Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe
AP Via Yahoo ^ | 2006-01-19

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: americantaliban; bigbrother; google; govwatch; libertarians; nannystate; porn; snooping; statist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 741-746 next last
To: TigersEye

There is a hierarchy of protections for speech. Politcal speech enjoys the most protection while crying fire in a crowded theatre enjoys no protection. In between those two resides pornography in general while child pornography should enjoy no protections.


561 posted on 01/20/2006 2:50:34 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Politcal speech enjoys the most protection...

The problem is that things get ugly real fast when you try to define "political speech", though...

562 posted on 01/20/2006 2:52:33 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow; dinoparty
dinoparty: The point is that it IS intended to provide for the regulation of interstate commerce, and commerce over the internet is a prime example. You know that its not just about "staring at a computer screen", its about commerce between two computer screens in separate states.

Well what can be said for this logic?

563 posted on 01/20/2006 2:55:19 PM PST by TigersEye (Are your parents Pro-Choice? I guess you got lucky! ... Is your spouse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I agree with what you say and hope you understand that child porn had nothing to do with the analogy I was responding to or with the action of the DOJ described in the main article.


564 posted on 01/20/2006 2:57:23 PM PST by TigersEye (Are your parents Pro-Choice? I guess you got lucky! ... Is your spouse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Speech is no different than life or liberty. None are absolute. The rights to same are inherent in the people but is pornography a fundamental right? I wouldn't think so and as such it can be regulated. Who regulates it is another issue.

I have no problem with adults doing what they please in their own homes or in private venues. I have major problems when children are involved. So my vote would be to allow the porn viewers to view until their hearts are content and to allow the hanging of those who use and abuse children.

Enlightened, no?:-}

565 posted on 01/20/2006 3:00:48 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I never meant to imply that at all. Just laying the cards on the table TE.


566 posted on 01/20/2006 3:02:13 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Well what can be said for this logic?

Give it to Fat Teddy - I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to tax you per post for your FR activities. And since it's "commerce" and definitely not "speech", no sirree, we know someone who will just be fresh out of counterarguments, don't we?

On second thought, let's not give them any ideas. :)

567 posted on 01/20/2006 3:02:44 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Speech is no different than life or liberty. None are absolute.

Quite so. In which case, the argument is, as always, about where to draw the line.

So my vote would be to allow the porn viewers to view until their hearts are content and to allow the hanging of those who use and abuse children.

I find your platform sound and have no objection. Let me know if you need a campaign manager :)

568 posted on 01/20/2006 3:05:38 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

Porn and sex are guaranteed a long thread life.


569 posted on 01/20/2006 3:18:45 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
You cannot tell me with a straight face that you believe that the founders would have approved and sanctioned the unfettered access by adults of the most vile forms of pornography found today.

Of course not. The founders believed in reasonable regulations by the smallest government possible.. Local governments can best regulate public aspects of porn, and, if necessary, States can reasonably regulate intra/interstate aspects.

The commerce clause issue can be argued as a limit on Federal power, but that is simply a debate about WHO controls it (state or feds), not WHETHER ANY government should control it.

Not true, in that fed & state ~abuses~ of the control power to regulate porn, - without infringing on individual liberties, - are exactly what the debate is about.

You seem to be saying that NO government should control it, including states.

Hype.. - I've seen no one here make that point. -- We're objecting about over-controls that infringe on other liberties.

I believe that pornography does great direct harm to our citizens AND to our nation.
I passed on the first try, and graduated with honors from a top 20 law school.

Your inability to 'see' the true debate about our commerce clause undermines your 'honors' credibility..

Not bragging...just refuting your infantile comment.

In a way, calling those comments 'infantile' also shows us your braggadocio.

You obviously haven't read all of the threads.

I read enough of your remarks to refute the ones above. -- Obviously, you don't intend to rebut my comments, so you're gonna blow some smoke, then retire from the field.

There have been two debates that I've participated in on this thread:
1. Whether the commerce clause permits federal government -- as opposed to state government -- regulation of internet porn. (Some have agreed that states may regulate porn without being in violation of any Constitutional rights, but that there is no FEDERAL authority to do it. This is a respectable, although I believe incorrect, position.)

Getting smoky in here.

2. Whether the First Amendment to the federal constitution prohibits regulation of internet porn by feds AND STATES.

As you can see above, - I made that same point to you.

(Some have made the preposterous argument that internet porn is somehow "protected speech" under the First Amendment.

Hasn't the USSC made the argument that most 'porn' is "protected speech" under the First Amendment?

