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.
Here is a direct question I have asked about a dozen times so far with no reply...How will the information they are seeking accomplish their stated objective?
You "got it" backwards.
I can't help it if you're not as obfuscatory as you apparently think.
You're welcome.
The court's earlier decision was premised on the possibility of there being effective less restrictive means. Liberals and liberaltarians fear having that premise tested.
We're from the govm't, and we're here to help. Great news.
-- government does indeed have the right to "enact fiat prohibitions" of many types of property, such as narcotics.
Cite your support. -- No such 'power to arbitrarily prohibit' is delegated to any levels of government in any of our Constitutions. Such a power is inherently repugnant to our "Republican Form of Government".
LOL, you are funny. You are either dense as a rock, or you are intentionally and repeatedly misrepresenting what I have written.
You've made comments, - I've replied directly after quoting your comment. -- You can't quote any 'misrepresentations', -- or you would.
You keep bringing up this "reasonable" crap, when I have had no interest in the details of what you consider to be "reasonable" or not. Its not the point.
Reasonably drafted Constitutional law is not the point here? -- Well, at least you've stopped any pretense of playing a law school honors grad..
I am only interested in, first, the issue of whether individuals have a right -- ANY right -- to display raunchy pornography to the public. If they do not have such a right, then the "reasonableness" is irrelevant.
The issue is, do you, or any level of government, have the power to restrict what your peers display on the internet? -- The answer is; -- within reasonable Constitutional bounds, such regulations can be legislated. Anyone with any legal training should know this. -- Apparently you don't.
Your response about the original bill of rights protecting the right to pornography
Our rights to far more than possessing filthy pictures are protected, as you well know.
is simply laughable, although it is also frightening because it is also held by the most liberal judges, who actually do have some power.
Silly 'Tar Baby' tactic.. -- Your socialist views on prohibiting most anything using the commerce clause are also held by liberal judges.
Second, I'm interested in whether (assuming, as anyone with common sense must, that pornography is "protected speech"), does the Federal government have the right to regulate pornography as they see fit pursuant to the commerce clause?
There you go.. The answer is no.
This is a closer issue, but I think it is clear that internet porn falls under the definition of interstate commerce as that term was originally intended.
In other words you think the power to regulate "among the several states" includes the power to prohibit most anything.
Congress insists that they can prohibit machine guns with that power; -- do you?
Means of what? If you finished that sentence it might actually be a direct answer.
…that the issue presented in this article, that is truly disturbing, has nothing to do with sex or porn.
Possibly – I lost track of it a while back.
So many new laws & treaties & so little time to catch what they're wanting to do to you next :>{ I've got to admit I had to look that one up to see what it was.
Tigers eye replies:
Unprofessional? I disagree. This is just what they are being taught now. The Marxists haven't taken over "public education" just to let it fall by the wayside in our universities. Least of all law schools.
How true.. And as we see in dino's latest at 614, he's even bought into the socialists bit about our "decaying society"..
It takes a 'controlled society' to raise a child, according to lawyers like Hillary.
dino:
So you are in favor of a decaying society, while, in your view, only socialists are against it? Very revealing.
Only revealing of your tar baby debating style. I'm upholding the rule of law in our Constitutional Republic. -- You want prohibitions based on commerce clause fictions.
Fascinating. So if that's the case, why, after SCOTUS made their decision based partly on that premise, did the government still fail to introduce evidence of the ineffectiveness of filters on remand?
Perhaps you should ask DoJ why they were afraid of the acid test.
I'll try one more time: The First Amendment has no relevance whatsoever to state restrictions on pornography IF pornography is not protected speech. Period. The state governments can pass any legislation that they would like. Without the need for First Amendment considerations, its for the voters, not the courts, to decide what is "reasonable". This are simple constitutional principles.
We're not getting anywhere on this or any other issues, so have a nice day.
That’s why we are supposed to be able to trust our “esteemed” congress critters. There are few I trust.
The fact that until a minor child turns 18, his parents have the sole legal and moral responsibilty of him.
I responded before reading on, but your answer is much better than mine.
When I was growing up, some of my friends had smut magazines ... I had no interest in them whatever, in part due to the moral views passed on to me by my parents, my mother specifically. I didn't need her watching me 24 hours a day to know not to look at the stuff and I certainly didn't need Nanny-Sam to violate the Constitutional rights of other citizens to *protect my senses*.
I'm interested in whether (assuming, as anyone with common sense must, that pornography is "protected speech"), does the Federal government have the right to regulate pornography as they see fit pursuant to the commerce clause?
This is a closer issue, but I think it is clear that internet porn falls under the definition of interstate commerce as that term was originally intended.
In other words you think the power to regulate "among the several states" includes the power to prohibit most anything. Congress insists that they can prohibit machine guns with that power; -- do you?
I'll try one more time:
The First Amendment has no relevance whatsoever to state restrictions on pornography IF pornography is not protected speech. Period.
The state governments can pass any legislation that they would like.
Without the need for First Amendment considerations, its for the voters, not the courts, to decide what is "reasonable".
Your bold 'try' failed, miserably.
States cannot pass any laws that are repugnant to our supreme Law of the Land. This principle is made clear in Article VI, and in the 14th Amendment.
This are simple constitutional principles.
Indeed, - the Constitution is based on a presumption of liberty. -- Instead you want State voters, the 'majority will', "-- to decide what is reasonable --".
Sorry kid, but a democratic majority does not rule in the USA.
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.