This is essentially the same thing that I wrote on the blog, 'My Left Nutmeg', in response to a very good commentary written and compiled by 'Maura' on proposed legislation concerning "social networking web sites" and the problems with it.
Here is the legislation that is in question (really just section 3 of House Bill 6981):
I spent some time yesterday trying to come up with a definition for "social networking web site" and other changes to whole section that would allow for the intention of the bill without impinging on free speech. And, I have to tell you, I am not sure it can be done.
The intention of this section 3 seems to boil down to protecting kids from predators on the Internet by preventing kids from creating MySpace-type accounts without their parents' permission, and to make it the websites' responsibility to enforce this.
As Maura alluded to, the problem with this is not just the question of whether kids should be allowed to create "social networking" profiles without their parents' permission. This biggest problem is that this...
After thinking about it a bit, I started to focus my attempt to create a definition on one that would narrow the meaning of "social networking web site" to ones that are intended to be exclusively about social companionship, while explicitly excluding sites that deal with commentary, news, arts, politics, etc. That would seem to exempt blogs and CT News Junkie. But there would still be much use of the internet that would unintentionally fall within the definition, so I started to add more and more exceptions to the definition. In the end, there had to be so many exceptions built into the legislation that it would probably have next to none of its intended effect.
I still have an open mind, but I tend to agree with Mike Lawlor that, a least right now, it seems unlikely that a workable definition can be drafted. If that is the case, the best thing that can be done would be simply remove section 3 from this bill, altogether.
Of course, the state does have a role in protecting children against predators on the Internet - arresting and prosecuting the predators - but that is a different subject.
As I alluded to when I spoke with Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie, the best thing parents can do to protect their kids is to do what I did. I recently helped my stepson to set up a blog for himself on Blogger - which hosts this blog. I did this because I want to encourage him to be creative. But, in so doing, I very clearly told him to never, never post his actual name, his phone number, address, e-mail address, photos of himself or anything else that could be used to identify who he is. And I told him not to allow his friends to do this on his blog, either. (And this reminds me that I should check it today to see that he is following these rules.) I also thought that, if I gave him a place on the Internet that I know about and can monitor, that this might discourage him from using MySpace - which, in any case, he thinks is an uncool website.
Anyway, this legislation may be an example of an idea with the best of intentions that just cannot work.
Here is the legislation that is in question (really just section 3 of House Bill 6981):
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) As used in this section, "social networking web site" means an Internet web site containing profile web pages of members of the web site that include the name or nickname of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, other personal information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking web sites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the web site. A social networking web site provides members of or visitors to such web site the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may include a form of electronic mail for members of such web site.It is not uncommon for legislators to vote to pass a bill through a committee with the understanding that it needs serious work before becoming law. That is what I did yesterday when I voted to pass this bill out of the Judiciary Committee. I privatively told Rep. Chris Stone, chair of the General Law Committee, which originated this bill, that I share concerns raised by Rep. Mike Lawlor, chair of the Judiciary Committee, that this legislation, as drafted, would seem to outlaw blogs - including, by the way, this one - and would tend to harm free speech in a number of important ways. I gave Rep. Stone the courtesy to allow him to try to address my concerns, but I still plan to oppose this bill in the full House of Representatives if these concerns are not addressed.
(b) No owner or operator of a social networking web site shall allow a minor using a computer located in this state to create or maintain a profile web page on such web site without first obtaining the written permission of the minor's parent or guardian and without providing such parent or guardian access to such profile web page at all times.
(c) An owner or operator of a social networking web site shall adopt and implement procedures to utilize independently obtainable information to confirm the accuracy of personal identification information collected from members, parents and guardians at the time of registration on such web site.
(d) A violation of any provision of this section shall constitute an unfair trade practice under subsection (a) of section 42-110b of the general statutes. For purposes of this section, each day an owner or operator of a social networking web site fails to adopt and implement the procedures required under subsection (c) of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
I spent some time yesterday trying to come up with a definition for "social networking web site" and other changes to whole section that would allow for the intention of the bill without impinging on free speech. And, I have to tell you, I am not sure it can be done.
The intention of this section 3 seems to boil down to protecting kids from predators on the Internet by preventing kids from creating MySpace-type accounts without their parents' permission, and to make it the websites' responsibility to enforce this.
As Maura alluded to, the problem with this is not just the question of whether kids should be allowed to create "social networking" profiles without their parents' permission. This biggest problem is that this...
No owner or operator of a social networking web site shall allow a minor using a computer located in this state to create or maintain a profile web page...inherently requires website operators to assume that every prospective user of their site is a child unless they can document that they are not. This is one of those legislative proposals that often appear that look, at first glace, like it is targeted in the effect, but, when you think about it, you can see that it is really a rule affecting everyone, not just a certain few. And so, in reality, this provision would mean greater regulation of adult use of the Internet, as well as kids'. And that is without even getting into the free-speech rights that kids have, too.
After thinking about it a bit, I started to focus my attempt to create a definition on one that would narrow the meaning of "social networking web site" to ones that are intended to be exclusively about social companionship, while explicitly excluding sites that deal with commentary, news, arts, politics, etc. That would seem to exempt blogs and CT News Junkie. But there would still be much use of the internet that would unintentionally fall within the definition, so I started to add more and more exceptions to the definition. In the end, there had to be so many exceptions built into the legislation that it would probably have next to none of its intended effect.
I still have an open mind, but I tend to agree with Mike Lawlor that, a least right now, it seems unlikely that a workable definition can be drafted. If that is the case, the best thing that can be done would be simply remove section 3 from this bill, altogether.
Of course, the state does have a role in protecting children against predators on the Internet - arresting and prosecuting the predators - but that is a different subject.
As I alluded to when I spoke with Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie, the best thing parents can do to protect their kids is to do what I did. I recently helped my stepson to set up a blog for himself on Blogger - which hosts this blog. I did this because I want to encourage him to be creative. But, in so doing, I very clearly told him to never, never post his actual name, his phone number, address, e-mail address, photos of himself or anything else that could be used to identify who he is. And I told him not to allow his friends to do this on his blog, either. (And this reminds me that I should check it today to see that he is following these rules.) I also thought that, if I gave him a place on the Internet that I know about and can monitor, that this might discourage him from using MySpace - which, in any case, he thinks is an uncool website.
Anyway, this legislation may be an example of an idea with the best of intentions that just cannot work.
