Five candidates for the position of America's 44th president, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, were recently quizzed on their feelings regarding violent gaming legislation.

Specifically, the candidates were asked: To date, nearly 10 states have considered legislation to keep violent video games out of kids' hands. Would you support this type of legislation at the federal level? What other strategies would you support to keep the video game industry and other media companies from marketing and selling inappropriate content to children?

Hillary Clinton cited her Family Entertainment Protection Act which would punish retailers with, a fine of $1,000 or 100 hours of community service for the first offense and $5,000 or 500 hours of community service for each subsequent offense.

John Edwards stated that while parents must ultimately decide what games their kids play, he thoroughly supports the efforts of industry associations such as the ESRB saying, The Entertainment Software Rating Board is a good example of industry responsibility.

Similarly, media-darling Barack Obama stated that parents must be the driving force behind what children see, but that it's up to the government and gaming industry to provide comprehensive tools to aid parents.

Bill Richardson's concurred with Edwards and Obama

On the other side of the aisle, Republican Mitt Romney feels that the true issue here is a lack of morality in society. His stated goal is, to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion.

The most striking thing about the entire Q&A is the similarity presented by each candidate. Even across party lines, the similarities presented in each candidate's arguments seem almost rehearsed.

In what is likely to become a black eye for the video game industry, a pair of Colorado teenagers face murder charges following the tragic death of a 7-year-old girl.

Lamar Roberts, 17, and Heather Trujillo, 16, told police they were babysitting Heather’s sister, Zoe Garcia earlier this month. According to the Rocky Mountain News, the three began acting out a version of Mortal Kombat.

Roberts, apparently drunk, kicked the litte girl. Heather Trujillo told police she punched [Zoe] in the stomach, karate chopped her lower arms, punched and pinched the victim’s thighs, kicked her in the shins, slapped her stomach and buttocks and poked at the victim’s chest.

Update: Sentenced

6th July 2008

As reported by Colorado's 9news, Trujillo has received an 18-year sentence which will be suspended if she successfully completes six years in a program for young offenders. She must also testify against Roberts at his upcoming trial.

Game Politics commented: This case is a terrible tragedy. But beyond that it demonstrates the media's focus on the sensational - and perhaps untrue - Mortal Kombat aspect. What has not received nearly as much coverage is that this was a completely dysfunctional family situation, one that was well known to family service authorities in at least two states.

ThinkFilm is preparing an appeal to the MPAA about a poster. The poster art for Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about the pattern of torture practice, is causing a stir due to its depiction of a hooded man being led by American soldiers.

Variety is reporting that the MPAA has officially rejected the poster, and if ThinkFilm goes forward with the marketing, they could have their "R" rating revoked. Taxi to the Dark Side is due for US release on January 11th.

An MPAA spokesman says Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration.

Alex Gibney, the film's writer, producer, and director says, Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real.

A Lubbock city official has banned two drawings from an art show in a city-run facility.

The predominantly pencil-sketched images of a nearly fully clothed mother who is breast-feeding and a nude pregnant woman were banned from the Buddy Holly Center.

Vince Gonzales, president of the Lubbock chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said  that a “nurse-in,” a gathering of nursing mothers at a public place, is being planned for a date in the near future “mostly as a way of supporting Lahib Jaddo and her artwork: I think it also is a response to how breast-feeding mothers are treated in Lubbock. They have to put up with thinly veiled comments from people seated at the next table at a restaurant, and rude and inappropriate remarks from people walking by them at the mall.

GamePolitics has learned that a New Mexico judge today dismissed Jack Thompson’s wrongful death suit against Take Two Interactive and Sony.

The case, filed in 2006 by Thompson and a New Mexico attorney, claimed that Grand Theft Auto Vice City played a role in 14-year-old Cody Posey’s 2004 murder of his father, stepmother and stepsister.

In disposing of the case, Judge Huling ruled that the Court did not have jurisdiction over Take Two and Sony, since neither corporation has offices in New Mexico. Judge Huling also ruled that New Mexico laws did not support Thompson’s wrongful death claim in the case.

British singer M.I.A. has let fly at MTV and David Letterman in a raging blog entry after they edited gunshot noises out of her new single Paper Planes.

The controversial singer-songwriter has achieved worldwide success with her album Kala, and recently visited New York to perform on Late Night With David Letterman.

In a lengthy blog entry littered with spelling mistakes and written in all capital letters, M.I.A. described her fury when she realised her performance was being censored on the talk show.

Paper Planes is the latest single off Kala and its hook features the line "all I want to do is", followed by several gunshot noises and the "cha-ching" of a cash register.

