Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing Online

Republican Michael Fitzpatrick in PA-08, who this year is running against Fighting Dem Patrick Murphy, knows first hand how netroots activism can be damaging to Republicans. On July 19, 2004, his eventual Democratic opponent in PA-08, Ginny Schrader, received forty thousand dollars in online donations in one day to help propel her candidacy from longshot status to legitimate contender. After being bailed out by $2.5M in ads from the NRCC--the most money the NRCC spent on any campaign in 2004 save PA-06--Fitzpatrick now seeks to curb the influence of organizing and social networking online:
MySpace and other social-networking sites like LiveJournal.com and Facebook are the potential targets for a proposed federal law that would effectively require most schools and libraries to render those Web sites inaccessible to minors, an age group that includes some of the category's most ardent users.

"When children leave the home and go to school or the public library and have access to social-networking sites, we have reason to be concerned," Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, told CNET News.com in an interview.

Fitzpatrick and fellow Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on Wednesday endorsed new legislation (click here for PDF) that would cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service.

That's a broad category that covers far more than social-networking sites such as Friendster and Google's Orkut.com. It would also sweep in a wide range of interactive Web sites and services, including Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant-messaging features, and Microsoft's Xbox 360, which permits in-game chat.

Fitzpatrick's bill, called the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA, is part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to address topics that they view as important to suburban voters. Republican pollster John McLaughlin polled 22 suburban districts and presented his research at a retreat earlier this year. Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, is co-sponsoring the measure.
Poll driven indeed. Make no mistake about this bill. While it ostensibly is being done only to make Republicans look like they care about the children so much that suburban parents should vote for them, it accomplishes the dual task of limiting political organizing online. Outside of Jean Schimdt, it is doubtful that any Republican representative in the House is more aware of the potential dangers that online organizing holds for conservatives out of step with their districts, such as Michael Fitzpatrick. In the guise of trying to protect "the children," Fitzpatrick almost certainly will be happy to see the netroots capability of "the children" restricted as well.

Update: To clarify, this bill will not just limit access to such websites among minors. It will limits access to such websites in many public places, such as libraries. And I wonder who gets decide which websites will have limited or no access in those public places, and which websites they will choose for limited or no access...



Display:


Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

This is such a bad idea it is sad.  It is really hard to know how to respond to such rediculous notions.  Really, they ought to outlaw any meeting involving two minors in a non-chaperoned environment, because YOU NEVER KNOW.

In the meantime, we are getting riled up over stuff like this and the NSA is quietly establishing (maintaining?) the infrastructure to data mine all the information traveling over the internet.  It is good to know our legislators have priorities.


by PghArch on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:21:16 AM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

This bill is just another Republican assault on the 1st Amendment wherein freedom of assembly is guaranteed.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Assembly doesn't necessarily have to occur in a physical space.  


by LionelEHutz on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:38:41 AM EST

Re: Children (none / 0)

Whenever I see something "for the sake of children" from these guys, I know it will be bad.  They can't make a case so "conservatives" pitch it as saving kids.

Online predators?  Gove me a break.


by David Kowalski on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:51:29 AM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (3.00 / 0)

I'm local...I live in the 13th Congressional District and have been following this issue closely. It's going to be used as a web issue against Patrick Murphy...And for people that don't know any better my space and sexual predators are right up there with " gay issues " to scare people. They just dont know any better. And I don' t doubt for one minute that Fitzpatrick will use this against Patrick...

I am a web specialist, a former teacher and a mother of a teenage daughter. This bill is a sham  and won't solve the real issues.

I will post something on  Patricks blog and see
if I can offer some suggestions to Patrick about re framing this issue...


by cybermome1207 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:02:05 AM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

Can Patrick Murphy organize the youth against this?


by Matt Stoller on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:08:12 AM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

Matt,

I think that a terrfic idea...And I know the perfect person to do it if Patrick interested. My 16 year old daughter Dani who knows Patrick..

I just emailed both Patrick and Josh his campaign manager with the idea and this thread...

Lee


by cybermome1207 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

It could cut both ways though.  It won't be hard to paint Murphy as being in favor of minors running amok and being corrupted online while Fitzgerald fights to protect our children from their naivite.

I mean hell, Dateline has its own spinoff show that's literally nothing but putting potential sexual predators on hidden camera.  Every night on the news (here in San Diego at least) there's at least one story about sexual predators, real or imagined.  There is virtually no argument against protecting children, no matter how far-fetched the specific proposal might be.  People are completely irrational about their children in ways that don't apply anywhere else in their lives or minds.

It might work, because Murphy might be (probably is) much smarter and a much better tactician than I am, but if this becomes Murphy and the kids against Fitzgerald and the parents, we're on the wrong end come November.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

I agree.  If I were advising the Murphy campaign, I'd just let this be fought be surrogates and not by the candidate directly.


by Adam B on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

read the bill (none / 0)

These are the sites which would be restricted:

``(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES.--The term `commercial social networking website' means a commercially operated Internet website that--

(i) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and
(ii) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger.


