Third Party & Independents Archives

US Government vs. Google

The US federal government has requested that Google, Yahoo!, America Online, and Microsoft hand over millions of random search results in preparation for the defense of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. This act is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, who argues that websites cannot realistically comply with the law and that the law violates freedom of speech.

Yahoo!, America Online, and Microsoft immediately handed over the information the government requested. Google, on the other hand, has refused to hand over the search results in defense of its users' privacy. A federal court date of February 27th has been set, where Google will attempt to fend off the invasion by the federal government.

What has it come to, where the government can Constitutionally justify forcing a company to comply in a matter it has no direct involvement in? Google should have no obligation to give the government anything. It is Google's data, not the government's. Google is the only search company that is taking any attempt at standing up for its user's privacy, and its own as well.

A Yahoo! representative remarked that the search terms they provided have no connection to individual users. This is correct, but misleading. While there is no way of the government determining exactly who did which particular search, the information still shows our browsing habits. The government has no right to know what we search for on the Internet.

Forcing Google to release this information is the equivalent of placing cameras on the streets, an absolute invasion of privacy.

What will convince many people against Google is the specific issue presented here - minors having the ability to view pornography online. While this issue in itself is bad, every breach of our rights starts out innocently. First, it starts with protecting children online. Next the government will be using Google's data for everything.

Like any breach on our rights we need to stop it at the roots, before it commences.

Posted by Ethan Poole at January 28, 2006 11:27 PM
Comments
Comment #118058

Fact: 98% of Google’s political donations go to Democrats. They’re based in the San Francisco Bay Area, after all, so this development is no surprise.

Google, whose motto is “Do no evil,” is currently very busy marching to the orders of Communist China and censoring anything and everything on the net that questions totalitarianism. Are you a Chinese citizen who doubts anything your government tells you? Ha! Google is gonna keep you from accessing anything that questions your government, and that’s because China’s dictators are paying them to do so.

How can Google be asked, while they’re so busy following the orders of their Communist task-masters, to worry about kiddy-porn and child rape? These are petty concerns.

What’s an exploited or raped child in comparison to a new swimming pool or tennis pool at a Google executive’s estate in liberal San Francisco, Palo Alto or Berkeley?

Google=Child Pornography and Communist toadyism.

A liberal company at its best! Bravo!

Posted by: sanger at January 29, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #118064

Google is right for refusing to hand search data over to the Government. The Government is also overstepping it’s Constitutional powers again.
To bad Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo didn’t do the same.
While I don’t look at porn of any kind, I don’t beleive it’s any business of any Government where I browse on the web. But I also beleive that the perverts that browse for kiddie porn are contributing to the molestation of children.
The trick is to be able to catch these sick bastards with out violating the rights and priviacy of the majority of folks that don’t carry on like that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 29, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #118070

The Justice Department requested these records from Google (records which have no personally identifying information on them) because they are the DEFENDENT, for god’s sake, in a case filed by the ACLU in which the ACLU is attacking a Clinton administration internet child porn law!!!

Can’t Google be satisifed with being the toadies of Communist China and censoring anything the Communist party orders them to in order to keep their Chinese market share? Isn’t that enough of a good day’s work on behalf of liberalism for them?

Must Google also join the Democrats and the ACLU and defend child porn?

It’s bad enough that they’ve become lackeys and slaves of a totalitarian regime. But now they’re defenders and lackeys of child pornographers—yep, that is a true blue Democratic company indeed.

Posted by: sanger at January 29, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #118072

Those of you trying to make this a Democrats vs. Republicans issue obviously haven’t noticed that over three quarters of surveyed Americans agree with Google’s decision.

Posted by: Erika at January 29, 2006 2:09 AM
Comment #118075

Ethan, in the end, this issue boils down to whether the internet is a public gathering place or not. Government surveillance of public places is in fact one of its primary duties to maintain the peace and order in society.

In the end, this issue will be lost, on the ruling that the internet is a public place, despite the fact that private banking, commercial transactions and a host of other very private transactions take place on it.

In the end, due process will not be upheld for surveilling the internet. Welcome to 1983 and 1/2 and the world of an Alito - Roberts Supreme Court.

You see, at the heart of conservative thought is a fear of those who think, act, speak, look, differently than uniformed lockstep conservatives, and with a conservative court, the mechanisms will be installed to ferret out all who are different and by virtue of that difference, constitute a potential threat.

As President Bush taught us all with Iraq, a potential threat is a potent threat, and must be dealt with swiftly, resolutely, and preemptively, regardless of the cost or sacrifice.

The prescience of Orwell and Huxley are truly amazing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #118079
…the ACLU is attacking a Clinton administration internet child porn law!!!

That’s weird, sanger. You’re arguing against constitutional rights AND defending a Clinton policy. It’s strange where you end up when you put on the partisan blinders, isn’t it?

Google is right to withhold the data. The US government does not have the right to demand it. Google is also right to comply with China’s laws. The Chinese government isn’t as enlightened as the US government is supposed to be.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 29, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #118085

As a note the issue has nothing to do with child pornography or child abuse. The law originally was to restrict pornography and the ability of minors to look at porn on the internet. Children or teens accessing adult porn on their computers isn’t the same as child pornography.

Needless to say there are already laws against child porn and exploiting minors. So please don’t pretend this has anything to actually do with child porn because it doesn’t.

I don’t look at porn but I think the best solution would be for parents to have this responsibility not the government. It’s not the job of feds to babysit your kids. Make sure you know what your child is doing, talk to them, and buy a good internet filter if need be. The gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality or substitute for responsible parenting.

Posted by: John at January 29, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #118107

This is just the start. Soon they will use this to “Fight the War on Terror at Home”. All who are against this are traitors, unamerican and and OBL lover.

Posted by: Aldous at January 29, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #118127

Ron:

The trick is to be able to catch these sick bastards with out violating the rights and priviacy of the majority of folks that don’t carry on like that.

That IS the trick, and I’m not sure that it can be accomplished. In commercial fishing, you use a large net, and sometimes catch the wrong fish in amongst the right fish. The way to never do this is to fish with a pole—but in doing so you will not catch many fish. Do you have ideas on how to accomplish your goal, or is it simply an honorable and valid goal that is impossible to do?

If Yahoo and Microsoft etc CHOOSE to give their raw data to the government, I see no problem with that. Anyone who has a problem with that should simply boycott those companies that comply in such a way. The Google issue is different, since the govt is trying to force them to give up their raw data. Its true that the data will be used for good (helping get rid of various pornography and providing better filters to prevent unwanted access), but nonetheless its an invasion of privacy.

I’d support Yahoo for its voluntary choice, and say the same to Google. But I wouldn’t support the government for forcing a company to give up the information.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 29, 2006 8:08 AM
Comment #118130

This post had nothing to do with Google’s involvement in China. I did not see myself mention it once.

However, are you not aware that both Yahoo! and Microsoft have just as much censorship in this Chinese versions? Google at first had more censorship, due to flaws. You have to be aware it was the first week of it being open, and any software will have bugs. They have repaired these and the censorship is the minimal required to enter business in China. It is the equivalent of Yahoo! and Microsoft.

Then think about how Yahoo! and Microsoft have been doing this for a long time, not just a few weeks.

Ethan, in the end, this issue boils down to whether the internet is a public gathering place or not. Government surveillance of public places is in fact one of its primary duties to maintain the peace and order in society.

The Internet (I think) is a public gathering place, but I do not think the government has the right to monitor public places for any reason. It is criminalizing us.

[quote]Must Google also join the Democrats and the ACLU and defend child porn?[/quote]

The Child Online Protection act has nothing to do with child pornography, but children viewing obscene material online. The ACLU believes this is against freedom of speech (it is) and hard for websites to comply with (that too).

Posted by: Ethan Poole at January 29, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #118145
This is just the start. Soon they will use this to “Fight the War on Terror at Home”. All who are against this are traitors, unamerican and and OBL lover.

Heh. It’s already started. Remember the FDA’s justification for keeping Americans from getting cheap Canadian drugs?

“Cues from chatter” gathered around the world are raising concerns that terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply, particularly illegally imported prescription drugs, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester M. Crawford says.

By getting their meds in Canada, senior citizens — AARP members in particular — are aiding and abetting al-Qaeda in this nefarious plot. It’s hard to believe the Bush administration hasn’t mobilized against these un-American OBL lovers yet. Oh, wait. They have.

