Charles bass melissa bean judy biggert marsha blackburn jeb bradley genny brown-waite john campbel michael castle geoff davis john doolittle thelma drake john duncan phil english vito fossella jim gerlach paul gillmor kay granger j d hayworth sue w kelly mark r kennedy mark steven kirk john kline john r kuhi kenny marchant michael t mccaul candis s miller tim murphy todd russell plats ted poe jon c porter adam putnam mike rogers john schwarz pete sessions christopher shays john shimkus patrick tibera curt weldon jerry weller all cosponsored HR 5319, Deleting Online Predators Act, which was introduced on 9 May 2006 by Michael Fitzpatrick.
You can follow the bill via LOC’s Thomas Bills Resolutions database for HR5319.
21 of the 39 co-sponsers are considered vulnerable in November, including Mikie Fitzpatrick 😉
Vulnerable representatives are italicized.
I posted this the other night and feel there some misleading tendacies in your post about the bill. It isn’t that big of a bill to read, and I will preface this with saying that I am actually against the bill, but want to have a realistic view of this bill if it becomes law.
Let’s look at the bill objectively, rather than relying on the take of Dave Farber.
Section 1 – simple … it names the bill “Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006.”
Section 2 – Part (a) says basically that schools need to enforce a policy of Internet safety that keeps students from obscene and pornographic material. It also says that we have to prohibit commercial social networking website and chat rooms WHERE students may EASILY access obscene material, or be advanced by predators. Part (a) is rather vague in a lot of ways. I mean, we know that MySpace.com is targeted with this bill, but is Class Blogmeister? Of course not. There aren’t commercial tendacies in that site. AIM is targeted, but is a school run iChat server? Probably not.
Section 2 – Part (b) says the same thing as Part (a), but in regards to libraries.
Section 2 – Part (c) defines what are commerical social networking websites and chat rooms.
Section 2 – Part (d) is short, but interesting. It allows an out for schools or libraries. It allows for the usage of these commerical sites, as I read it, as long as it is under adult supervision.
Section 2 – Part (e) sets up an advisory board, and Part (f) will actually provide us with a list of sites we will have to block. Part (f) allows for political footballs to be tossed around. Changes in administrations will result in a change in the list. Just wait and see.
Section 3 says that the FTC will, within 90 days of the passing of the bill, will issue consumer alerts regarding Internet predators and establish a website to provide information about predator sites.
Now, do we have the ability to block these sites. Well, we should if we don’t already. There are many pay and open source solutions to blocking inappropriate content through blacklists and content weighting.
Will we still have the ability to control the flow of content into our schools? If I read the bill right, Section 2 – Part (d) still allows that to happen. It just has to be under adult supervision, so I am not so worried about being able to control content.
Besides, can someone please point out for me where a commercial product (chat or blog) where we cannot provide an in-house solution, whether paid or open source? Audree Thurman has a terrific ePortfolio solution that I am actively testing to bring in-house. The ePortfolio can be run completely within a Intranet or posted to the Internet. It includes a wiki and blog builder, plus with it in-house we can track the content and remove inappropriate content.
This brings me to what the bill is missing. Awareness and education. If you have not visited the iSafe website, you need to do so. It includes a complete curriculum for students, staff and parents to promote Internet safety. It is completely free and funded by the Department of Justice. Local law enforcement can also join in and will help in presentations if they are aware. Even calling the local FBI office may result in someone who can help in a safety presentation.
Would I feel overburdened by this bill? Not really. Am I all for the feds telling me what content I should or should not filter? No way. Do I already block access to these site? I do. Again, you have to give me a valid reason to use a commercial solution versus one I can provide and implement some controls. But that is me. Personally, I am against this bill. Shoot, I am one for local and states rights when it comes to educational and library issues (I am even for the dissolution of the Department of Education, but again, that is just me). I can just rest easy that I already am compliant with this bill. Those who aren’t probably need to review some of their policies and make sure they are providing an online environment that is best for children and look into providing school appropriate alternatives to commercial products.
I agree with you Jim. A lot of bloggers are framing this as members of Congress wanting to prevent kids from using Web 2.0 services. But it appears none of the bloggers even thought about calling the sponsor’s staff. If they had done so, as eschool news did, they would have learned this: “The objective is not to limit students’ ability to learn on the internet,” Conallen said. “The objective is to protect them from child predators who are using sites like MySpace to harm kids.”
Conallen said his boss hopes the bill will start a conversation about how to protect children from the dark side of internet. If there is specific language in the bill that would hinder educational programs, then this language likely would be worked out in committee, he said http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6307&page=3
I’m curious why none of the bloggers decided to take up the Congressman on his invitation and offer alternative language that would accomplish the goal of protecting kids but still allow for the educational use of these tools.
And I have no idea where David got the list of members who are vulnerable. The NYT has most of their seats as safe:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTIONGUIDE.html?currentDataSet=senANALYSIS
Point well taken Jim. I had exactly the same reaction when I first read the bill weeks ago. However, it is its vagueness that worries me, because many could interpret it to include Class Blogmeister. CB is not commercial now, but I, as a business man (boy it scratches my throat to say that) have the right to start charging and start advertizing. No plans to do that!!!!
I’m sure you would agree, that if the law also stated that children must learn with and within digital networked information, that we are required to teach them contemporary literacy skills and a curriculum that is tailored for the needs to today’s children, and not for the students we wish we were teaching, then I would feel easier about HR5319.
Thanks for your perspective. Balance is always good and I appreciate it, sincerely.
Dave
I did call my representative yesterday morning and expressed my concern over DOPA. I was upset last night when I check on it and saw that it has now passed through the House with a 410-15 vote.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-405
I guess we now need to push our senators.
Dave, thanks for taking the time to respond. I know you are a busy guy. I was really impressed with you when I met you at the Support Blogging get together in San DIego.
You have created a great product in Class Blogmeister, and I do hope that you can profit from it someday. You have created it in a way that is safe for children and easy for teachers to administer. I cannot think of a way your product could ever be blacklisted by the feds because the outcry from this community would be deafening in DC. You have put a lot of thought into the issues the fed want addressed in DOPA, namely the potential unsolicited contact of a child by a sexual predator, and have created a model for how-to battle those issues.
The bill is an extension of the CIPA law. As we have moved into Web 2.0, so does legislation need to move with the times. To say that the laws of justice should stand pat and watch the world whiz by is dangerous and leads to knee-jerk reaction legislation (an extreme example of which is the Patriot Act). This is a good sign that the government is taking an interest in the social landscape of the Internet. I agree with your statement about children learning with and within digital network information, but it cannot be whilly-nilly. And a statement such as that should be in the National Education Technology Plan, but cannot be legislated into law unless you want to amend NCLB.
In my opinion and perspective, the bill doesn’t go after the networked learning environment, but rather the openess of that environment after the learning is done (is it ever done ?). It states in the bill that as long as something is done for educational purposes or under adult supervision, then it is OK to allow access. So there is that “out” should something come along as the ideal product for a lesson but is currently blacklisted.
Where we agree is the vaguenes of the bill. I would feel more inclined to support or not support this bill if I could see a list of the sites that could potentially be blocked. Because there is that vagueness, and my distrust of Big Brother, I do not support this bill.
Funny how we ultimately agree, but our reasons and the way we get there differ.