In this piece from What Writing Does and How It Does It Barton introduces the audience to linguistics that focuses on the social in general and to rich feature discourse analysis in particular. As she explains it, discourse analysis looks at "how specific features of language contribute to the interpretation of texts in their various contexts" (57). Rich feature analysis take a specific feature, chosen for its "interestingness" or likelyhood of proving significant to understanding the structure and function of that feature in a particular context, and codes a representative sample of texts in order to analyze and draw conclusions from the data. Discourse analysis tends to be qualitative with quantitative "verification" (usually through coding).

Though Barton does tip her hat to the complicated nature of academic discourse (65), still she seems to privilege the "epistemic stance" of those she identifies as experienced writers (which in the case of her study refers to experienced academics writing for a general academic audience). While she criticizes the work of her students as overly general, which motivates her 1993 study, she does not comment on the stance of experienced writers, whose stance toward the making of knowledge she identifies as "oppositional, the product of contrast and competition" (74). My belief [look, an evidential!] that she (possibly unknowingly) privileges this perspective is furthered when she fails to recognize a complication in her frustration with the work or writers who place the privy of knowledge in "general society" (74). Meanwhile, she terms experienced writers as part of an "academic community" without commenting on how the notion of community founded on opposition and conflict is a sort of complex situation. In many ways I realize this quarrel is not quite fair; for one thing, I'm charging Barton with not paying attention to something that is one of my declared projects, not hers. Second, she claims that her study is a way of helping educators understand the foundational difference between positions of what she names experienced and inexperienced writers, and I think this is clearly an important project for composition as well as any field that struggles with student writing (likely all of them).

Though she may do so in the extended articles on the topic, I also wish she's have thought about, or at least mentioned the difficulty in selecting pieces from experienced writers who had time and exigency to write their works, but choosing as representative of inexperienced writers whatever they produced during proficiency exams which were most likely timed and in response to often unconvincing prompts. Also, in critique of what I called "social science-y," Barton uses terms like the context of "academic discourse," and "analyze," and "representative" that are portrayed as valueless, but which I think carry much ideological and constructed weight.

But again, the tone of the book is very textbook-y, and textbooks being meant to introduce and inform (if not indoctrinate) I can see how Barton may not have felt this chapter as being the right space for posing many of these questions. And, the chapter does do a great job of introducing discourse analysis as a genre and its many iterations. She describes structure and function (terms I was not familiar with in this context prior to reading) in manageable and accessible ways and the examples are quite illustrative (see 62-3).

I find among the most useful citations to the chapter's intent that of Thomas Huckin (1992) whose procedure for discourse analysis she reproduces on pages 65-66:
1. selecting an initial corpus
2. identifying salient patterns
3. determinging "interestingness"
4. selecting a study corpus
5. verifying the pattern
6. developing a functional-rhetorical analysis

I also found some interesting citations relative to my own project on pages 65 and 67.

Hope this has been somewhat helpful...

Researcher Profile



I was Rosa Parks and the Statue of Liberty. Our elementary school plays were unconventional (unless as a future mother to elementary school students I learn otherwise). I believe, though, that the enacting of such prominent figures of justice and deep democratic concern for all peoples was not lost on me even as a child. This same concern propelled me through an undergraduate degree in literary studies in which I analyzed the plight of characters subject to oppressive social circumstances. And in my dual studies in philosophy I looked for theories that helped explicate the larger systems and positionalities of subjects within them that nurtured and developed such circumstances. It was not until my first semester in a master’s program in English with a concentration in literature that I met Victor Villanueva and Bob Eddy who helped me initially see that all I was doing in Lit was rhetorical analysis of racism and sexism. Combined with problems and possibilities I saw as a FYC TA, I began to understand the Rhetoric and Composition was the place for me.

This conversion narrative, as they’ve been termed in many instances of Rhet Comp scholarship, is not at all uncommon, but it is indeed what brought me to seek a doctorate at SU’s Composition and Cultural Rhetoric Program. Still, my time at Washington State University with Victor and Bob, as well as Kristen Arola, Patty Ericsson, and Barbara Monroe did much to cultivate what I am beginning to formulate as my scholarly project. It seemed to happen through a series of accidents, really—if I hadn’t taken Barbara’s “Rhetoric of the Contact Zone” class my second semester, if patty’s zeal for participation in our professional community at every level hadn’t been so contagious, if Victor hadn’t provided me with a language for describing the serious economic disparity I’ve witnessed first hand, and if Bob hadn’t exposed us to so many works in composition that sought capture through practical pedagogies a way to deal with social injustice and attempt to reform the university as an institution from within, I don’t know where I would be now. (Though I’m fairly certain a lack of passion and particular skills would have barred me from any kind of successful career in Literature.)

