From BBC News
Now I am all for combating Child Pornography, it is sick. But as always seems to be the case (IMHO) this proposed bill carries stuff that IMHO is unrelated to the matter in question.
Now it would appear that part of the law requires all website operators to label their site. Now that can only really affect sites hosted in the US, (Though Australia seem to be looking at this as well) thats fine. What I find a bit rediculous is the fact that failure to do so could lead to a 5 year prison term. As if the worlds jails are not full enough. Baring in mind this law does not just apply to child pornography, but to every site the government deems to be sexually explicit.
Again not so much of a problem, I don't run a sexually explicit site, until you look at the proposed criteria. Scenes of Sexual activity (obviously).
Laviscous exhibition of the pubic area - which seems obvious until you see that US courts have already found that this includes the wearing of leotards and bathing suits.
So working on that basis (and call me extreme if you must) lets say I have a daughter who wins the national Gymnastics competition. As you would expect I am very proud of her, and put pictures onto my website of her accepting her medal/trophy (what do they win?) and maybe one of her doing that pose thing they do at the end. Now could this be rated - under the rules they have set forward - as child pornography? Its not, just a proud parent showing off the fact that his daughter won a national competition. But could it be construed as that?
I don't live in the US so this law doesn't really affect me, but US laws have something of a habit of being picked up on by other countries, the UK included.
What do people think?
Incidentally I am far too young to be a father yet
and even if I was, given the world we live in today, I would have very serious qualms about putting pictures of my daughter in a leotard on the net for all to see.
And just to clarify, I am not suggesting that nothing should be done to stop child pornography. It is vile and sick, but if a law like that is to be brought in the rules need to be properly clarified. And a 5 year sentence for not having rated a site is a bit extreme. I am guessing the reason for this rating system is to a) make sure it doesn't turn up in search engines b) make it easier to filter c) bring another charge against the purveyors and d) remove the "but I didnt know what it was until I clicked on it" defence
edit: Fixing links.... hopefully