Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
New Media Labeling Bill Proposed

By ronfar in News
Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 11:48:24 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

There is an article in Freedom Forum Online today regarding a new media labeling bill being proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman: http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/06/2000-06-23-07.asp

This bill, which had already been proposed once and failed in another format, would create the potential for $10,000 a day fines on "improperly labelled media," including CDs, Video Games, and DVDs. In all likelyhood, it would be used, through "selective enforcement," to harrass people with things to say which were embarrassing to the government or their big campaign contributors.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o http://www .freedomforum.org/news/2000/06/2000-06-23-07.asp
o Also by ronfar


Display: Sort:
New Media Labeling Bill Proposed | 14 comments (7 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Just what we need (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Neuromancer on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 08:49:03 AM EST

Another useless tool to pick fights with each other and besmirch each other's reputations.

Re: Just what we need (1.00 / 2) (#5)
by warpeightbot on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 10:47:09 AM EST

Writeup or no (and I admit, this one's writeup was LAME...) this is precisely the kind of bovine scatology that needs the red flag hoisted so we can sit on it before it ever makes it out of committee. -.5 writeup +3 call your congresscritter NOW.

[ Parent ]
Elect someone who has read the constitution (2.50 / 2) (#9)
by Rand Race on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 11:50:48 AM EST

That so many of our legislators willfully and continuously pass laws that violate the constitution is a true shame and also a waste of taxpayers money. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, this congress voted down a rider on a bill that was, word for word, the fourth amendment. I think that presenting a law that is later found unconstitutional (as this one will be) should be grounds for impeachment. The legislator has violated his oath to uphold and maintain the constitution.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Re: Elect someone who has read the constitution (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by El Volio on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 12:06:49 PM EST

Interesting... Do you have any more details about that 4th Amendment rider?

And as for impeachment for presenting an unconstitutional law: What about all the legislators who vote for that sort of law? It's true, it would not be a bad idea to have some better checking of proposed laws and their constitutionality. And ideally, that would be by the legislators themselves. Failing that (as has obviously happened), some sort of vetting by the judicial branch or at least some committee (the "Constitutional Committee"? :) ) might do the trick as well.

[ Parent ]

Re: Elect someone who has read the constitution (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by Rand Race on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 02:46:20 PM EST

I was a little wrong, it was the 104th congress not the current 105th. The rider was attempted on HR666 (apt number considering) The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. From this site: "Another interesting Amendment was submitted by the democratic side of the isle which the Republicans immediately and angrily blocked. The full text of the 4th Amendment.". Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC) submitted the amendment. Another link explains it thusly: "The Watt amendment in the nature of a substitute that sought to strike provisions applying the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule to warrantless searches; and to replace it with the text of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution (rejected by a recorded vote of 121 ayes to 303 noes, Roll No. 99).

Some of the research I was doing mentions a Senate Judiciary Review Comitee to whom the bill was to be submitted next. It looks like these are the people who should know better, and possibly one of the reasons the Senate seems to be a bit better on these issues.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

(1.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 11:54:25 AM EST

That's U.S. of A. for you.


Liability if it doesn't measure up to the billing? (3.50 / 2) (#14)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Jul 05, 2000 at 03:11:27 PM EST

I hope there will be a method to review and independently verify the rating.

I remember when I was a pre-teen, I would get pretty mad when I snuck to the living room to catch some R-rated cable movie to find that the advertised, err...rated, nudity was virtually non-existent.

Hopefully, under this new system, if the violent and/or sexual content doesn't live up to the label, I can sue someone for false advertising.



New Media Labeling Bill Proposed | 14 comments (7 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!