View Single Post
Old 4th March 2006, 11:00 PM
Cynthia777 Cynthia777 is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 528
WTGs: 63
WTGd at 393 Times in 47 Posts
Thanks: 309
Thanked 862 Times in 179 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4447
Rep Power: 40
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
And, as far as the bill goes (H.R. 4777)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...4777ih.txt.pdf

...just food for thought...along with Adelphia's policy and the speculation of "testing".. it does make one wonder.


One particular portion of H.R. 4777:

‘‘(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling
of access to, an online site violating this section, or
a hypertext link to an online site violating this section,
that resides on a computer server that such service controls
or operates; except this limitation shall not apply if the service
is violating this section or is in active concert with a person
who is violating this section and receives actual notice of the relief;
‘‘(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service
and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;
‘‘(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to
monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity
violating this section;
‘‘(D) specify the interactive computer service to
which it applies; and
‘‘(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link
to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.’’.



It implies that notice/communication would be provided upfront, however, that is once (and if) it is actually in effect, (doesn't say anything about having to disclose any testing/preparation procedures, same goes for the ISP)..and it demonstrates that "filtering" measures are strongly being considered and outlined in this Bill.

The Bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for review, and thus far I have not seen any scheduled hearings in the Daily Digest, or on their weekly calendar for legislation topics, but they still have time for this. But we are at approximately step 5 of 18 as far as a bill actually being signed/vetoed by the President.. so we still have a ways to go.


If opponents of this bill really wanted to take a stand on this, the time would be now, while it is in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee. As this link http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade....trotocomm.html quotes:

"Perhaps the most important phase of the legislative process is the action by committees. The committees provide the most intensive consideration to a proposed measure as well as the forum where the public is given their opportunity to be heard."
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cynthia777 For This Useful Post:
dominique (6th March 2006), managra (5th March 2006), Renegade (14th May 2006), sdaddy (5th March 2006), suzecat (4th March 2006), Westland Bowl (4th March 2006)