Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.
Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.
Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.
Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.
The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.
The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.
The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.
Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."
"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.
Really?
Wow, so Newspapers ONLY print "political speech"?
When I am on the street speaking, it's "POLITICAL SPEECH"?
So, in your warped Legal world, the ONLY speech is "Political Speech", so If I have an opinion on Asparagus, that can be censored? If I say I like (Censored)....that would be OK in your world? A Gaming website chatroom has no Freedom of Expression unless they are discussing Political events?
Wow...it's legal dimwits like you that made Shakespeare such a prophetic man.
Funny, I thought we conservatives were supposed to be Constitutional originalists. The First Amendment was intended to protect political SPEECH, not pictures of naked crack hos. Bye bye, lecher.
Parents can easily buy Internet filters from the private sector.
Federal government is out of control - Just like the Libertarians said: The GOP is the Daddy version of big government while the Dems are the Mommy version.
I sikmply stated a fact about the Founders' intentions. Take it up with them.
I guess We the People can't seem to parent properly. Some busybody in government that can't get a commerical job is somehow smarter than us and knows what is best for our children.
Again, if you don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers.
Ah, yes, the old "you must be jealous" argument. Yes, I just longingly wish I could be the type of person who sits at my computer getting fat, eating Fritos and masturbating. Thanks for pointing it out.
Oh, yeah, that's right, I forgot. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of political speech."
Seriously, ALL speech is protected unless the government can show a compelling reason why it should be regulated, and even then any regulation must be very narrowly tailored to serve that goal (which is the problem here -- it ain't narrowly tailored). Political speech is just first among equals.
That's why It Takes A Village.
Yes, I naively believe that speech means speech, not pics of naked crack hos. Where would I get such a crazy idea?
yeah, it takes a village to raise a child, doesn't it, hillary?
You slept through Con Law?
No internet for you, me hearties - that's not "speech" either, nor is it "the press", so I guess Congress can shut it all down tomorrow, right? That about the size of it?
I don't know what you think you're "getting", but the constitution isn't it.
Exactly.
If it's really true that D.C. governs with the consent of the government, then lets round up everyone we can find and withhold our consent.
So, Republicans out there - how's that "limited government" thingie you've been promising us for decades coming along, hmmmmmmmmm?
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!
That reminds me of that line from Cheech & Chong's Next Movie: "I think they're Iranians."
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.