While no official statement regarding Letterman's gunshot chop has been released, online message boards have been debating the reason for the edit.

M.I.A.'s blog entry also attacked MTV, after the music channel — notorious for bleeping out anything to do with firearms — made a similar edit to the video version of Paper Planes.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a US think tank with a free market orientation, has issued a detailed position paper on media content ratings, including those of the ESRB.

Authored by Cord Blomquist and Eli Lehrer, Politically Determined Ratings and How to Avoid Them holds that the ESRB system, while complex, works better than most other rating schemes for media content. Ratings systems alone, however, cannot, over the long haul, influence the type of content produced.

From the report:

The best rating systems have three attributes: They attempt to describe, rather than prescribe, what entertainment media should contain; they are particularly suited to their particular media forms; and they were created with little or no direct input from government.

The [ESRB] system for evaluating computer games works better than most… Parents can tell, at a glance, exactly what they might find objectionable… Congress has held hearings on the video game industry and threatened to regulate content, but the system emerged almost entirely as a result of voluntary private action, and has worked well…

The authors also conclude that politics and media content ratings are a bad mix:

The best ratings systems have evolved in response to market forces. The First Amendment, correctly we believe, has long been interpreted to limit political control over entertainment media, anyway. Ratings systems that avoid government involvement will do a better job giving people the information they need.

Albuquerque's Guild Cinema's independent erotic film festival will not be fined for showing pornographic movies despite its violation of local zoning statutes, partially due to help from the American Civil Liberties Union and 1st Amendment arguments.

Late last week, city authorities threatened to fine the theater for every pornographic movie it showed as part of the festival, but representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union got involved on 1st Amendment grounds.

Molly Adler, co-owner of adult store Self Serve and one of the festival's organizers, said attendance was high all weekend, perhaps because of the publicity. She said the show of support drowned out the small number of complaints from neighbors.

The theater will receive a notice of violation, Albuquerque City Attorney Bob White said, but there will be no penalties. The city also is seeking a meeting with the Guild to avoid further problems.

Guild co-owner Peter Conheim told reporters that he was looking forward to meeting with city officials: My hope is that when we have this meeting ... we will be able to be granted a variance to do this kind of program, without a hassle, on an extremely rare basis. I hope it would mean we could work on the language of the zoning code so it takes more accurately into account art.

The great breast-feeding debate raged after YouTube removed a breast-feeding video.

YouTube is the latest new media site to ban nursing images, following actions at MySpace and Facebook, according to the League of Maternal Justice. Bill Maher stoked the breast-feeding fire when he compared public nursing to masturbation earlier this year.

The folks at the League of Maternal Justice weren't totally surprised that YouTube banned the clip, which was viewed at least 68,000 times before disappearing, but they were upset.

The league asked why YouTube didn't just flag the video as explicit. YouTube stated is doesn't comment on specific videos.

For several years, now the National Institute on Media and the Family has published their annual Video Games Report Card, a sort of "state of the union" address, whose purpose is to rate the various social and political agencies in the gaming world on their overall success in keeping the industry a socially progressive and "well adjusted" environment.

As you might expect, the NIMF places great emphasis on issues which relate directly to the issues surrounding gaming and children, like the violent content debate and parental/retailer responsibilities relating to it. Last year, the gaming industry did pretty well for itself, with big retailers and console manufacturers netting high praise for their efforts in promoting ratings awareness and parental controls in consoles.

In 2008 however, the NIMF's tone has turned decidedly icy towards the industry. "Complacency," reads the report's introduction, especially on the part of retailers and parents, appears to have caused a backslide in ratings awareness and enforcement. At the same time ... several shocking incidents have inadvertently revealed dangerous loopholes in the [ESRB's] ratings process. Simply put, some of the hard-won progress seen in previous years has been lost, and now, too many children are spending too much time playing inappropriate video games that can harm their health and development.

Central to the NIMF's annoyances is the fact parents seem to be telling lies about their own awareness of the ratings system. While more than 50% of adults interviewed were eager to claim awareness of the game ratings system, more than 70% could not actually identify or define what simple terms such as "Rated M" or "AO" meant.

Additionally, the NIMF is still upset more parents are not actively playing games with their children. 38% of moms and 31% of dads take no interest in what games junior has on the go, a situation which has apparently resulted in widespread instances of "M rated" content in the hands of the young'uns. More than 50% of 8-12 year olds for example admit to playing something inappropriate when mom and dad aren't watching. Maybe that's why instances of games causing family friction and infighting is discussed at length in the NIMF's report.

