First thing, I submit that this government request for data is, in direct terms, A LOAD OF CRAP, if you prefer, nothing but a FISHING EXPIDITION, though I'd be hard put to say which species of fish was being sought.
Otherwise, I've seen mention of "offensive material" a number of times in this discussion. Interestingly, offensive is not explained, or didn't seem to be. Additionally, the diatribes of the anti gunners are "offensive" to me, not so to some others. In no way however does mere offensive material magically morph into pornography. Personally or publically speaking, I find this entire Do It for The Children gambit to be not only offensive and lacking in the elements of judgement, but shy of common sense too.
In conclusion, might I offer the followig on what is or isn't fit for children, and how it might come to impact on ADULTS. For many years, Bosley Crowther did film and theatre reviews for the New york Times, his stuff usually appearing in the Sunday edition. Once upon a time, he comented on the fact that some film, I have no recollection of it's name, could not be shown in Detroit, it was not granted some sort of exhibition license or permit, based on allegations that it would be harmfull to children to see this film.
Crowther was willing to grant this premise, at least for discussion purposes, however he rightly noted that it would cause adults no harm at all. He went on to note that were this theory to run it's course, that adults would be permitted to see, ony that which was fit for children to view. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this bit about Doing It For The Children sounds disturbingly familiar, and in the event that push comes to shove, I truly hope that the federal courts also tell DOJ and the Bush Administration to STUFF IT, as Google seems to have done.
One might, by the way, have some reservations about Google's data retention, however off hand, I would say that what government here seems to attempt less than acceptable.
Otherwise, I've seen mention of "offensive material" a number of times in this discussion. Interestingly, offensive is not explained, or didn't seem to be. Additionally, the diatribes of the anti gunners are "offensive" to me, not so to some others. In no way however does mere offensive material magically morph into pornography. Personally or publically speaking, I find this entire Do It for The Children gambit to be not only offensive and lacking in the elements of judgement, but shy of common sense too.
In conclusion, might I offer the followig on what is or isn't fit for children, and how it might come to impact on ADULTS. For many years, Bosley Crowther did film and theatre reviews for the New york Times, his stuff usually appearing in the Sunday edition. Once upon a time, he comented on the fact that some film, I have no recollection of it's name, could not be shown in Detroit, it was not granted some sort of exhibition license or permit, based on allegations that it would be harmfull to children to see this film.
Crowther was willing to grant this premise, at least for discussion purposes, however he rightly noted that it would cause adults no harm at all. He went on to note that were this theory to run it's course, that adults would be permitted to see, ony that which was fit for children to view. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this bit about Doing It For The Children sounds disturbingly familiar, and in the event that push comes to shove, I truly hope that the federal courts also tell DOJ and the Bush Administration to STUFF IT, as Google seems to have done.
One might, by the way, have some reservations about Google's data retention, however off hand, I would say that what government here seems to attempt less than acceptable.
