[Cicero]

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.

[flashbunny]

"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.

[proxy_user]

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.

[steve-b]

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.

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.

[dirtboy]

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.

Here is the problem with the specific action. There is no probable cause here to justify this information.

If an investigation reveals probable cause that a person used Google to search for child porn, then a subpeona would be valid for that person and that person only. But using subpeona powers in order to gather statistical information is a serious abuse of power.

[VictoryGal]

>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.

Where do you get *that*? Actually, it is regular pornography, they want evidence that children are seeing less porn:
"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."

This is idiocy.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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.

Actually, what I've read indicates that the law involved attempted to restrict access to adult pornography by children, and was struck down because it would have infringed on the rights of adults to access legal adult material. Big difference, and very troubling. Government attempts to meddle with the Internet apparently aren't restricted to China.

[Mogengator]

Internet child protection

The purported purpose of the subpoena is to protect children from seeing pornography, not to prevent child pornography.

Two different things.

As Miss Emily Litella would say: "Never mind."

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

This administration has also stated its desire to crank up the prosecution of "obscenity" in general.

[Redcloak]

As others have pointed out, this isn't about kiddie porn. It's about children accessing porn.

The slippery slope should be quite evident. The government is seeking records that include searches by adults who have the right to look at porn. In actuality, most of the records they are seeking will be of legal searches by adults. Only a fraction will be searches by children. As to a slippery slope, what's next? How would you feel about a similar dragnet to look for illegal firearms sales? Should the government be able to look at records of anyone who's Googled the word "rifle"?

[x5452]

Actually they're looking for any pornography, not specific types.

Th Child Protection Act which they are trying to legitimize deals with stopping children from accessing porn not being present in it.

Basically they are looking to violate the whole concept of privacy to see whether some 12 year old found a link to some xxx site while searching for the hot coffee mod for Grand Theft Auto.