In our Theories and Methodologies of Teaching English 101 course, Bob consistently begged us to consider the racial histories and politics that inform the writing classroom. We read Rochelle rock’s Sista Talk and Adam Banks’ Race, Rhetoric, Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. We thought about the material conditions of our students (mostly white, middle class) in comparison to the situation of writing classrooms in other parts of our country. And we asked “How? How can we use the space of the classroom to help our privileged students consider the cost of their own privilege on others whose perspectives are not readily available to us?” This question and the work of Paulo Freire, whose liberatory pedagogy left me feeling righteous and excited for when I’d teach for the first time in the Spring of 2007. But when I got to that classroom and found my students so resistant and unwilling or unable to challenge their own assumptions and positionalities, I became angry. Once, I screamed at one poor student “That’s the kind of racist comment that will get you kicked out of my classroom!” Another time during a conversation about Du Bois, I called my students out, exasperated: “I get the feeling that most of you think that people are, at any given time, where they are because they chose to be.” They nodded in incautious agreement. “Why would my mother choose to be a crack whore?” I practically screamed. One of my scholarly projects was born. It has since been fascinating to me how we position ourselves as teachers in the classroom, and how we can invite students of the dominant social categories into the conversation about oppression and social injustice in meaningful ways that maintains the dignity of everyone involved while not yielding to a bourgeois practice of niceness. I see conflict as healthy in a classroom and something we need to learn to artfully cultivate and navigate. I have also since learned that we need to be suspect when classrooms seem to be going too well. These events have led to one of my upcoming exam areas in Critical Pedagogy and these questions I’ve posed will doubtless be a source of lifetime contemplation, scholarship and growth.

In Barbara’s seminar we read Pratt’s “Arts of the Contact Zone,” which spoke well to my difficulties described above. We also read Scott Lyon’s “Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?” and Bizzell’s “Rationality as Rhetorical Sovereignty at the Barcelona Disputation, 1263.” In addition to having read Bootstraps and Canagarajah’s “The Place of World Englishes” for Bob’s class, these works taken together helped me to conceive of a fundamental problem at the center of my new work—whom did the content of my teaching actually serve? Whose writing was I teaching, professing to be correct? Out of this class was born my fascination with the politics of discourse. I have yet to really flesh out the scope of this project, but I have some of my preliminary projects and interests down. For Iswari Pandey’s class on contemporary rhetorical theory I wrote an analysis of what we mean when we use some of the most basic terms of this field: English, Basic Writing, and Academic Language. What I found is that these terms, as evidenced in Parks’ analysis in of the STROL debates in Class Politics, actually convey much more about power than they do about language. They function to create ominous and unstable communities of membership, and more often, exclusion. I see it as an essential part of the commitment to justice in rhetoric and composition work to remain true to our acknowledgement of the epistemic and ontological centrality of language and cultivate the best practices possible in our classrooms given the diverse literacies and languages of our students. This is another problem I see as inherent in the work I do as a teacher and scholar.

The third primary area of my research, and incidentally what will be my major exam area, is that of technology and literacy. In Bob’s class one of my esteemed peers suggested in conversation one day that idea of using MySpace in the classroom. Thinking back now it seems like such a simple moment that could have just as easily passed with my taking no notice, but it didn’t. I was an avid MySpacer myself and sought any opportunity to connect with my students on a personal level; so I tried it. This became the substance of my first two conference presentations, one at the Eastern Oregon Rhetoric Conference and the other at the C’s in 2008. The project also served as my portfolio paper for my Master’s degree and my writing sample for Syracuse University. Combining aspects of my other two research areas, in my students’ work (mostly reading response) on MySpace I saw alternative forms of discourse and prominent themes of racism and sexism that went unspoken in the primary work of the classroom. I saw a sense of abandon that made me question how students conceived of audience differently in online social spaces. I saw a building community that was absent from the community. In essence I saw possibilities, challenges, and a severely under-researched space of literacy.

Continuing my interest here was a class I taught for Upward Bound at the University of Idaho. The deft with which my first generation college student, or even first generation American in some cases, students of color from low-income families picked up the skills of writing and creating in digital spaces as we created a magazine and website with the Adobe Creative Suite seemed to complicate previous scholarship I’d read in which issues of access and ideological design in technology in effect shut down the conversation about the potential of technology to serve as a means to social justice. In our magazine these high school students explored questions of racism in material distribution, domestic violence, homelessness, the energy crisis, and even MySpace. They represented things that mattered to them in video, graphic design, podcasts, and traditional writing. I saw in their work an enthusiasm, and even hunger, for the chance at expression outside of the realm school typically insists is “fit” or “right.” This led to my second appearance at CCCC and as I’ve already expressed, my major area of scholarly inquiry. Among other things I’d like to investigate how we can reconcile problems in technology with its possibilities, how to work with teachers who represent the more Luddite among us as they begin to incorporate technology into their classrooms, how to work with those who still refuse, and how various technologies facilitate or silence the very diverse and politicized literacies of an increasingly diverse body of students. As I continue reading and growing here in the CCR program, these questions are also expanding to ask questions about service learning and community literacy, and I seek a dissertation and career that will enact these questions and values—but lets get through coursework first, yes?

Although I describe specific incidents as happy accidents that occasioned to fashion me into the scholar I see myself becoming, I must admit that a lot of these projects were a long time coming out of my own biography. My already alluded to mother’s (and father’s actually) addiction, my budding literacy, my need to rely on school and other communities during my formative years and my witness of things unsavory and unjust and just plain painful as a kid helped plant these seeds within me. Role models like a woman who stood up against a machine of racial political when she was already tired enough, migration stories that painting this nation, my home, as a place for gathering together and assembling of new and brighter families and opportunities were narratives I needed just to survive. I had no way of knowing then just how important these stories would be or how far they could take me.

If every scholar has one central project or questions that they spend their career thinking about, I want mine to be one that falls on the left side of the rhetorical spectrum I’ve identified. I want to know all the ways we can expand the means of and meaning of knowledge and authority such that we can expand the material realities of who has access to and can produce it. I want to work in a field that values many contributions from many voices with many methodologies. I want to see the problems and multiplicity and live in the ruins of it all. I recently came across one of the most beautiful quotes I’ve ever read. It was Michael Eric Dyson who wrote: “Social Justice is what love sounds like when it speaks in public.” Composition and Rhetorical Studies for me is like hearing the language of love in the most unlikely of places, and maybe even learning and teaching how it’s spoken.

Selfe and Cooper are referring to students in a tech/comm class, so students who are presumably older than my 17 and 18 year old freshmen. That my students are younger and most are ingrained in MySpace culture long before they came to WSU. They have already developed a strong online identity and community, and they mostly live with their peers.


S&C claim that in part due to the use of pseudonyms, and in part due to the fact that "information about gender, age, and social status disappear unless individuals choose to reveal themselves" (852), students in a computer conference can rach a more egalitarian state. What they forget here is that even though others cannot know these things about a person, still, even when behind a computer screen, the individual enacts the roles they've played due to their privileges or lack thereof. But I agree that the fact that anyone can write as much or little as they want without being seen and certainly without being interrupted helps to mitigate the traditional difficulties of power within a classroom. And, the teacher can largely step out of an authoritative role.

Back to the race and gender thing, one huge point of MySpace, conscious or no, is self-exposure. People can display their voice, interests, bodies, and overall identity through a series of rhetorical choices. So, again, w/MySpace, identity politics do not disappear.

"Resisting through discourse means that individuals challenge and attempt to change there predetermined roles to produce alternate roles, or subjectivities, for themselves." (851). "Creating these alternate subjectivities allows students to become active in their own learning process, to become active in their own learning process, to become speakers in a dynamic context rather than being the subjects of a predetermined discourse" (851).

_________________________________________

danah boyd

"Why Youth <3 style="font-style: italic;">MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning, Identity Volume (ed. David Buckingham).

"Interestingly, I have found that race and social class play little role in terms of access beyond the aforementioned disenfranchised population ["those without Internet access, those whose parents succeed in banning them from participation, and online teens who primarily access the Internet through school and other public venues where social network sites are banned"]. Poor urban black teens seem just as likely to join the site as white teens from wealthier backgrounds- although what they do there has much to do with their level of Internet access" (1).

"Many began participating because of the available social voyeurism and the opportunity to craft a personal representation in an increasingly popular online community. Just like their older counterparts, teenagers loved the ability to visualize their social world through the networked collection of profiles." (2)

~~~This is how it happens: visualizing social communities, why not visualize the academic community and make it social???

"The practices that take place through the use of the most relevant three--profiles, friends and comments--differentiate social network sites from other types of computer-mediated communication. Furthermore, what makes these three practices significant for consideration is that they take place in public: Friends are publicly articulated, profiles are publicly viewed, and comments are publicly visible" (7).

"A MySpace profile can be seen as a form of digital body where individuals write themselves into being. Through profiles, teens can express salient aspects of their identity for others to see and interpret. They construct these profiles for their friends and peers to view" (13).

What boyd would next attend to here, were she in the field of rhetoric, would be a question of how students use written and visual language to construct that identity, and how uses of language in identity construction vary from comments to blogs to description sections. In MySpace, the space is theirs to use language as they will, construct audience and resonds to the needs of that audience as they deem appropriate.

___________________________________________________

CCCC. "Students' Right to Their Own Language." CCC Special Issue, Fall, 1974, Vol XXV.

"We affirm the students' right to their own patterns and varieties of language--the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they ind their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity."

"If we name the essential functions of language as expressing oneself, communicating information and attiudes, and discovering meaning through both logic and metaphor, then we view variety of dialects as an advantage. In self-expression, not only one's dialect but one's idiolect is basic. In communication, one may choose roles which imply certain dialects, but the decision is a social one, for the dialect itself does not limit the information which can be carried, and the attitudes may be most clearly conveyed in the dialect the writer finds most congenial. Dialects are all equally serviceable in logic and metaphor" (11).


_______________________________

James Paul Gee. Situated Language and Learning.

In an analysis of how of the video game "Rise of Nations," reveals its assumptions about th learning process of its users, Gee compiles a list of 25 learning principles that could relate to other learning environments as well. Among them are several that connect to what I have assessed as the benefits of writing work on MySpace:

1. They create motivation for extended engagement.
6. They build in choice from the beginning.
8. "Basic skills" means what you need to learn in order to start taking more control over your own learning and learn by playing.
9. "Experienced" doesn't need to mean "expert," it can mean that one is well prepared for future learning.
13. They offer supervised (i.e. guided) sandbox tutorials (safe versions of the real system).
15. They give information "just in time" and on demand.
16. Learning should be a collaborative dance between the teacher's guidance and the learner's actions and interpretations.
17. They let learners create their own unsupervised sandboxes (i.e. let them be able to customize what you are offering).
22. They allow learners to practice enough so that they routinize their skills and then challenge them with new problems that force them to rethink these taken-for-granted skills and integrate them with new ones.
25. They ensure that leaners have and use an affinity space wherein they can interact with peers and masters, near and far, around a shared interest (even passion), making use of distributed and dispersed knowledge.

These learning principles apply to MySpace as a site for writing instruction just as well as to video games and the general education that Gee mentions.

"In Between Lauding and Deriding: A Pedagogical Review of MySpace." James J. Brown and Lacey Donohue. Currents in Electronic Literacy, Spring 2007.

"It behooves educators to understand how such sites operate, the ways in which our students operate on such sites, and how their interactions and relationships with the site can be incorporated into our teaching."

"Some instructors have expressed concerns about privacy invasion and the potential for blurred lines between student and instructor. If you are aware of these issues, ready to face them, and comfortable with the site, MySpace offers a number of possibilities for the writing classroom."

"If our students enjoy writing on social networking sites, and if a significant portion of their lives are spent creating, commenting on, and 'pimping' profiles, it is in our best interest to begin exploring and re-imagining these spaces as sites of instruction."

__________________________________________________

"Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse." Dec. 1990. College English 52.8: pp 847-869.

"We now notice, for instance, that the traditional forums comprising these classrooms--group discussions, lectures, teacher-student conferences, written assignments--generally support a traditional hegemony in which teachers determine th appropriate an inappropriate discourse. We notice, further, that this political arrangement encourages intellectual accommodation in students, discourages intellectual resistance, and hence may seriously limit students' understanding of, and effective use of, language. As a result, we have begun to recognize the need for non-traditional forums for academic exchange, forums that allow interaction patters disruptive of a teacher-centered hegemony. These forums should encourage students to use language to resist as well as to accommodate and should enable individuals to create internally persuasive discourse, as well as to adopt discourse validated by external authority" (847).

Disruptive behavior is usually related to course material, students' dissatisfactions with it. They don't object to the learning, but the teachers' methodologies.

"We will argue that these computer conferences are powerful, non-traditional learning forums for students not simply because they allow for another oppurtunity for collaboration and dialogue--although this is certainly one of their functions--but also because they encourage students to resist, dissent, and explore the role that controversy and intellectual divergence play in learning and thinking" (849).