Of course, the Institute is also happy to point the finger at retailers for this occurrence, citing that kids are still able to buy M-Rated material at stores roughly 50% of the time. A select few retailers (Kmart, Hollywood Video and EB Games) managed to dodge the bullet of blame, with a startling 100% compliance figure in the NIMF's enforcement survey.

The report accuses the industry of continuing to dredge the well of poor taste through its promotional and marketing efforts, citing examples like the blood-spatterd Manhunt 2 Wii giveaway and the recent Kane and Lynch: Dead Men Playboy ad campaign, which featured prominently over MySpace. The NIMF dubs these tactics creative new ways to market adult games to kids" and "disgustingly familiar practices in the report.

Interestingly the NIMF does not contain its ire uniquely to the games industry, lashing out also at at religious institutions for the recent (and apparently bizarrely commonplace) trend of attracting youngsters to Sunday School with promises of Halo.

Perhaps the hardest hit party however in the 2008 survey was the ESRB, who took it on the chin multiple times in the report for what is obviously perceived as a severe case of falling down on the job. The Manhunt 2 controversy in particular was not kind to the ratings agency, and the report is full of rebuke for the agency's handling of the situation.

The U.S. House of Representatives have overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Allen said the legislation, called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act, will ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography.

Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must:

(a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline"
(b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that
(c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity
(d) the illegal images themselves.

The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.

Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

The vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate).

Public relations and public affairs consultancy Hill & Knowlton has released the results of a survey, conducted online by Opinion Research Corporation

It found that 60% of 1,147 adult U.S. consumers agree that the government should regulate the sale of violent or mature content.

Additionally, a slight majority, or 51%, of respondents said that the government should be responsible for regulating the content itself, while 54% of those with children in the home concurred that violent or mature content will affect a child's behavior.

As for current gamers surveyed, they split evenly on whether the government should regulate violent content specifically in games, with 44% agreeing it should and 47% responding it should not. Additionally, 55% of gamers also believe that the government should regulate only the sale of games with violent or mature content.

The Entertainment Software Association has responded vehemently to the newly released Hill & Knowlton research on game regulation, revealing it was part of a proposal to the ESA and claiming that the "unprofessional and unethical" release only selectively quotes the full findings.

However the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has responded vehemently to the Hill & Knowlton research on game regulation, revealing it was part of a proposal to the ESA and claiming that the "unprofessional and unethical" release only selectively quotes the full findings.

The official statement from the ESA on the announcement is as follows:

Today, Hill & Knowlton released the findings of research it conducted on the American public's views about the computer and video game industry. According to the agency's findings, a majority of respondents believe that the government should regulate the sale of mature content video games.

We understand that parents have concerns about mature content getting into the hands of children and we are working to help make sure that does not happen. To achieve this important goal, the ESA strongly supports a variety of efforts aimed at educating parents and retailers and allowing them to control mature content.

We support the ESRB, which is the nation's leading rating system working to educate and empower parents with game information. We have also worked within the industry to ensure that password protected, robust parental controls are included in all new video game consoles sold. In addition, we work with retailers to encourage the enforcement of policies that prohibit the sale of mature games to minors.

The research released today was conducted by Hill & Knowlton for a proposal the agency made to the ESA this summer, but only a portion of it was released publicly now. Hill & Knowlton's decision to release these findings was both unprofessional and unethical and its timing is questionable. The research was done this summer and only performed in an effort to help Hill & Knowlton win our business.

In addition, the release of only part of the findings paints an inaccurate picture of the entertainment software industry. The other research conducted by agency but not released showed:

• More than two-thirds of 18-34 year olds currently play video games
• Less than 1 in 5 Americans think playing video games is a negative way to spend time with friends and family
• More than half of families think that video games are a positive way to spend time together
• Educational video games are perceived to provide more learning than TV or DVDs.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission is struggling to find enough support from a majority of the agency’s commissioners to regulate cable television companies more tightly.

The five-member commission is set to vote on Tuesday on a report, proposed by Kevin J. Martin, the agency’s chairman, that would give the commission expanded powers over the cable industry after making a formal finding that it had grown too big.

After news reports this month that Martin supported the finding — along with the commission’s two Democrats — the cable industry heavily lobbied the commission and allies in Congress to kill the proposal. Those efforts may be paying off.

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday backed away from a proposal by the agency's chairman that would open the door to broader regulation of cable TV operators.

The FCC balked at a finding proposed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin that cable companies' subscribership levels had risen enough to justify broad regulation of the industry, agreeing instead to postpone a decision and approve more limited restrictions on the industry, Martin said.

