The Federal Government is seeking to get private internet use data from Google, having already obtained said material from yahoo! and MSN. Google is fighting the suit brought forth by US Attorney Genral Alberto Gonzalez. The reason? Supposedly, it is for the children! The Bush Administration, in its misguided attempts to placate some far right people, is trying to defend the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 federal law that seeks to ban Internet sites from displaying content that the government deems ''harmful to minors." The Supreme Court has ruled that the law can't be enforced unless the government shows less intrusive measures such as Internet filtering are inadequate. The government hopes to use search results from Google and other companies to show that Internet pornography is so pervasive that only a federal law can protect children from it. Here is the thing, the government itself has acknowledged that filters are better. The other issue: the law itself says nothing about the word pornography--it says objectionable material--objectionable to whom? This is dangerous and slippery slope and people of all parties should be upset by this. However, where is the mainstream media outrage? Why the silence overall? The reason--this was a Clinton Sponsored law. A Clinton signed law...and it is for the children! You don't want to be seen as pro-porn, anti-child, do you? What this really is is an effort to further the nanny state, because SOME people out there wants the government to do everything for them, and this is just the next evolution. Remember the V-Chip? Groups advocated for it, but almost a decade after they became standard, the same groups of lazy parents are still arguing for family tier programming from cable companies. So, what did the cable companies do? They gave the whiners and those who want others to raise their kids family tier programming. So, what is the new compaint? The family programmind tier does not include sports, because sports are live events that can have uncertain content (ala wardrobe malfunctions).
Now, rather than use the very effective filtering, to take a few minutes extra time to actually be proactive in raising their children, the lazy and the useless are seeking to have government further intrude into EVERYONE'S LIFE by getting this information from google, and implementing this law which was struck down once, this Online Child Protection Act, rather than take the initiative. These are the same people who wanted the V-chip but are too lazy to figure out how to use it. Of course, the arguments these armchair parents make is "well, I don't know that when Johnny goes over to Pedro's house if they have the same filters or Vchip installation"....well, gues what? Ask Pedro's mom. And if they don't, don't send little Johnny over there!
This is bordering on the insane and ridiculous, if it were not so dire. Who knows, if a democrat comes into the White House, they could decide Rush 24/7 is "objectionable" or that viewing The Corner over at NRO is objectionable, or Republicans could decide that viewing Democrat Underground is objecionable. Just think about it. This is a very slippery slope, and I fail to understand how an administration that seeks to keep government out of our lives is behind this. It is wrongheaded and it may lead to less freedom. The Bush Administration is wrong on this one, and I applaud Google! for their stance.
Standing up against this inquiry and this proposed "registering to use" objectionable sites, punishable by law, is an unnecessary and illogical abuse of federal authority. Filters work far better, as do the V-chip. However, the lazy and the useless have to take the initiative and actually raise their children, and like, you know, discipline them themselves.
It is a shame that so many have children when they are not prepared or willing to take this very important role, and it should be the parents, not EVERYONE held accountable for their issues. Making a bigger nanny state is not the answer. Individual responsibility and accountability is.