While I don’t look at porn of any kind, I don’t beleive it’s any business of any Government where I browse on the web.

Ron, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why not let the Bush administration monitor your internet usage as well as your phone calls. It’s the only way to keep us all safe. :/

Posted by: American Pundit at January 29, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #118149

Ethan

You didn’t mention China and Google, but you should have done. We are arguing about the small potatoes while the big banquet is being set in China.

People on this blog often talk about China’s ascendancy as a way to attack the Bush Administration. It is a variation of the “who lost China” accusation against Truman Administration officials. China was not ours to lose and it is not ours to boost BUT it will have an increasing strong influence on our lives. Google is a good example. It is setting a precedent backed by technical ability not to censor, but to control information. This is the biggest thing to happen this month. FISA, the Bush attempts to limit Internet child porn, even the elections in Palestine will be nothing compared to this.

Posted by: Jack at January 29, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #118157

Sanger,

If Google is a “toady of the communists” because it does business in China, then so are the majority of American corporations.

American capitalism = communist toady

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 29, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #118162

Google has no problem with turning over personally identifying material about any political dissident to the Chinese government whenever they’re asked, enabling that dissident to be hauled off to a dungeon without trial.

But stand up to the US government’s efforts to get raw non-personally identifying web traffic information about child porn? No problem!

ElliotBay, there’s a big difference between doing buisiness in China and acting as an enforcement arm for the suppression of information.

Ethan, I know that your post had nothing to do with the Chinese issue, but what I’m saying is that before you celebrate Google for “sticking it to the man,” you’d better realize what that company really stands for and what their motives are.

While protecting child porn on the internet in the US, they’re aiding and abbetting China’s efforts to stamp out poltitical speech in China. Some company that is—Communism and kiddy porn.

Boycott Google!

Posted by: sanger at January 29, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #118163

Google has no problem with turning over personally identifying material about any political dissident to the Chinese government whenever they’re asked, enabling that dissident to be hauled off to a dungeon without trial.

But stand up to the US government’s efforts to get raw non-personally identifying web traffic information about child porn? No problem!

ElliotBay, there’s a big difference between doing buisiness in China and acting as an enforcement arm for the suppression of information.

Ethan, I know that your post had nothing to do with the Chinese issue, but what I’m saying is that before you celebrate Google for “sticking it to the man,” you’d better realize what that company really stands for and what their motives are.

While protecting child porn on the internet in the US, they’re aiding and abbetting China’s efforts to stamp out poltitical speech in China. Some company that is—Communism and kiddy porn.

Boycott Google!

Posted by: sanger at January 29, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #118165

To reiterate John’s (and Ethan’s) point, the purpose of the Child Online Protection Act is NOT to outlaw child porn. That was already illegal!!! The purpose of the law is to keep minors from looking at explicit material intended for adults. While you can argue that this is a worthy goal also, it is quite different from preventing child abuse. I bet most of us saw racy material when we were minors and lived to tell the tale.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 29, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #118168

sanger:

Why don’t you boycott Microsoft and Yahoo too since they do the same thing in China. In fact, sanger, you should uninstall EVERY Microsoft Product in your computer RIGHT NOW.

Follow your beliefs!!! Uninstall Windows from your computer and Restart!!!

Then come tell us about it…

Posted by: Aldous at January 29, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #118175

sanger, Google has not yet turned over information on political dissidents to China. That was Yahoo. I do not remember whether or not MSN has. Google is intentionally not running services such as gmail in China so that they do not have to turn over such information. Google’s actions in China are certainly disappointing, but that does not justify getting the facts wrong.

Posted by: Erika at January 29, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #118203

Sanger, do you believe the NSA wiretapping whistleblowers should be prosecuted? If so, then you should be consistent and support China’s right to selectively prohibit certain kinds of information. For if freedom of the press does not mean revealing illegal or abhorrent acts of government, what good is it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #118238

Sanger,

Google has only been open in China for a little over a week. Have they submitted any information yet? No and it doesn’t appear in their plans. Google is only complying with THEIR government’s rules to do business there. Almost every company doing business in China is doing the exact same thing. Google has tried to enter China without censorship before and they decided not to enter until recently. They originally did not want to censor, but now they have shareholders to answer to.

