WASHINGTON, DC – Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced new legislation to the House of Representatives on Wednesday that is bound to raise some eyebrows among not only free speech advocates but also within the conference rooms and strategy sessions at News Corp. – the umbrella corporation that is parent to a wide variety of media outlets, including Fox News, The New York Post, Harper Collins Publishing, and MySpace.com.Fitzpatrick’s bill, dubbed the “Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006” (also known as “HR 5319”), appears to be a direct reaction to recent headlines concerning the presence of “child predators” on MySpace.com and other, similar, sites.
According to the summary that precedes the actual language of the bill, the purpose of the legislation is “To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms.”
“Sites like Myspace and Facebook have opened the door to a new online community of social networks between friends, students and colleagues,” Fitzpatrick stated in a press release posted to his website. “However, this new technology has become a feeding ground for child predators that use these sites as just another way to do our children harm.”
What may prove troubling to some observers (and perhaps outright unconstitutional to others) is the bill’s rather vague definition of “commercial social networking websites.”
Under the bill’s current language (language which a spokesperson for Fitzpatrick concedes is likely to be put through a “tough markup process” prior to a vote in the House), the term “commercial social networking website” is defined as:
“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.”
On its face, this definition seems expansive enough to include not only virtually any message board, but also any websites which merely include such features and/or abilities.
The definition of “chat room” under the bill is similarly broad, although more clear, and in better concordance with the general online use of the term. The definition of “chat room” in the bill reads as follows:
“The term ‘chat rooms’ means Internet websites through which a number of users can communicate in real time via text and that allow messages to be almost immediately visible to all other users or to a designated segment of all other users.”
The bill also mandates the creation of an advisory board to the FCC. The board would “consist of 8 members appointed by the Chairman of the Commission” and include four representatives from the private sector, while the other four members would be “representative of the Commission, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, the Crimes against Children Research Center, school boards, and primary and secondary school educators, respectively.”
The bill would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), within 90 days of enactment of the Act, to: “issue a consumer alert regarding the potential dangers to children of Internet child predators, including the potential danger of commercial social networking websites and chat rooms through which personal information about child users of such websites may be accessed by child predators.”
As another service to concerned parents, the bill would also require the FTC to “establish a website with a distinctive Uniform Resource Locator to serve as a resource for information for parents, teachers and school administrators, and others regarding the potential dangers posed by the use of the Internet by children, including information about commercial social networking websites and chat rooms through which personal information about child users of such websites may be accessed by child predators.”
“As the father of six children, I hear about these websites on a daily basis,” said Fitzpatrick. “However, the majority of these networking sites lack proper controls to protect their younger users. Also, many parents lack the resources to protect their children from online predators. My legislation seeks to change that.”
The proposed legislation is already causing a stir in the blogger community. While most bloggers do acknowledge the risk to children presented by such sites, they worry that the law’s broad, vague language could have unintended consequences, and many argue the legislation would be ineffective and is unnecessary to begin with.
“(W)hen it comes to social networking sites, the Del Mar Colleges and Mike Fitzpatrick’s of the world also need to accept that the world has changed,” states Tom Boone, Head of Electronic and Information Services for the Wiener-Rogers Law Library in his blog on librarylaws.org. “They can block and ban whatever they want, but the world will never change back. Ever.”
“There is a golden opportunity here for schools, libraries, and even the government to embrace these tools and incorporate them into everyday life,” Boone continues. “While doing so, they can certainly educate young people about the dangers of putting too much personal information onto these sites. But the increasing number of institutions that are opting to bury their collective heads in the sand will accomplish little more than the promotion of ignorance.”
