Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
I think someone should tell alberto gonzales that illegal aliens are smuggling porn over our open borders. Maybe that would get them to actually do something.
They really hadn't oughta use "porn" and "probe" in the same sentence.
The Bush Admin is getting out of control on this stuff. I was at first willing to accept electronic survelliance without a warrant against anyone with a clear connection to al Qaeda for national security reasons.
But this isn't about terrorism or national security. There is no crime here that I can see that justifies a subpeona. This is a Justice Department that, IMO, no longer feels that the 5th applies to them - and they will lose my support over more important issues if they keep this kind of nonsense up - because then I will start to wonder, what other kind of stuff do they have the NSA looking at if they can rationalize this kind of abuse of power?
Big brother going after big brother...
1) It doesn't sound to me like they're looking for identities, just a tally number of pertinent searches, and
2) I'm not sure I can see how knowing a number is pertinent to the process involved in crafting the legislation.
Notice that this AP article repeatedly refers to "pornography," so you have to read it very closely to see that the administration is only concerned about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Most people would agree that child pornography is not a good thing. Unfortunately, the liberal justices on the Supreme Court disagreed, and struck down the law.
I can see why people would worry about a slippery slope here, but it seems fairly clear that the concern is limited to child pornography. Or at least it would be clear if AP didn't deliberately distort their article.
The phrase "overly broad" comes to mind.
"Notice that this AP article repeatedly refers to "pornography," so you have to read it very closely to see that the administration is only concerned about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY."
Maybe you should read it again.
It's not about child pornography. It's about COPA, which was meant to 'protect children' from seeing online porn - which is the job of the parent, not government.
I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help. Who says it is not the job of the government? What support do you have for your assertion?
You are not correct. The law that was struck down concerns minors accessing regular pornography.
I admit that point is obscure in this article, but that's what the administration is trying to justify.
> The Bush Admin is getting out of control on this stuff. I was at first willing to accept electronic survelliance without a warrant against anyone with a clear connection to al Qaeda for national security reasons.
I agree with you. I hope Google sticks to its guns and doesn't supply this.
please point me to the section of the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to do this.
Maybe you have a different version that I do.
Precisely. If a Rat mole came up with this foolishness for the precise purpose of undermining the Administration's case, he couldn't have done a better job.
Is there a horrible stuck-keyboard-key problem in America or something???!?
The more this administration acts, the more I don't care who's in the White House next.
The Tenth Amendment.
What support do you have for your assertion?
The Tenth Amendment.
Most people would agree that returning stolen goods to their owners is a good thing. By your ridiculous argument, if the government did dragnet strip searches to look for stolen property and the Court told them it was illegal, the Court would be expressing support for theft.
So you would have no objection to a state censoring internet porn?
By the way, if internet porn, accessible anywhere, replete with advertisements, etc. isn't interstate commerce, I don't know what is.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of the child pornography law that was struck down, but this is indeed a separate issue, children accessing pornography, also evidently struck down.
damn constitution citing freak!
Somewhere there are lazy / incompetent parents who don't keep their kids from looking at porn! The Bill of rights doesn't matter as long as that's happening! The all-knowing state must act!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.