The House passed a bill recently that would block pornography from any computer that is government owned. But it seems that the House may have been overly restrictive in the language they used in the bill, which could led such organizations such as the ACLU, to object to the bill. What some are saying is that the bill is over restrictive and broad in what it covers, that could in fact violate the 1st amendment rights of those who use the computers.

In a recent article it states that:

The measure, which arrived in the form of an 111-page amendment sponsored by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, says on the second-to-last page: “None of the funds made available in this act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography.”

That choice of wording could sweep in government contractors as well as federal agencies, says John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C.

“It really is breathtaking how broad the reach of this is, and will lead to constitutional problems and economic problems,” Morris said. If a mom-and-pop business has a contract to deliver toilet paper to a military base that includes overhead, he suggested, they’d have to pay to filter their computer networks even though the owner is the only one who uses it.

What made me laugh is that it took 111 pages to say no porn can be viewed on government owned computers? No wonder Washington is so ass backward.Or is it the fact that 100 pages are filled with pork? LOL

Comments welcome.

Source.