The necessary correlary to this is that EVEN STATES would be prohibited from regulating internet porn,

More hype. -- Are you sure you've been trained in logical debate? I don't know anyone rational that argues "STATES would be prohibited" from reasonably regulating porn..

at least according to the questionable (but entrenched) doctrine that says that the first amendment applies to state legislation via incorporation into the 14th.)

The free speech clause of the 1st applies to fed/state/local levels, - just like all of our BoR's and all of the Constitution applies, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...

570 posted on 01/20/2006 3:43:43 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Alrighty! ; )


571 posted on 01/20/2006 3:54:47 PM PST by TigersEye (All Americans should be armed and dangerous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Porn and sex are guaranteed a long thread life.

That's a shame since the real issue is overreaching warrants based on bogus aims. But, then, plain vanilla Constitution trashing is only worth a couple of dozen posts. You probably couldn't find one in twenty FReepers who could tell what the Law of the Sea Treaty is.

572 posted on 01/20/2006 4:04:15 PM PST by TigersEye (All Americans should be armed and dangerous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: don asmussen

Again, you obfuscate the issues. (I see that you also wish to side with liberal supreme court justices, but that's another issue, Mr. Breyer.)
Again, there are two issues:
1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech" such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?
2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.

I've simply assumed that you would understand that I wasn't concerned with the EXTENT of the restriction. That's not the issue at all for me in this thread, and never has been. To make it clearer, I have added the words "as they see fit" above. Now if you have anything on-point to say, go for it. However, I'm not interested in any more dodges.


573 posted on 01/20/2006 5:53:07 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
The free speech clause of the 1st applies to fed/state/local levels, - just like all of our BoR's and all of the Constitution applies, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...

Again, you obfuscate the issues.

What issue have I, - or do I, "obfuscate"? -- I've just raised some Constitutional issues that you refuse to even face.

(I see that you also wish to side with liberal supreme court justices, but that's another issue, Mr. Breyer.)

I side with the Constitution, Mr 'honors grad'..

Again, there are two issues:
1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech"

Do you have a right to prohibit their possession of such filthy pictures? Ask your fellow lawyers on the USSC, who have said you do not.

such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?

The 14th protects our rights to life liberty or property, - and even filthy pictures are property. -- States can reasonably regulate public aspects of dealing in such property, but they can't prohibit possession, as you well know.

2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.

No level of government in our republic has the power to enact fiat prohibitions that infringe on our rights to life liberty or property. Get it?

I've simply assumed that you would understand that I wasn't concerned with the EXTENT of the restriction. That's not the issue at all for me in this thread, and never has been. To make it clearer, I have added the words "as they see fit" above. Now if you have anything on-point to say, go for it. However, I'm not interested in any more dodges.

What am I dodging? Certainly not anything you've said..

Now, seeing you have nothing on-point to say... Give us a break.

574 posted on 01/20/2006 6:49:17 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Try some Prozac before you post....


575 posted on 01/20/2006 7:23:57 PM PST by Greek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: don asmussen

You seem to be confusing the issue of the current state of the law (e.g. what the liberal activist SCOTUS has said about the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine and the First Amendment) with what the Constitution itself actually means on these issues. I don't care about what a bunch of judges have said, I care what is correct.
Just what constitutional issues have I "refused to face"? I've "faced" the supposed incorporation of the BoR into the 14th and every other point you've made. Its you who "refuse to face" the fact, for instance, that government does indeed have the right to "enact fiat prohibitions" of many types of property, such as narcotics. By the way, you keep mentioning that states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on the public aspects of pornography...but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may constitutionally take ANY means to stop the public trafficing of pornographic images. The issue is simply whether individuals have the constitutionally-protected right to display pornography, regardless of whether the state's action is "reasonable". That is why the two issues I originally stated are still THE two significant issues.


576 posted on 01/20/2006 7:24:48 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Eighth

Your emphasis on adult porn indicates you must have a problem with it. There are some good resources out there to help you with yor problem....


577 posted on 01/20/2006 7:27:42 PM PST by Greek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Is the punishment matrix a continuum or bright line? :)


578 posted on 01/20/2006 7:42:30 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

To you, Flasher Bunney, and Mighty Eigth Inch, below is an exact quote from the articel, and you dunderheads say I can't read?

"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."


579 posted on 01/20/2006 7:43:37 PM PST by Greek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

"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."

Of course the access codes will cost $$. Gee anyone but me think the government is in bed with the porn industry and internet providers?


580 posted on 01/20/2006 7:47:19 PM PST by samm1148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 741-746 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson