Feds seek Google records in porn probe

[Can'thavenuthingood]

"somebody tapes the criminal act, how is that any different from "Cops", "Craziest Police Videos", or the 8 o'clock news showing a police chase? "

In those cops vids there is a pursuit in progress, the crime was previously committed.

I understood the gov's request of Google to be one of just data, an attempt to build the case against child pornography.
They just wanted to count the hits to a specific site, not who or where the hits came from.

Is that an incorrect understanding of the issue?

Google has agreed to comply with China's wishes to censor many things. That makes it apparent to me that Goolge is just grandstanding and going for the dollars or yuan.

Vick

 

[CAnnoneer]

In those cops vids there is a pursuit in progress, the crime was previously committed.

The pursuit itself is an ongoing crime because the perp is evading a legal stop and/or arrest. Incidentally, the main reason perps get slammed harder for it is the endangerment of the public that comes with it. If you have ever been a by-stander in a police car chase, you know how scary and dangerous it is for every driver on the road.

 

[CAnnoneer]

it has to do with the definition of "obscenity", which is established in accordance with cultural conception.

And that is exactly the problem. Criminal law should be as blind to cultural issues as possible. Otherwise, it can be used as an oppressive tool of different intensity by the cultural majority. If the law always mimics the cultural majority in every issue, it is guaranteed the minority would always be one of criminals.

I maintain that it is preferable to limit criminal law to a few fundamental crimes, rather than allow it to become a tool for cultural comfort of the majority. That is also why I see this discussion as so directly applicable to 2A. What if in the future, the voting cultural majority becomes anti-gun? Does this mean they have the right to make gunownership criminal? It is yet another issue of the fundamental rights of the individual versus the wishes of the society.

 

[RealGun]

it has to do with the definition of "obscenity", which is established in accordance with cultural conception.

I am finding the term "cultural conception" unclear. Could you expand upon what you meant to convey?

 

[Old Dog]

Criminal law should be as blind to cultural issues as possible.

Difficult to see this ever happening in any society.

And strike the word "cultural," insert "religion-based." Many believe that a number of religious proscriptions against certain acts, particularly in the area of sexual matters, were all grounded in practical, ultimately, scientific reasons.

Through the years, even primitive cultures became aware of the long-term results of such things as incest and sex with pre-pubescent children. Ultimately, these acts contributed to the destruction of the tribe. Over the years, these concepts became incorporated in religious teachings so as to provide moral strictures against the commission of these acts.

I'm sure you already knew this, though.

If the law always mimics the cultural majority in every issue, it is guaranteed the minority would always be one of criminals.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. Even such disparate religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism share much societal law and many, many prohibitions of certain types of behaviors ...

That is also why I see this discussion as so directly applicable to 2A. What if in the future, the voting cultural majority becomes anti-gun? Does this mean they have the right to make gunownership criminal? It is yet another issue of the fundamental rights of the individual versus the wishes of the society.

Relating every single issue to the issue of 2nd Amendment rights is something that I see happening far too often on this forum. Granted, it is a firearms forum, but -- not every issue can be related to gun rights. The other thing is, we are certainly (in this country, at least) getting away from having a clear-cut voting cultural majority.

 

[RealGun]

Relating every single issue to the issue of 2nd Amendment rights is something that I see happening far too often on this forum. Granted, it is a firearms forum, but -- not every issue can be related to gun rights.

While the 2A is not really the essence of gun ownership, if one cannot relate an issue to gun ownership, it is off topic, correct?

The other thing is, we are certainly (in this country, at least) getting away from having a clear-cut voting cultural majority.

I don't believe there is supposed to be a cultural majority at a national level or that such is essential to the government of the US. All citizens are peers regardless. None are guests of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), who might think of themselves as descendants of the Founding Fathers. One would have to accept the consequences of welcoming immigration or indulging in slavery.

By your own definition, if I read "cultural majority" as "religion-based majority", I could suppose that gaining and exercising clear control of the US by Christians was a real mission.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't think we're in disagreement here, RealGun. My post was in response to CAnnoneer's evident attempt to extrapolate a 2A issue from the issue of child pornography and societal constraints on (whatever its definition of) obscenity. I simply don't believe his argument has merit, although I do see where he's coming from.

And,

I don't believe there is supposed to be a cultural majority at a national level or that such is essential to the government of the US.

I agree with you here -- I'd been referring the disappearance of the European Judeo-Christian portion of the country's populace that formerly did constitute a de facto "cultural majority."

By your own definition, if I read "cultural majority" as "religion-based majority", I could suppose that gaining and exercising clear control of the US by Christians was a real mission.

Some already believe that the right-wing faction of the Republican party has achieved this and that this was their goal ... I don't buy it.

 

[CAnnoneer]

And strike the word "cultural," insert "religion-based."

I prefer to talk of the more general issue, because religion does not necessarily cover all grounds of a culture. Also, as you pointed out, in many ways most sensible religions have overlaps in certain areas, which means that being in the religious minority does not necessarily make you a cultural minority in a particular issue.

Another way to make the same argument is to say that a group of people sharing a culture in effect share values that produce morality, or moral judgments. If that morality is allowed to completely overlap the law, or the law is expanded to encompass all aspects of that morality, then the law may very well be quite oppressive and would certainly criminalize those that do not share a subset of aspects of that morality. In a situation like that, freedom is maximal only for the totally compliant, and non-existent for everybody else because dissent makes them criminals. Therefore, freedom then effectively exists for nobody.

 

[Old Dog]

I prefer to talk of the more general issue, because religion does not necessarily cover all grounds of a culture.

But the thing is, most cultural rituals and taboos all either stem from some type of religious observance, or for whatever reason, were incorporated into a society's religious practices in early stages of that's culture's development.

And I see what you're saying, CAnnoneer, but when we're speaking of laws based on morality that concern such things as non-consensual sexual acts with children and viewing images of same, that's an entirely different kettle of fish than other laws, such as anti-abortion or anti-sodomy laws, that also were codified in scriptures of various religions.

If that morality is allowed to completely overlap the law, or the law is expanded to encompass all aspects of that morality, then the law may very well be quite oppressive and would certainly criminalize those that do not share a subset of aspects of that morality. In a situation like that, freedom is maximal only for the totally compliant, and non-existent for everybody else because dissent makes them criminals.

As we see when a society becomes more secular, more laws of this nature are struck down (witness the legalization of abortion and the various stages of disappearance of laws that made homosexuality illegal, for example). However, it is important to draw a line, and some of these laws based on morality are certainly appropriate, and critically needed, for all societies. To wit, laws protecting young children from sexual abuse and incest.

 

[RealGun]

But the thing is, most cultural rituals and taboos all either stem from some type of religious observance, or for whatever reason, were incorporated into a society's religious practices in early stages of that's culture's development.

For me to make sense of this, I would rephrase it as "a society's cultural identity". For example, if "In God We Trust" and "one nation, under God" are successfully inserted as Trojan Horses, the religious can claim those as incremental justification for further inroads, later claiming them as evidence that the society (and the government) is inherently religion based.

Incrementalism is used for all sorts of social engineering, segments of the society constantly jockeying for position and dominance. There is a never ending need for control and uniformity. If there is a real interest in protecting diversity, its defense would need to be above board, in your face, and quite aggressive...none of this catering to righteous indignation about being persecuted and not having freedom of expression.

There is indeed a "freedom from religion" entitlement, at least in the USA. At the same time there is a freedom for religious expression at appropriate times and in appropriate places. I don't happen to think that civil war and genocide is a proper form of evangelism, but that would be the ultimate outcome of allowing religion to be directly relevant to the government.

I wouldn't say I am off topic here, because this thread is about the government wanting to define and impose standards of morality and to impose upon privacy in order to accomplish that mission. I am fine with it if talking in terms of real harm to developmental psychology, a healthy upbringing for a productive member of a society, but I am not supportive if concerned about how closely one follows the doctrine of a certain religion. Is Congress serving the needs of the country or are they responding to the protests of a special interest group?

I would love to see pornography eradicated. I am just not sure there is a valid basis for accomplishing that without fearful implications for many other aspects of life.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Good points, except for this:

I would love to see pornography eradicated.

Hey buddy, don't try to come between a man and his MILF.

 

[mack]

Well I think Google should just cooperate. In fact I think they should provide them with even more information, just to be sure. They should enthusiastically print hard copies of all their information on all their servers and of all their search results, and all the web pages they've cached and all the web pages they've linked to and then throw it all into boxes simply marked Google and ship it via trains, planes, and trucks to D.C. with a nice bill for their cost to print and ship it.

 

[DRZinn]

I like the way you think, but just remember who pays that bill in the end. And the larger one for sifting through all that stuff. Which they would.