<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Congress to Accidentally Ban (Some) Teen Bloggers?</title>
	<link>http://independentsources.com/2006/05/12/congress-to-accidentally-ban-some-teen-bloggers/</link>
	<description>Independent thinking about  California Politics, Hot Bikini Clad Teachers (Erica Chevillar), Topless Teachers (Tamara Hoover), Hot French Newscaster Melissa Theuriau, Katie Rees  &#038; the LA Times</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://independentsources.com/2006/05/12/congress-to-accidentally-ban-some-teen-bloggers/#comment-12568</link>
		<author>Chad</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 04:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://independentsources.com/2006/05/12/congress-to-accidentally-ban-some-teen-bloggers/#comment-12568</guid>
		<description>I just read the act.  As I read it it would not ban access to all chat rooms etc.  but to those that were determined to allow easy access to objectionable material.  If I read it correctly there would be a commission to determine what sites those were.  What is more disturbing to me is that even though these measure are routinely struck down by the courts congress keeps passing them.  it is also disturbing that the business week article attempts to present the idea that adult access to these sites will be limited when, from what I can read that is not the case.  This law if it passes is almost certain to be struck down as a 1st amendment restriction.

Of course I could be completely wrong too. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read the act.  As I read it it would not ban access to all chat rooms etc.  but to those that were determined to allow easy access to objectionable material.  If I read it correctly there would be a commission to determine what sites those were.  What is more disturbing to me is that even though these measure are routinely struck down by the courts congress keeps passing them.  it is also disturbing that the business week article attempts to present the idea that adult access to these sites will be limited when, from what I can read that is not the case.  This law if it passes is almost certain to be struck down as a 1st amendment restriction.</p>
<p>Of course I could be completely wrong too. <img src='http://independentsources.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Insider</title>
		<link>http://independentsources.com/2006/05/12/congress-to-accidentally-ban-some-teen-bloggers/#comment-12567</link>
		<author>Insider</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 03:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://independentsources.com/2006/05/12/congress-to-accidentally-ban-some-teen-bloggers/#comment-12567</guid>
		<description>It's scary to think that Republicans think that children in school should only be allowed to access static web pages uploaded via FTP and without comments enabled.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s scary to think that Republicans think that children in school should only be allowed to access static web pages uploaded via FTP and without comments enabled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.355 seconds -->