Martin said a majority of the FCC's five commissioners were in agreement on the compromise. Martin said the agreement includes a measure that would limit the rates that cable operators can charge to lease spare channels to independent programmers.

The agreement came after a day of tough negotiations that began after Martin was unable to get a majority of the five commissioners to support the proposed finding.

The idea ran into resistance from Martin's two fellow Republicans on the commission. They questioned the way Martin had arrived at the 70% figure about the reach of cable TV, saying it conflicted with previous reports on the issue. The FCC's two Democratic commissioners also had reservations.

The curtain went down on Ronnie Larsen's play, Making Porn, only shortly after it opened over the March 11 weekend at SPOT, 4146 Manchester Street.

According to a press release by SPOT owner Thomas Long, St. Louis police halted the show during its second performance on Saturday night. The show is a comedy about the pornographic industry that does contain on-stage nudity, Long said in the release. That nudity allegedly broke the ordinance, according the city. It is unclear whether the nudity in Making Porn or its gay-themed subject matter was the catalyst for this action compared to other shows.

Long pointed out that Making Porn was being produced at SPOT by a California-based production company who had leased the space for a three-week run. The show has been produced in numerous other cities in the United States and internationally.

Unhappy with her daughter's private school, Sonjia McSween created a blog to warn other parents.

The unexpected result: The New School of Orlando Inc. slapped McSween with a defamation lawsuit to stop her from publishing and talking about the school and force McSween to pay damages.

Some say it's a case of censorship. Others say First Amendment rights have nothing to do with it.

Rebecca Jeschke, spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates digital free-speech rights and maintains a legal guide for bloggers said: People need to get used to this new world where everyone has a soapbox and can use it.

Also known as New School Preparatory, the kindergarten-through-eighth grade school alleges that McSween deliberately told unflattering lies, causing enrollment to drop. It alleges defamation, libel, slander and interference with business relations.

McSween contends that she was just sharing what happened to her and her daughter, Logan.

The problem started after Logan, now 7, began kindergarten at New School Preparatory in 2005. She withdrew in January and attends another private school. McSween said she spent thousands on tuition, books and registration for the school to "mistreat" her daughter.

My daughter went from being a happy child to a child who was scared to make a mistake because she was not perfect, McSween said.

The lawsuit says McSween posted false and otherwise libelous remarks alleging that students at the Marks Street school were belittled, exposed to "extreme stress" and "dictatorial conditions." She further alleged that the school told parents how to run their homes and threatened parents for speaking negatively about New School Preparatory.

Lawrence Walters, an Altamonte Springs First Amendment lawyer unfamiliar with the New School case, said lawsuits often are designed to stifle criticism by forcing defendants to back down to avoid expensive litigation.

Two game industry veterans have launched a website that aims to help parents who might not know what a first-person shooter is but have kids clamouring for the new Halo 3 game. The site features reviews not for the kids playing the games but for the parents supervising them.

As former editor in chief of two magazines for devoted gamers, John Davison published hundreds of reviews that might as well have been in Klingon to someone who's never picked up a joystick.

"We wanted to provide a place where parents can turn to for neutral, objective information on the games their kids might want to play, said Davison. He and co-founder Ira Becker are counting on advertising to pay the bills.

Davison and Becker believe that parents want trusted, jargon-free information on games that can help them decide what's appropriate for their children. That exists for films, with websites such as Yahoo Inc.'s Movie Mom. But for games, there are few places for parents such as TereLyn Hepple to turn to that don't have social or religious agendas.

Davison said it was important that the editorial content remained neutral and descriptive because what might be scary to one child might be fun for another. For more subjective commentary, the site invites parents to write their own reviews.

We really believe that it's the parents that should be controlling this stuff, Davison said. And the best way to do that is to tell them the facts so they can make the call.

And just to show that ratings are hardly an exact science

	BBFC UK Rating	ESRB US Rating	WhatTheyPlay Parents Rating
Manhunt 2 [Cut M rated version]	Banned	17+	14+
Mass Effect	12+	17+	16+

During recent Senate confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey, President George W. Bush’s nominee to fill the vacant U.S. Attorney General position, Mukasey said that if he is confirmed, he will reevaluate the Justice Department’s obscenity law enforcement strategy.

Senator Orrin Hatch raised the topic of adult entertainment, asserting that the Justice Department has in recent years compiled a terrible record enforcing adult obscenity law. Saying that pornography and obscenity consumption harms individuals, families [and] communities, Hatch asserted that the Justice Department in recent years had prosecuted too narrow a range of obscenity.

