Comments on: DOPA Returns http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/ Learning with the Read/Write Web Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:36:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bump on the Blog » DOPA Junior http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11680 Bump on the Blog » DOPA Junior Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:06:19 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11680 [...] I am sure most of you are aware that Senator Stevens (AK) reintroduced his DOPA legislation as a subsection to Senate Bill 49. After comparing the wording of the original bill and the wording of S. 49, Title II (DOPA), it appears that the language is identical, with only slight revisions referring to cyber-bullying. Will Richardson inquired about this issue in a January 22 post. Reading the comments on Will’s post, there appears to be mixed feelings as to whether or not this piece of legislation will even make it out of committee: [...]

]]> By: Bump on the Blog » DOPA Junior http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11655 Bump on the Blog » DOPA Junior Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:20:46 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11655 [...] I am sure most of you are aware that Senator Stevens (AK) reintroduced his DOPA legislation as a subsection to Senate Bill 49. After comparing the wording of the original bill and the wording of S. 49, Title II (DOPA), it appears that the language is identical, with only slight revisions referring to cyber-bullying. Will Richardson inquired about this issue in a January 22 post. Reading the comments on Will’s post, there appears to be mixed feelings as to whether or not this piece of legislation will even make it out of committee: Tom Hoffman Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm Dude, the Republicans have no power to actually put this on the agenda now. This is utterly meaningless. [...] [...] I am sure most of you are aware that Senator Stevens (AK) reintroduced his DOPA legislation as a subsection to Senate Bill 49. After comparing the wording of the original bill and the wording of S. 49, Title II (DOPA), it appears that the language is identical, with only slight revisions referring to cyber-bullying. Will Richardson inquired about this issue in a January 22 post. Reading the comments on Will’s post, there appears to be mixed feelings as to whether or not this piece of legislation will even make it out of committee: Tom Hoffman Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm Dude, the Republicans have no power to actually put this on the agenda now. This is utterly meaningless. [...]

]]> By: Douglas Levin http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11497 Douglas Levin Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:05:59 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11497 Text of the bill is now up. Search http://thomas.loc.gov/ for bills introduced by Senator Stevens and go to S. 49 for the details. Text of the bill is now up. Search http://thomas.loc.gov/ for bills introduced by Senator Stevens and go to S. 49 for the details.

]]> By: Acronym hate list: DOPA Jr… at The Corkboard http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11483 Acronym hate list: DOPA Jr… at The Corkboard Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:14:34 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11483 [...] Care of David Warlick and Will Richardson: The Birth of DOPA Jr. [...] [...] Care of David Warlick and Will Richardson: The Birth of DOPA Jr. [...]

]]> By: andy carvin http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11468 andy carvin Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:22:11 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11468 That's all that's been released for now. The full text of the bill, and its title, should be published soon. It appears to be a rehash of both DOPA and Stevens' bill to force ISPs that carry adult materials to tag all content as "adult" or face jail time. I'm not sure if we should read much into it; senators routinely re-submit legislation at the start of the new session. If it's going to go anywhere, it needs to get through Sen Patrick Leahy, and it's doubtful he'll let it go very far without serious scrutiny. That’s all that’s been released for now. The full text of the bill, and its title, should be published soon. It appears to be a rehash of both DOPA and Stevens’ bill to force ISPs that carry adult materials to tag all content as “adult” or face jail time. I’m not sure if we should read much into it; senators routinely re-submit legislation at the start of the new session. If it’s going to go anywhere, it needs to get through Sen Patrick Leahy, and it’s doubtful he’ll let it go very far without serious scrutiny.

]]> By: Douglas Levin http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11464 Douglas Levin Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:49:32 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11464 Here are the details (available via THOMAS): S.49 Title: A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent the carriage of child pornography by video service providers, to protect children from online predators, and to restrict the sale or purchase of children's personal information in interstate commerce. Sponsor: Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] (introduced 1/4/2007), Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Here are the details (available via THOMAS):

S.49

Title: A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent the carriage of child pornography by video service providers, to protect children from online predators, and to restrict the sale or purchase of children’s personal information in interstate commerce.

Sponsor: Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] (introduced 1/4/2007), Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

]]> By: Will Richardson http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11461 Will Richardson Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:34:06 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11461 Dude, the House passed the thing like 410-10 or something, so don't think it still doesn't have some support. I agree it will be harder to advance, but rumors also had it that the new CIPA language was going to address social networks as well. Dude, the House passed the thing like 410-10 or something, so don’t think it still doesn’t have some support. I agree it will be harder to advance, but rumors also had it that the new CIPA language was going to address social networks as well.

]]> By: Bill Fitzgerald http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11451 Bill Fitzgerald Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:58:23 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11451 Yeah, but it would be so much fun to hear the Honorable Senator from Alaska talk about his various internets... Yeah, but it would be so much fun to hear the Honorable Senator from Alaska talk about his various internets…

]]> By: Tom Hoffman http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-11441 Tom Hoffman Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:07:41 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/dopa-returns/#comment-11441 Dude, the Republicans have no power to actually put this on the agenda now. This is utterly meaningless. Dude, the Republicans have no power to actually put this on the agenda now. This is utterly meaningless.

]]>