They are at it again

[kengr]

A new law, called the “Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act”, or SAFE Act, proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Schumer, would require any ISP to report and forward to a central agency any image which came through or was hosted on their system which meets the Federal definition of child pornography. All of these images would then be held in a central database. This includes drawings and cartoons of children, if they could be considered inappropriate, even if the children don’t actually exist in real life. The SAFE Act would also make the use of the Internet in the violation of child pornography laws an “aggrevating” factor requiring 10 years in prison. ISPs that fail to report such images would themselves be subject to stiff penalties.

Remember that under the current laws this applies to any images that appear to *someone* to depict a someone who is under *18*. Add in just how *broad* the definition of "inappropriate" is apt to be, this is going to hit a lot of artwork.

Given that the only reason the current laws are *remotely* legal is that photos & video require exploiting *real* children (if you count 17 year olds as children) thios law is way out of line. Then again, like the current laws, the actual point isn't protecting children. It's providing excuses to implement rules that will allow harassing providers of "adult content" out of existence.

Comments

[mistresscayenne.livejournal.com]

Here here here. As the Oregon Law on sodomy puts forward... ... any touch that can be construed as sexual is a crime if taken as such by any victim or assumed victim. This is not a quote, but how the law applied to me and applies to anyone suspected of any sort of sexual misconduct.

Going after depicted content is a witch hunt of the meanest sort.

Chrissy Michelle