Thanks for getting the word out on this. This is an unbelievable piece of legislation that screams “we really don’t know what we’re talking about, but it sounds good.”

I’ve started my letter writing campaign. I’m starting with sharing my disappointment with my representatives, then I am moving on to begging my senators not to pass this. I have invited my representative to respond to my letter via my blog. We’ll see what happens. If anyone wants to “steal” parts of this letter, feel free. Just WRITE!

Unfortunately, this conversation is happening within our usual echo chamber. Somehow, this conversation needs to be moved outside of us. Ideas?

http://www.nlcommunities.com/communities/brianmullnl

Will Richardson’s thoughts on DOPA passing are depressing. Moreover, his first paragraph makes me step back and say “Whoa, friend. Back up from the ledge and let’s look at things realistically.” I understand and can empathize with his frustrations being someone who will be directly affected by this bill.

First, this bill, coming up on mid-term elections, was of course going to get fast tracked through the House. Every two years these people are up for re-election and the soccer moms across the country want their kids protected. To vote against this bill would be political suicide. Now, the Senate has more ability to slow this down, but if Republicans need social issues to stand on, this is an easy way to prop poll numbers… and any one who plans to vote against this bill would have hard time explaining why they did as commercials run saying that they denied protections to children. That is the political reality and the way this bill is named is no political mistake.

Second, David Warlick and I have had an excellent dialogue going on about this bill. His concern is centered more in the vagueness of what can be blocked. I agree that the vagueness is a major issue. I would feel more comfortable if Fitzpatrick would come out directly with a list of sites he is looking to have blocked. I know this will be a political football to be tossed around (rest easy knowing that Rupert Murdoch owns myspace.com, and he has a few bucks to pass around on Capitol Hill). My distrust of Big Brother Government was cemented when I read Animal Farm and 1984 as a middle-schooler, so needless to say I am against this bill just on those grounds.

Third, there are loopholes written into the bill that will not completely shutout commercial social networking sites. And commercial is the key word. Nothing is stopping me for setting up a site for my school district to use social technologies in a responsible fashion. Some of the highlights of the bill, according to Michael Fitzpatrick’s website, are:

• H.R. 5319 requires schools that receive Federal Universal Service Funding to prevent the access of children to a chat room or social networking website. Schools may disable protection measures in order to allow use by students with adult supervision for educational purposes, or by adults;

• H.R. 5319 requires libraries that receive Federal Universal Service Funding to prevent the access of children without parental authorization to a chat room or social networking website;

• H.R. 5319 requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create a website and issue consumer alerts to inform parents, teachers and school officials about the potential dangers on the Internet, specifically online sexual predators and their ability to contact children through social networking sites and chat rooms.

Acceptable use policies can be adjusted to address this bill. Parental authorization can be granted when they sign the AUP should the need arise. I have stated this already in my blog, but it need restating here:

I think the spirit of the bill is not to stifle legit teaching, but unfettered student access to commercial social sites.