RSS
Twitter
Which Is Less Moral: File Sharing Or Politics As Usual?
from the questions-questions-questions dept
Last week we covered how Senators from both sides of the aisle were suddenly up in arms over the fact that there was porn on file sharing networks (despite the fact that even the Government Accounting Office had come out with a report saying that porn on file sharing networks wasn't much of a problem, especially compared to porn elsewhere on the internet). Broadband Reports has picked up on that story and pointed to a quote where Senator Boxer is quoted saying that file sharing networks affect "children's morality," which is quite a statement. Do photocopying machines affect a child's morality? How about the iPod? Or just a basic internet connection? As Broadband Reports also points out, Boxer received nearly three-quarters of a million dollars from the entertainment industry (and only $200,000 from tech firms). So, which is more likely to affect a child's morality? A product that has perfectly legitimate uses, or finding out that politicians will push legislation to support the highest bidder while claiming it's "to protect the children"?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Let's talk about morality...
I had a certain respect for Ms. Boxer when she called bullshit during Condi Rice's confirmation hearing. However, this pathetic "moral" grandstanding in regard to pornography makes me ill. Why should we give a fuck about naked pictures online when Dubya and his Junta are murdering thousands in Asia, destroying the environment, and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the poor? Those are major moral issues.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Kudos...
On the great headline. :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Congressional P2P hearings
I caught the last few minutes on CSPAN today.
I too had applauded Barbara Boxer's stance on a variety of social and budget issues.
However, today it was dismaying to see her firmly aligned with a very autocratic and conservative Ted Stevens.
Additionally it was obvious that both Boxer and Stevens had no idea what P2P was, or was not.
They were only relying on the fear-based spin that RIAA and MPAA was spoonfeeding them.
A final confirmation that bad legislation is in the offing were the coyote grins shared among the music and movie reps as they closed their briefcases.
Just a thought:
If we are concerned or angered enough to write TechDirt, why aren't we also writing the Committee members and our own congresspeople?
A few hundred individually written letters from constituents can affect a representative's perspective on an issue.
If you have the cojones or resolve to contact them, keep your comments civil, emphasize the positive aspects of P2P, and the negatives of overregulation.
For my own part I will ask why Telephone, Email, regular mail, and printed material should not be forced to have similar 'filtering' requirements.
It may be an uphill battle at this early stage, but our individual freedom is worth fighting for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment