Does John McCain's S431 Also Violate Political Messages of Citizens ?

10-15-2008 National:

It appears that some citizens have uploaded videos of various political messages made by John McCain's campaign for presidency to the popular YouTube site.

Following that there have been complaints (likely from news organizations) that those videos violate DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) law, and as a result, YouTube has removed those videos or shortened them to 10 seconds or so. (YouTube Responds to McCain Campaign's Letter)

Computerworld has detailed those actions in its article "Update: McCain protests YouTube's removal of his campaign videos."

In a letter to YouTube John McCain's counsel cites specific court cases and laws to support his contention that YouTube has acted improperly in removing those videos. i.e., EVIDENCE supporting his position.

I find it ironic that John McCain wants to rely on EVIDENCE when evidence is exactly what he ignored or refused to review, when he and others in Congress, passed S-431 "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" or the "KIDS Act of 2008."

The evidence which Congress ignored was that, Congress refused to look at WHO was committing Internet Sex Crimes, former offenders or new offenders?

If Congress wanted to prevent those crimes then its legislation should target those who are committing such acts, in this case it is NEW OFFENDERS not former offenders. i.e., MySpace removed 36,000 accounts of former offenders and turned them over to state attorneys general offices which could not find any that had committed crimes against minors while on MySpace.

While it is true that some of the 36,000 were on parole or probation and were not supposed to be accessing the Internet, but those were parole violations as none of them had committed a crime against a minor while on MySpace.

Instead, Congress, through name calling and misconstruction of the evidence, BROADLY claimed "sex offenders" -without defining same- were committing such offenses. The use of the term "sex offenders" without defining same permitted Congress to bring under the umbrella "former sex offenders."

No state, and I repeat, no state uses the "Broad" form of "sex offender" when enacting their sex offense criminal laws. Every state codifies their sex offense laws by defining the different types of sex offenses that are committed, hence, recognizing the differences in sex offenders.

If states used the Broad" form of "sex offender" they would only need one statute, one that says, you committed a sex offense and the punishment is xx, there would not be any further breakdown of sex offenses.

Accordingly, McCain's S-431 uses the "Broad form Sex Offenders" so that EVIDENCE will not be reviewed, but now the shoe is on the other foot, McCain is being denied something, and he wants EVIDENCE reviewed.


McCain claims he has a right to have the general public hear his political messages, and I agree he has that right, but so does every single American Citizen.

Former sex offenders, as American Citizens, have the right to have their political messages heard. They have the right to assert those messages and many did exactly that when they had MySpace accounts, they also do the same on other social networking sites and elsewhere on the Internet.

However, the message told to Congress during S-431 discussions was, that former sex offenders were soliciting minors on the Internet, far too many Congressmen made such claims, and they did such by refusing to review the EVIDENCE. The evidence used before Congress was evidence resulting from persons committing NEW Internet sex offenses, not former sex offenders.

Unfortunately Congress is not accountable to anyone for the EVIDENCE they use to support legislation they enact, nor do they need any EVIDENCE to enact legislation ( heresay, myths, sound bites and misconstructions abound), but in this writer's opinion they should be.

So, we come down to whether John McCain's EVIDENCE should be used to support his claims?

I am sure any RSOs or their family members have a position on that issue, and if they see any of John McCain's political videos on YouTube that violate the DMCA, I am sure they will take the appropriate action with YouTube.

In closing we should all remember the title of John McCain's S-431 "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008," I wonder what the real intent is, is it really Keeping the Internet free of RSOs no matter what the words are within the law? More on that in an upcoming commentary on S-431.

eAdvocate

PS: A new commentary on S-431 and what transpired within Congress is coming.