In America we have freedom of speech and a right to privacy. Google is helping to defend our right to this and fending off the invasivness of the federal government.

I also did not bring up China because I view them as separate issues in separate countries with separate divisions of a multinational company.

- Ethan

Posted by: Ethan Poole at January 29, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #118270

google is neither hero nor villain.
they are neither republican nor democrat.

they are a corporation. their only loyalty is to profit. they are resisting turning over records in America because they know that doing so will hurt them financially - people will be afraid that the feds are watching their online habits, and will thus use google’s service less.

in china, google will not be allowed to do business without complying with the government.

their actions are entirely consistent with the corporate pursuit of money. corporations have no morals, right or wrong - that’s a different argument.

Posted by: Diogenes at January 29, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #118277

sanger,
there’s a big difference between doing buisiness in China America and acting as an enforcement arm for the suppression of information.

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 29, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #118289

Searches don’t really prove anything.

Besides, if the government was really genuinely concerned about criminals, there are so many countless, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible things they could do that they do not do that would cut down on crime drastically.

For instance. How about not releasing them, time and time again, to repeat the same crimes.

Therefore, give me a ##$#$ break.

Get the hell off of Googles case, and start doing some real work, you lazy, worthless, do-nothing, irresponsible bastards !.

Quit trying to reach and gain more power under such guises.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #118294

Out of curiousity, what is the basis for the government’s demand that Google turn over the data? Yes, I know they are a defendant, and that a case has been brought against them by the ACLU, but what does that have to do with google? Moreover, what does raw search data have to do with its countersuit? If they’re trying to prove that there is porn out there that minors can access, why not do a simple google search themselves and print out the results? What is the significance of this raw data that it is considered so vital to their lawsuit?

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 29, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #118296

Jarandhel, what the government is looking for is how often porn searches as a defense that minors look at porn online. It is a little more complex (legal matter) but it basically boils down to this.

Posted by: Ethan Poole at January 29, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #118301

Ethan:

How does frequency of searching at all validate the idea that minors look at porn online? It would be far more valid to point out the amount of porn available on the internet without needing any form of age verification, and such information could easily be gathered by a standard google search of their own, without need for a subpoena. How on earth do they think the minors find it in the first place? By doing exactly that, 9 times out of 10.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 29, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #118311

What is next, do you think?

I bet they will tax online trade and gambling next.

Posted by: Aldous at January 29, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #118331

JMHO:

Would you send your kids out to the big city alone to find thier way? Of course not. Why are parents, or anybody, sending their kids onto the internet without guidance and supervision?

Hell, porn on the internet is safer than some streets in some cities.

Since when is it okay for kids to go online alone? They have much more to worry about from the predators in the chat rooms than seeing a little porn online.

Do we really want the government deciding what our kids can see and do?

Again, just my opinion. Parents who want this are abrogating their own responsibility.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #118333

Better they should use a keystroke logger to see where their kids go and what they do then deal with it. Same as you teach them where they can go alone and where they can’t.

I dunno, it all annoys me.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #118474

It annoys me too.

What has it come to, where the government can Constitutionally justify forcing a company to comply in a matter it has no direct involvement in? Google should have no obligation to give the government anything. It is Google’s data, not the government’s. Google is the only search company that is taking any attempt at standing up for its user’s privacy, and its own as well.

This is what it is coming to: Step (1)

The steps overlap some, but we’re already well into (4) and (5) and starting (1).

Forcing Google to release this information is the equivalent of placing cameras on the streets, an absolute invasion of privacy.
No. That’s completely different. Had you said “cameras in your home” that would be true. But cameras in public places already exist and serve a very good purpose…such as the cameras in the Walmart / Mall parking lots, cameras in banks, 7-11 , highways, company parking lots, etc. Surveillance of public places is a very valuable and important before-the-crime deterrent, and as long as it is in a public place, it does not violate any one’s rights at all. If you believe it does, then our rights are already being violated everywhere in a big way, because cameras are in many places already. Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #118508

joebagodonuts
I wish I knew how to catch the internet kiddie porn surfers without trampling on the privatcy of the rest. I sure would be a balancing act that could catch up the wrong folks. Maybe it isn’t very attainable and maybe it could like a lot of other thing never be done.