In his response, Mukasey appeared to agree with Hatch’s assessment, saying I recognize that mainstream materials can have an effect of cheapening a society, objectifying women, and endangering children in a way that we can’t tolerate, and promised to review the Justice Department’s current policy of prosecuting only “extreme” materials.

Asked for his reaction to Mukasey’s statement, Jeffrey Douglas, chairman of the Free Speech Coalition, told XBIZ that he was not worried that a major shift in obscenity prosecution strategy would take place at the Justice Department if Mukasey is confirmed.

When juries already are refusing to convict on material that can be described as ‘extreme,’ it seems naïve to believe that a future jury would turn around and convict on standard, run-of-the-mill hardcore, Douglas said.

Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn't consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious nutter and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

They're saying 'we're not selling stuff that's sexually explicit' … and we say it's pornography, says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to get the Pentagon to obey the law, he adds.

In an Aug. 15 letter to the groups, Leslye Arsht, a deputy undersecretary of Defense, said the Pentagon's Resale Activities Board of Review uses appropriate guidelines to review material for sale.

This year, the board reviewed Penthouse and several Playboy publications and determined that based solely on the totality of each magazine's content, they were not sexually explicit, Arsht wrote.

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 bars stores on military bases from selling "sexually explicit material." It defines that as film or printed matter the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity or sexual activities in a lascivious way.

Challenged as a First Amendment violation, the law was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in 2002.

Defense officials don't want to take porn away from soldiers, says Patrick Trueman, a former federal prosecutor who now works with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. They say, 'well, 40% of this magazine is sexually explicit pictures, but 60% is writing or advertising, so the totality is not sexually explicit.' That's ridiculous.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who sponsored the law, says the military is skirting Congress' intent. He notes the material also could contribute to a hostile environment for female military personnel. If soldiers want to read that stuff, they can walk down the street and buy it somewhere else, Bartlett says. I don't want (the military) to help.

Nadine Strossen, a New York Law School professor who heads the American Civil Liberties Union, says the law effectively censors what troops get to read in remote areas or combat zones. We're asking these people to risk their lives to defend our Constitution's principles … and they're being denied their own First Amendment rights to choose what they read, she said.

Jerry Yang, Yahoo's US boss, and Michael Callahan, the company's top lawyer, were lambasted as moral "pygmies" by a top House Bay Area Democrat for the firm's role in helping China identify and jail a journalist in 2004.

Lawmakers of both parties accused the Sunnyvale Internet giant of prioritizing its profits in a booming China market over human rights by turning over secret data that enabled Chinese officials to track down and punish dissidents.

While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, said at the end of the three-hour hearing.

Yang defended his company's efforts to operate in a country with severe free speech restrictions, but was criticized by lawmakers who were furious that Yahoo didn't resist China's efforts to censor its citizens.

Yahoo bosses argued that it was better to try to expand the Internet in China, even if it meant agreeing to live under its repressive rules.

But most lawmakers complained that Yahoo appeared more focused on making money in China - with more than 150 million Internet users - than boosting the freedoms of its people. Smith compared Yahoo to IBM, whose punch card technology helped the Nazis accelerate their campaign to exterminate Jews in Europe.

Callahan noted that Yahoo had little choice about whether to agree to Beijing's orders because Yahoo employees would have been jailed for refusing to comply: I cannot ask our local employees to resist lawful demands and put their own freedom at risk, even if in my personal view the local laws are overbroad.

Congress is considering legislation that would ban U.S. Internet companies from providing information on its customers to repressive regimes.

Lawmakers also complained that Yahoo has done little to help the families of the jailed dissidents: You're one of the richest companies in the country and you don't know if you can meet the humanitarian needs of a couple of families? asked Brad Sherman, D-Los Angeles.

Yahoo has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it on behalf of several Chinese dissidents, according to papers filed in a California court.

No details have been given of the settlement, but Yahoo will cover legal costs and will also set up a fund to support other political dissidents.

The case alleged Yahoo had provided information to the Chinese government then used to prosecute the dissidents.

Yahoo said it had to comply with Chinese laws to operate in the country. But after settling the lawsuit, Yahoo chief executive Jerry Yang said it was clear to me what we had to do to make this right for them, for Yahoo and for the future.

A statement released by the World Organization for Human Rights USA, which brought the case, said Yahoo had decided to settle the case following criticism at a US Congressional hearing on 6 November.

One journalist cited in the case, Shi Tao, was tracked down and jailed for 10 years for subversion after Yahoo passed on his e-mail and IP address to officials. He was convicted in 2004 of divulging state secrets after posting online a Chinese government order forbidding media organisations from marking the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.