The Child Protection Act is a cover storycustomer adventures, television, search engines, politics — by TDavid @ 2:12 pm PST
New!
 (Hmm, no ratings yet) Loading ... |
Maybe my brief write-up earlier this week on the DOJ / Google conflict wasn’t fully explained, but I understood exactly what the government is up to with their continued assault on porn in the guise of it being to protect children. This might seem a bit conspiracy theorist but I don’t believe for a second their principle interest is keeping chilren away from accessing adult material. That’s the cover story. Phillip Lenssen takes exception to the various news reports being twisted into this being about kiddy porn (KP), but the reality is a high percentage of porn-related stories — just watch Google news, Phillip — have some sort of KP reference in them. There is a huge difference between children accessing porn and KP, but I’ve seen this happen many, many times before.
Why didn’t I edit my original post to make it clearer that these were two separate issues? It’s simple: because I don’t think they are. Yes, they are different issues logically, of course they are, but tangentially they have a huge amount of relevance. One is the inflammatory cover story for expanding government.
It’s my perspective that the government — and those who write about porn with an accusing finger — want people to be confused by the two so that they will get more inflamed about the subject and agree to vote for laws that expand federal power. It’s political spin, it bleeds and leads. It sounds a lot more exciting to play that card instead of the truth which is the government would like to take away adult’s right to view pornography.
Parents are the ones who need to monitor what their children do on the internet, not the government, not you, not me. Parental responsibility in this country is more to blame than anything or anyone else. Why don’t more parents give a damn about what their kids are doing on computers? I’ll tell you why: the internet is the new TV babysitter. Only, instead of plopping kids in front of the TV where content is primarily one way, the internet comes with much greater perils left completely unmoderated. It’s not the government’s responsibility to do this though, it’s the parents.
Stop trying to raise our children for us, President Bush!
One of the best pieces I feel I’ve written here to date was on freedom and 2257 Our freedom is under assualt thanks to the Bush administration. You don’t think so? Do a lot more digging.
You don’t have to care about or even like porn to understand the greater risk of this kind of government intrusion. Sure, it starts with porn, something that is becoming more mainstream, despite hard right sentiments, but what is next? Where does it end?
Do not believe everything you read from here or anywhere else. Do the research yourself. Educate.
Related Posts- Adult websites won’t go quietly into the night
- Librarians say porn blockers are censorship
- Bush administration wants brakes put on .xxx domains
- Hot coed chicks with colds
- Google will fight feds ‘vigorously’ over search subpoena
- Teens with Visa cards online
Thanks for the clarification, I linked to here from my forum…
Comment by Philipp Lenssen — January 21, 2006 @ 2:43 pm PST
“Stop trying to raise our children for us, President Bush!”
i second that…..
thanks for the great posts from both you and Phillip Lenssen.
Comment by pacificdave — January 21, 2006 @ 3:06 pm PST
You’re not alone in thinking this way my friend:
Come on…let’s get real. What’s going to happen if they (the government requesting Google data) match multiple inquiries to a given user’s IP address? Think that will be “just cause” to get a warrant and go after a given searcher if, say, they were going to child porn sites? Oh yeah I forgot…the government doesn’t need warrants anymore and — similiar to dissenter’s patriotism being called in to question after 9/11 — anyone fighting this will undoubtedly be painted as “siding with the pornographers and are against safeguarding our children.”
POST Link: http://borsch.typepad.com/ctd/2006/01/this_is_being_w.html
Comment by Steve Borsch — January 21, 2006 @ 4:08 pm PST
There really needs to be some distinction made when it comes to pornography and its relationship with children. Let me have a go:
1) (KP) Is children viewing porn, which I agree is first an foremost something that parents should prevent their children from doing; in fact children and anything sexual doesn’t mix, full stop. However, what is the definition of porn? And if its about keeping kids away from this, what about magazines or videos that mum or dad might have in the cupboard…..or what of another adult or older person the child knows……
2) (KFP) Is children forced into pornography and prostitution. This is huge problem, and it always involves pedophilia. This should always be banned outright, and subject to the fullest legal force. Any kind of media that includes this should be banned and prosecuted. It’s sexual abuse and rape, not pornography. This being said, the abusers are mostly people the children know, and more often than not related to…including their parents.
3) Pornography in general is a dirty industry founded on subjugation. For example, I have heard that large corporations of varying specialiities (including automotive) have subsidiaries in the media industry that produce porn. Young, usually poor, people are lured into this for the prospect of income and find they cannot get out of it. There is also the criminal element associated with porn; the mafias etc.
However, that doesn’t mean that all pornography is bad, nor does it mean all pornography should be censored. In fact, there are wider social and economic problems that develop into the “danger zones”.
4) Censorship and controlling family values and “our way of life” (note this is a mantra I am parroting) is often a neo-fascist / neo-conservative policy. Mmm…….should I go to jail because I know this…..it’s not just Bush thats doing it, you know.
Comment by Kayelene Murphy — January 22, 2006 @ 3:54 am PST
Kaylene, can you please post sources for the definitions of KP vs KFP? Because I have read different definitions now.
Comment by Philipp Lenssen — January 22, 2006 @ 9:09 am PST
Great Truth in your words there, if more people would look in the past at governmental actions there is where you can see a pattern in they are always taking away american freedom and privacy.
Comment by A.P.Figueora — January 22, 2006 @ 1:36 pm PST
[…] I don’t support orgies on the streets or anything too extreme like that, so please don’t put words in my mouth, nor do I support exposing sex to non-consenting adults. I do strongly support consenting adults right to view this type of material in the privacy of their own homes. Should some businessman be viewing Penthouse or some even more hardcore magazine on his laptop on an airplane? Only with the person(s) in viewing distance permission, I think. We need to recognize and respect the rights of others as adults in public, but that guy should have the ability to look at the magazine on his computer privately as much as he likes. I will speak up, out and against the government any time they seek to strip these freedoms through backdoor legislation. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Zinio digitizing goes more hardcore by offering Penthouse — February 9, 2006 @ 12:15 pm PST
[…] I’m not sure how many examples we need of the Department of Justice saying they are focusing on cracking down on the reprehensible presence of kiddy porn (KP) on the web and yet lumping in adult sites, but here’s yet another one (emphasis mine): Gonzales called for additional measures against child pornography and adult-themed material in general. He asked Congress to prohibit the practice, common at some sexually explicit Web sites, of hiding innocuous terms in a site’s code so that search engines will point to them. The DOJ initiative would make it illegal for a person to knowingly deceive others into viewing obscene materials. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » DOJ continues using KP as cover story — April 21, 2006 @ 7:15 am PST
[…] The Child Protection Act is a cover story http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/ […]
Pingback by Commenter goes into moral rant over author’s adult site affiliation, why does it matter? » Make You Go Hmm — January 7, 2007 @ 2:08 pm PST