Ron, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why not let the Bush administration monitor your internet usage as well as your phone calls. It’s the only way to keep us all safe. :/

Posted by: American Pundit at January 29, 2006 09:45 AM

Do you want the Government prying into your personal affairs? The Government has NO RIGHT to spy on it’s citizens without just cause. Then by law it has to get a warrant. Until they get one I WILL oppose them spying on ANY of the citizens of this country. Even the criminals and terrorist.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #118512

Ron:

As I understand it, no one is trying to spy on individual things in this case. Its more of looking at WHAT the searches are, as opposed to WHO is doing the searches.

As I said above, I see nothing wrong in the govt asking for this information, so that internet porn isn’t viewed by the wrong people—ie kids. But I’m not in agreement with forcing Google to provide the information. Google does appear to be a bit hypocritical in providing private information to China, which allows China to go after individuals, while not providing general information to the U.S. govt to help establish trends.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 30, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #118518

This was an excellent and to the point post by the author. The arguments raised against the reasoning contained in this post are absolutely ridiculous. This has nothing to do with Clinton. He was just as much of a neo-Liberal American hitman as all of the Bush Regime cronnies.

It has come to the point in this country where we are on the verge of complete fascism, and I never suspected that the Dark Fiber company would be one of the last barriers to the implementation of a totalitarian state in this nation.

Posted by: Russell Cole at January 30, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #118522

“Google does appear to be a bit hypocritical in providing private information to China, which allows China to go after individuals, while not providing general information to the U.S. govt to help establish trends.”

only superficially do google’s actions seem in any way hypocritical - if one accounts for their true motivation for either action, it is (as i previously posted) *entirely* consistent.

in order to make *any* money in china, google must comply with the cencorship that the chinese government seeks to impose. in America, however, google has the right to deny the government access to its information, and knows that failure to do so (deny access) would reduce its popularity (and hence, profit).

again, google is amoral, regardless of its declared motto. under the semblance of a moral entity which values freedom and privacy, their actions seem contradictory - viewed as a corporate entity whose sole aim is profit, it all comes together quite nicely.

Posted by: Diogenes at January 30, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #118523

“google must comply with the cencorship…”

err…censorship…why don’t these things come with spell-check anyway.

Posted by: Diogenes at January 30, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #118564

Diogenes:

Good points. I guess its the holier than thou way that Google is being portrayed that gets me. I don’t know if that’s their take or the media’s take on Google.

If they want to do things in the name of profits, I’m all for it. No hypocrisy in that. But that takes away the ability to say that profit is not the primary motive.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 30, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #118579

I think was Google is doing here and in China are moral and consistent with their motto.
Here: This country values privacy and our Constitution protects it by limiting what the governement can do - Google is acting appropriately by challenging the government. People had no reason to believe that their searches would be looked at by the government, Google the company providing the service - yes, but the governnment no. The government should be collecting its own data, not demanding it from companies.
China: Google’s actions in China are fine, here’s why: The tagline on the bottom of the search page that says that various results have been omitted due to censorship. Google by pentrating the Chinese market will establish a relationship with the Chinese people (who are not the bad guys) and remind them that their government (the real evil) sucks on a *per search* basis. When the Chinese finally decide to change their government, Google will be in their hearts and minds as a company the people know and trust because they helped the people (via serach) while disclosing that they were held back in how much they could help.

Plus Google will get to take some of the Chinese money and help offset the boatloads of money we pump in for cheap goods.

If Google were to hide the fact that they were censoring seatch results (and mislead the Chinese people) - I would agree that they were in the wrong, but they aren’t doing that, they are disclosing it.

Posted by: JT at January 31, 2006 3:30 AM
Comment #118622
Do you want the Government prying into your personal affairs?

Ron, President Bush just wants us to be safe. Isn’t that why you voted for him? So he can fight those evil terrorists? Why don’t you want America to be safe, Ron?