"Education, even as it empowers students with new knowledge and the ability to operate successfully within academic discourse communities, also oppress them, dictating a specific set of values and beliefs along with appropriate forms of behavior" (850).

"Thus, we know that using discourse effectively as a social force involves understanding both the values of constancy, or convention, and the value of change, of resistance to convention" (850).

"By encouraging students to resist in academic forums, we recognize and authorize them as members within the educational system, with as much right to initiate change as any of us" (851).


_____________________________________________

How is MySpace different from these online conferences??? It's inherently social, involves online identity, blogs???, power is compromised, I'm a user just as they are...

James Paul Gee... the sandbox: allows them freedom of play, they can choose how much, how little, what, to say. How.

If Burke is right, and language is epistemological, then doesn't it serve students in the process of learning to do so in their own language. Learning is moving from what is known to what is unknown (Barbara)... moving from their own language to the language mandated by convention...

At the same time, in response to notions of teaching change..., in light of our responsibility to give them the tools to succeed in a world so governed by conventions, we must provide the rhetorical toolbox necessary for recognizing, analyzing, and reproducing the rules of a particular discourse community... then they can decide when to push boundaries and when to conform.

danah boyd

Villanueva, Victor. Bootstraps.
Monroe, Barbara. Crossing the Digital Divide: Race, Writing, and Technology in the Classroom.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives.
Brock, Rochelle. Sista Talk.
Banks, Adam. Race, Rhetoric, and Technology.
Schroeder, Christopher, Helen Fox and Patricia Bizzell. Alt Dis.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Winant, Howard. The New Politics of Race.
Dixon, Kathleen. Outbursts in Academe.
Graff, Gerald. Clueless in Academe.
Gee, James Paul. Situated Language and Learning.
Panetta, Clayann Gilliam. Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited.
Warren, Thomas. Cross-Cultural Communication.
Plato. Gorgias.
Plato. Phaedrus.
Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured.
Qunitilian. On the Teaching of Speaking and Writing.
Cicero. On Oratory and Orators.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists.
MacIntyre, Peggy. Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack of Priviledge.
Pratt, Steven. "On Being a Recognizable Indian among Indians."
Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone."

The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Bill 2 of 1000
GPO's PDF Display
Congressional Record References
Bill Summary & Status
Printer Friendly Display - 6,987 bytes.[Help]
XML Display[Help]
Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1120 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1120
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 16, 2007
Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GERLACH, and Mr. ROSKAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) sexual predators approach minors on the Internet using chat rooms and social networking websites, and, according to the United States Attorney General, one in five children has been approached sexually on the Internet;
(2) sexual predators can use these chat rooms and websites to locate, learn about, befriend, and eventually prey on children by engaging them in sexually explicit conversations, asking for photographs, and attempting to lure children into a face to face meeting; and
(3) with the explosive growth of trendy chat rooms and social networking websites, it is becoming more and more difficult to monitor and protect minors from those with devious intentions, particularly when children are away from parental supervision.
SEC. 3. CERTIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE PROTECTIONS AGAINST COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES AND CHAT ROOMS.
(a) Certification by Schools- Section 254(h)(5)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(5)(B)) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
`(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes monitoring the online activities of minors and the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that--
`(I) protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are--
`(aa) obscene;
`(bb) child pornography; or
`(cc) harmful to minors; and
`(II) protects against access to a commercial social networking website or chat room unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision; and'.
(b) Certification by Libraries- Section 254(h)(6)(B) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B)) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
`(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that--
`(I) protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are--
`(aa) obscene;
`(bb) child pornography; or
`(cc) harmful to minors; and
`(II) protects against access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room, and informs parents that sexual predators can use these websites and chat rooms to prey on children; and'.
(c) Definitions- Section 254(h)(7) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
`(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
`(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
`(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
`(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
`(v) enables communication among users.'.
(d) Disabling During Adult or Educational Use- Section 254(h)(5)(D) of such Act is amended--
(1) by inserting `OR EDUCATIONAL' after `DURING ADULT' in the heading; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `or during use by an adult or by minors with adult supervision to enable access for educational purposes pursuant to subparagraph (B)(i)(II)'.
SEC. 4. FTC CONSUMER ALERT ON INTERNET DANGERS TO CHILDREN.
(a) Information Regarding Child Predators and the Internet- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act , the Federal Trade Commission shall--
(1) 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 ; and
(2) establish a website 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 .
(b) Commercial Social Networking Websites- For purposes of the requirements under subsection (a), the terms `commercial social networking website' and `chat room' have the meanings given such terms pursuant to section 254(h)(7)(J) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(7)(J)), as amended by this Act .
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
THOMAS Home Contact Accessibility Legal USA.gov