The House overwhelmingly passed a bill that puts a huge onus on individuals and ISPs to report a broad range of images or face $150,000 or $300,000 fines: The bill, if passed, would require anyone offering network access (under a broad definition) to report any images they come across that covers a broad range of potential depictions of abuse of minors or their exploitation. Declan McCullagh notes in his post at Cnet that it's so broad as to include photographs, drawings, and cartoons that require interpretation as to whether they would meet the test. Sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could qualify.
From McCullagh's report, it's clear that if you operate, for instance, an open Wi-Fi network from your home, you're not obliged to monitor other people's uses of it. However, if you were in any fashion to become aware of behavior circumscribed in this law, you could be fined $150,000 on a first offense and $300,000 on a subsequent one--unless you preemptively report, in which case you're immune to lawsuits and prosecution. Which means people are going to report a lot more or shut down otherwise free hotspots.
Reporting requires that you provide the images that you saw, which obviously opens people up to charges themselves unless everything is handled extremely carefully as possession of child pornography is a de facto crime that allows for no explanation in much of the U.S.
The most typical scenario as I can see it is a single-location coffeeshop that provides free Wi-Fi. A barista is walking through the shop and catches a glimpse of an image they think is problematic before the user shuts their laptop or navigates to another page. They aren't sure, so they tell the manager. The manager then, if he or she doesn't immediately report and attempt to ascertain as much information as possible, could face the fine (or perhaps the store's owner), if I suppose the FBI or a local crime unit tracks back a person's usage to the store. But how to track that usage back and prove someone saw something and didn't report it?
This is all sort of a pisser, to be frank, because there's practically nothing more appalling than child abuse and child pornography. And, thus, I hate to be in a position to explain why a law to protect children erodes individuals' sense of security in not facing massive fines or arrest when they may not be in a position to act precisely how a law demands. Surely, people who see bad stuff should report it, and many do.
The bill, as written, was rushed into session using an expedited procedure that avoided the usual review. Declan McCullagh writes at Cnet that the legislation also changed substantially before being brought to a vote. So reasonable opposition didn't form before its passage. The Senate could approve a similar view, but it's hard to know how enforceable it will be.