Posted on Leave a comment

What does the Google subpoena mean?

Here is a fantastic summation of the Google subpoena. In short, the government is once again trying to pass a law with vague terms in the name of protecting our children.

The Child Online Protection Act makes it a crime for a commercial Web site to post material that some jurors might find “harmful” if a minor stumbled across it.

The problem comes in deciding just what is harmful.

even portions of a “collection of Renaissance artwork” could be viewed as harmful to minors if a prosecutor was sufficiently zealous.

So, people that believe in abstinance teaching may find medical information about the male and female bodies offense while people trying to teach their children about sex may find that same information very important.

We should not be creating laws to make up for bad parenting! Parents should be talking to their children. The Internet is a reflection of the real world and while we can keep our children from seeing adult magazines and movies in our own houses that does not prevent them from going to a friend’s house, cracking open a beer, sitting down with a Playboy magazine (since it makes you go blind, nice of them to publish in Braille), and watching a hardcore sex dvd. Only through talking to our children and teaching them can we give them the tools to make the right choices and police themselves.

If we let our government become too involved in dictating morals to the people, the generation that grows up under such government will know nothing different and when that generation steps up to run our country they will see no problem in further limiting rights and civil liberties in the name of “protecting the people” and it will dominoe us right out of democracy!

see also: White House: DOJ Request for Google Data Is ‘Narrow’ “You know… “Narrow” like a wedge is narrow on one end.”

Posted on 1 Comment

White House: DOJ Request For Google Data Is ‘Narrow’

Today’s headline regarding Bush’s realization of Orwell’s world:
White House: DOJ Request For Google Data Is ‘Narrow’

You know… “Narrow” like a wedge is narrow on one end. Remember, the goal here is to censor the Internet on the premise that we are fighting child pornography. So far the government’s approach online has been to scare people in the pornography industry (or anything that might have to do with nudity) into self-policing but that would be like scaring Borders into not selling any books that show a baby’s butt (most parenting books and magazines) for fear of prosecution.

Posted on 2 Comments

Bush Throws Out The First Ammendment – Again

“Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime”

Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

I like this exerpt from the article giving some real life scenerios that now could have legal problems:

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

What I find funny is that our government in their lack of understanding keeps trying to create laws for an entity (the Internet) that spans the world and operates within and without our political boundaries and that is in addition to taking away our freedoms as outlined in the Constitution.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he’d realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

The full law from The Library of Congress. Be sure to read the complete C|Net article.