Posted by: American Pundit at January 31, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #118654

joebagodonuts
There aint nothing wrong with me to asking you for your financial records. But that don’t mean that you have to hand them over. And for me to try to force you to is wrong. Just like it’s wrong for the Government to force Google, AOL, Yahoo or anyone else to hand over their records of any kind


AP
I didn’t vote for Bush this last time around. Yes I want America to be safe. Not only from it’s enimies, but also from an over agressive Government.
I don’t care if the Government spys on non citizens as they don’t have any Constitutional Rights. But citizens HAVE Constitutional Rights. And the Government has ABSOULTLY NO RIGHT to spy on them without very good reason and a warrant.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #118661

Ron Brown,

There are no distinctions between citizen and non-citizen in the bill of rights. There are certain things that are rights for citizens; such as voting and running for public office, but things like freedom of speech, religion, privacy extend to all people and should not be abridged by our own government. (Granted, privacy can be lost if a warrent is obtained)

Posted by: SirisC at January 31, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #118705

once again,
corporations are not moral. they are not out to win ‘hearts and minds’, nor should they be. they are out to turn a profit. to do otherwise would compromise the trust of their stockholders - who would then invest elsewhere. corporations which stray from this formula do not remain in business for very long.

Posted by: Diogenes at January 31, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #118782

This is how government gradually takes away our rights. They take an issue like child porn and use it to enforce things far beyond what needs be done.

Sort of what has happened with drunk driving. The original ideas was to get the serious drunks off the road and keep them off the road. But now it has turned into check points and arrests for people who are barely drunk.

A guy has a couple of beers and is merely driving home and operating his car safely but gets pulled over at a check point and all of a sudden he is facing jail time. 10 other drivers are inconvenienced and made to be nervous by having to go through the check point.

I believe we have long since passed the point where one can say this is a “free country”. Americans merely have the illusion of freedom.

Posted by: scalpmed at January 31, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #118801

SirisC
That’s the problem with Liberals today. They want to give right to aliens even illegal ones.

scalpmed

This is how government gradually takes away our rights. They take an issue like child porn and use it to enforce things far beyond what needs be done.

Exactly, They use the fact that no decent person want child porn around and then expand it to enforece other things that don’t need to be.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #119169

scalpmed,
I agree. The points you make on your web-page, I make on mine too. And so does Vote Out Incumbennts for Democracy - VOIDnow.org.
Voter education is the key.
Otherwise, you are correct.
We will have to learn the hard way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #119329
They use the fact that no decent person want child porn around and then expand it to enforece other things that don’t need to be.”

Again, this is not about child porn in any way, shape, or form. It’s about minors being able to access (adult) pornography. Child porn is already illegal. I agree with what you say though, using the words “children” and “pornography” in the same sentence still has the same emotional shock value to get people to give up their freedoms. Kind of like fear of terrorism.

Posted by: John at February 1, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #119598

It just aint child porn they use John. Anttime they want to try to take away a right they trot out the old ‘What’s best for our children’ lie line. They rely on the fact that all of want the best for our youngins to take away our freedoms.
Like any parent that’s worth their weight in pennies, I do want the best for my kids. And I want nothing but the very best for my grandyoungins.
Letting politicians take our rights away ISNOT the very best for them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 2, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #119789

Right, fear is probably the most useful tool a politician has to manipulate the masses. There always has to be a “them,” something out there we can be afraid of, either legitimately or not. A few centuries ago it would be witches or heretics. Now it’s terrorists, pedophiles, or in this case porn.

Some threats may be legitimate, but are greatly overstated and abused. In the 50s of course having Soviet spies in the government would be a bad thing, but the efforts to crack down was mostly a witch hunt based on irrational fear. We can’t afford to let paranoia do our thinking for us, or allow it to be used to manipulate us.

Posted by: John at February 2, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #123209

First of all I say go GOOGLE!! Second if Google needs money fighting the government put out a collection pot but I’m sure they won’t need any.

This is just another way the government is trying to tear apart our constitution little by little. People really need to open there eyes and realize that this country really needs to get there head out of there rear. My answer to this case is if one you are a parent and concerned with what your kid is looking at there is multiple company’s that filter this content for you. Don’t infringe others so you have to do less babysitting if you can’t take care of your own kid stop having them. Last time a checked if you have a router you can implement internet usage policies so if your at work the internet will be disabled. Final thought is that all the religious groups and other groups pushing for these laws should remember that changing or altering the constitution may someday turn around and start to infringe your very own belief.

Posted by: Matt at February 10, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #414157

I found your this post while searching for some related information on blog search…Its a good post..keep posting and update the information.

Posted by: milano at March 5, 2017 4:53 PM
Post a comment