Gee, that includes Blogspot, DailyKos, this site . . . . no?


by Adam B on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:13:02 AM EST

Re: read the bill (none / 0)

It includes every website of interest.  It even includes such innocuous offerings as www.boardgamegeek.com or www.wikipedia.org.  All a bill like this would do is ensure that by the age of 13 every child had determined a way to get online as  an adult.  It is destined to be less effective than the laws which have kept alcohol out of the hands of young adults under the age of 21.

The fact that a large proportion of 14 year olds out there have the tools and know-how to create new sites which would violate this law can't be a reason to enact it.  This is up there with the $100 gas rebate, it will implode on its own.

Is Wikipedia really all that harmful to youth??


by PghArch on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: read the bill (none / 0)

If you're a Republican, anything with facts is dangerous.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

I recently made a dairy on Kos to the effect, as silly, unconstitutional or impractical these "save the children" proposals are, we cannot ignore the issue of the effect of pornification of our society on parenting. Read the post for more. Since I wrote this note there was a story from The Boston Globe (free req req'd). Let me give you the crux.

Five students at a Roxbury elementary school -- four girls in the first and second grades and one boy in the fifth grade -- were suspended yesterday for sexual harassment stemming from an incident on a school bus that involved lewd language and touching, according to a spokesman for the Boston public schools.

The R.W. Emerson School students made ''explicit statements about and to each other, and there was some level of very minor touching going on," said School Department spokesman Jonathan Palumbo, who would not provide details.

..snip

Chery said the school principal, C. Sura O'Mard-Gentle, told him and his daughter yesterday that one of the other girls who was suspended had referred to the events as ''the rape game."

These are 7 and 10 year olds. We have to address this issue.


by interguru on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:24:02 PM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth Organizing (none / 0)

I agree...but this law isn't going to address the real issues...And the real issues cannot be legislated unless you do not want people like Hastert
and Fitzpatrick to " decide" what is appropriate...

I have a 16 year old daughter. I do not believe in prying but I have always told her that although I trust her, I periodically do some snooping on our computer to see where she has been. I am up front with her about this.

We need to teach parents how to keep their kids safe and we need to teach impulsive and horny teenagers the seamy side of the internet...


by cybermome1207 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a wedge, not a policy proposal! (none / 0)

And a pretty good wedge, too.

(We're talking about HR 5319, just for the record.)

Parents' concerns about the dangers of online contacts made by their minor children - though overblown - are founded in reality. And a reality-based argument against a bill like HR 5319 can for that reason be distorted all the more convincingly.

Where's the Dem equivalent bill? Why can't the rocket scientists in the pay of Dem alphabet soup come up with a proposals that wedge potential GOP voters as effectively?

I shouldn't be at all surprised if GOP honchos are roadtesting the Fitzpatrick idea in PA-8 and plan to roll it out nationwide if the trial goes well. (Just 20 sponsors to date...)

Superb acronym, though: DOPA. Whoever said GOP operatives had no sense of humor?


by skeptic06 on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too broad (none / 0)

The law is too broad. Any sites offering e-mail? That includes Yahoo, MSN, and other MAJOR sites. Let's see what happens when Big Business weighs in on this. This could be one time when they're on our side.

If passed, this thing will end up in the courts. Then we'll see if the Religious Right has gotten what it's wanted.


TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:01:09 PM EST

Re: Too broad (none / 0)

Yeah, it's a very interesting point.  Probably Yahoo, MSN, etc. wouldn't be involved somehow because of the email, but every one of those major sites also offer messenger services engrained in their email plus online profiles that correspond.  There's no way in hell that this, as written, goes anywhere.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a non issue (none / 0)

Different school districts have different guidelines about accessing the Internet. I just tried to access MySpace from my school computer and it's blocked.

I teach math and science to students who speak English as a second language. It would be wonderful if I could put pictures of my fun labs on the Internet for the parents and public, but I can't. It would help my students learn English (as well as science and math) if my students could blog about science and math. But they can't.

At least here in Broward County, Florida, district policy is made with input from administrators, teachers, students, and parents.  Personally, I don't have a problem with blocking web access, because I am a "stakeholder" in our school board policies. Even though I allowed my own children to surf the web freely, I understand that different parents have different guidelines.

I am allowed to contact teachers from different districts and set up distance learning lessons.  We have excellent technologies for collaboration, although it is difficult to learn and to set up.

So I guess what I am trying to say in a roundabout way is that here in Broward County we already carefully monitor what our students are doing on their school computers.  

Free Internet access in schools is a can of worms. IMO, politically it's the same can of worms.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:44:48 PM EST

Re: Republicans Seek To Restrict Youth... (none / 0)

As a middle school teacher, MySpace.com is overwhelmingly one of the most important things in my student's lives.  Everytime I give them an assignment to use school computers, someone asks if they can "go on myspace."  This website is hideousand loaded with profanity.  True, parents need to monitor the surfing, but they do not.  If they did, myspace.com would not be the phenomenon that it is.  
Keep it out of schools.  Allow it in other public places.
by ucladave on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:44:54 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.