Could Bush have come up with something clever?

This week we were asked to read an online article about a new labeling system for websites.  The article entitled “Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law” talks about a plan that Bush administration drew up to help combat pornography online. The plan says that “Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years.”

Whats different about this plan, as to the others in the past, is that there seems to be a more clear cut definition as to what the law says.  According to the website “The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.”  This is key to a new law being put in place and is where others have failed. 

Critics say that this plan is still unconstitutional.  Also, as in previous cases such as Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court often rules that the internet should be protected by the same freedom of speech as in other printed material.  There was a Clinton administration plan to be put in place with a rating system in 1997.  What was unique about this idea was the backing from the head of the Lycos search engine, Bob Davis, and his proposal to only index rated pages on his site.  This plan even called for a federal criminal punishment for the misrepresenting of a rating on a site.  However, like obscenity laws in the past, it quickly fell through with no clear cut guidelines/rules to follow and even publishers opening agreeing to not rate their sites.

What I agree and like about Bush’s proposal is how it says what is to be labeled.  “For the rating system's definition of sexually explicit material, the Bush administration proposal borrows language from existing federal law. It covers: sexual intercourse of all types; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”  I’m not saying that some lawyer for some site will find a loop hole and get off without a penalty, but I feel that this includes much, if not all, of what I feel to be obscene and should be labeled as so.  That lawyer could even use what is in the Bush’s proposal to help in a websites defense.  That is the part where it says “There is one exception: Sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large Web site do not have to be rated.”  This could potentially be a larger loop hole than anticipated.

So could Bush have come up with something clever?  Well I’m sure our commander in chief had help, but for now it seems that way.  All in all, I feel that the Bush administration is addressing a problem that needs to be solved promptly.  This will hopefully help in decreasing the amount of disturbing images that our children are exposed to on a daily basis.  Also with the plan calling for the saving of records from the sites customers, the government can investigate into any further wrong doing.  I hope for the implementation and success of this plan.