A bill now before the U.S. president seeks to establish a controlled kid.us domain to provide a safe and clean place for children (and parents)
The world is unsafe, especially for children. In the USA it is not so much violence that is considered dangerous for their innocent souls, but rather sexuality. The US government is fighting the war-ready nation not only with strict laws in real life (dangerous doctor games), but also on the Internet. Now the Senate and the House of Representatives have approved a bill to create a protected zone for children on the Internet, which only needs to be signed by President Buch to become law.
The Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was intended to ban indecency online, was a decisive factor in the politicization of some netizens at a time when the Web was only just being discovered by business and politics (the Communications Decency Act has been repealed). In 1997, however, the CDA failed at the Supreme Court (The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the CDA as unconstitutional). The next step was the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998 (the comeback of the Communications Decency Act). Already signed by Clinton, it has been rejected again as unconstitutional (CDA II failed). The Supreme Court, however, returned it to an appeals court this year. The matter has not yet been finally decided. In the case of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the Supreme Court has yet to ie its final decision (far beyond the capabilities of today’s technology). The ie is whether public libraries can be forced by law to install filters if they want to continue to receive funding from the government.
Controlled restricted areas on the web as a solution
After being confronted with attempts to remove sexuality and pornography from the web (cf. There is a difference between simulation and reality) or by filters to hide, was not very successful, the initiator of the law, the democratic senator Byron Dorgan, had the not quite new idea, a kind of blocking district or "cyber-sanctuary" for children on the web. This follows on from a failed project in which consideration was given to creating a Top Level Domain .to introduce the TLD via a law. In the ICANN, which is responsible for this, such a TLD has been discussed, but finally it has been rejected as too problematic (US politicians want to introduce the .kids domain with a law enforce). One of the problems was that the USA had imposed its ideas of content that should be considered objectionable for children on the entire Internet. In addition, ICANN, which is supposed to be independent but is still under the curatorship of the U.S. Department of Commerce, had to be forced by U.S. law to. The new law bypasses this difficulty by simply adding a subdomain to the country code domain .us is to be introduced for the playground protected by a virtual wall.
Other American proposals to clean up and parcel out the Internet are also still up in the air. Earlier this year, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu reintroduced the Family Privacy Protection Act, a proposal to force operators of pornographic Web sites to use only one Top Level Domain (TLD), to be set up for them by ICANN (The Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002).sex law). The idea existed already before: Dot-sex.
Presumably, President Bush was allowed to sign the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002, by which the National Telecommunications and Information Administration established a new Internet domain .kids.us is to be introduced in order to provide children under 13 years of age with a "protected place for content" to offer. They should provide them and their families with "positive experiences when using the Internet" because here the children are not exposed to objectionable content. "The Internet is an amazing tool", says Dorgan, "but for children it can sometimes turn into a scary or even dangerous place. Children need a safe place to go on the internet."
only positive and valuable content suitable for children in the American "Basic district"
Every website that wants to register under the dot-kids domain is first checked to see if the content is appropriate for children. It must be guaranteed, according to Dorgan, that the online experience in the "Grunlichtbezirk" from beginning to end "fun" and be age-appropriate. Therefore, the sites are also constantly reviewed and immediately removed if something inappropriate appears on them. Chat rooms and instant messaging are banned for the time being and will only be allowed if their security can be guaranteed. Links that come from .kid.us were not allowed to be put. So the wall should not have windows either.
The main difficulty was how to interpret the content criteria. For minors unsuitable shall be considered any content that an average person would consider unsuitable for minors according to current social standards, because it is intended to arouse or serve lascivious interests. This includes content that "apparently anstobic way" a "real or simulated sexual contact, a real or simulated normal or perverted sex act, or a suggestive display of genitalia or postpubescent female breasts. It is also not suitable for children who are given the whole content of a novel "serious, artistic, political, or scientific value" is missing. Of course, this can undermine a great deal – and not only on the Internet.
Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology criticizes the law as well-intentioned but ineffectual. To protect the "basic light district" to be effectively protected by the state, time-consuming and expensive monitoring would be necessary. The money for this should rather be spent on educational measures. There were also problems with the content, because different content was suitable for four-year-olds than for twelve-year-olds. To be sure, it had to be geared more toward younger children, but then kids.us be uninteresting for the older ones. And finally, one of the central Internet technologies was abused, as domain names were introduced for stable connections, not for political purposes. The legally introduced domain "opens the door for other uses of domain names, which could eventually hinder the development of the Internet". In fact, many possibilities and motives can be discerned for fragmenting the Internet through virtual territories and renationalizing it by drawing in borders.