify, how can they simply walk in a ruin a person’s life?
Make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen.
WIthout proper legal clarification or ruling, how can anyone say what is or what isn’t appropriate images. Does this mean that sites set up by parents to promote thier kids presence in the under 18 beauty contests will be shut down? If so, is that protecting the child or simply catering to the Religious Right?
If someone takes a vocal stand against this group or questions its morals, is it then not suddenly open to attack through vague and unverifiable slander? This is the danger when you turn this type of responsibility over to a private group and ignore the judicial system. Frankly I am surprised it hasn’t happened sooner but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous.
One has to wonder just how this group will verify if an image is inappropriate. Never mind what they consider inappropriate, but how will they insure that they are right? Will they contact the site and request ID’s for the models or will it be subjective? Will it be based on their assumptions or on fact? WIthout any judicial review where all parties can lay out their case and a proper authority rule? In short will these targetted sites have any input or not?