June 27, 2000

9:52 AM

Another day, another piece of unconstitutional net-censorship legislation in Congress. And this time it's authored by your pal and mine, John "Watch Out for Charlies!" McCain. Perhaps we should start a deadpool for all these bills, giving out some cash to whoever guesses the dates on which the courts throw them out?
posted by aaron (4 comments total)

Let's just be happy that we have the courts to throw this out. This is more about funding then censorship. It's even more evil then outright saying they should censor things in a way, "we can't tell them to run the software, so let's make them run it by squeezing their funding until it's only a drop". Phh.
posted by thirdball at 2:17 PM on June 27, 2000

this issue isn't going to go away. in 95-96, i got my first experience with the groups that are typically involved. in this case it was ocaf . you may remember them. they were behind the efforts to ban 'the tin drum' and ended up getting their hats handed to them. ocaf at that time, was attempting to get some net censorship legislation passed in oklahoma. a talk was scheduled at a local high school. it was supposed to be a rah-rah sort of deal, with lots of self congratulatory back slapping. they were very suprised when the local online community (bbs users mostly, but a smattering of those of us already with a net hookup) showed up in force.

my main recollections: the ocaf crowd consisted mostly of ladies with blue hair. the talk was preceded by a pledge of allegience and then the lord's prayer. the people involved in the political side of the equation knew nothing about the technology.

i followed newsgroups, websites, and other outlets for a long time regarding this issue. i'm convinced that groups like this are highly motivated, and will not hesitate to use bogus evidence, to push their agenda. so what is the proper response? so far, it seems the only thing that actually works is to wait for the court to throw out laws.
posted by lescour at 4:57 PM on June 27, 2000

But waiting for the court to throw out the laws is not sufficient. It's dangerous. It also fills our legislature with crap. This stuff shouldn't even be passing congress. The judicial department is not the only branch of gov't dedicated to preserving the constitution. Those pushing these bills into law KNOW they're unconstitutional. If they didn't in 96 they sure as hell know it by now. They just keep pushing it through hoping something will make it over the top, and if you shovel enough manure in the wheelbarrow, eventually it'll start pouring over the edge.

These idiots in congress need to be removed. Any congressman pushing for legislation to censor and regulate the Internet is performing actions which are in direct discord with the constitution upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, any attempt for one nation to regulate or censor the 'Net is technically an act of social and intellectual agression upon all other nations also participating in the 'Net.

I'm more offended by this behavior than most people were of Clinton's sexual transgressions. The constitution upholds life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so I didn't have a problem with the whitehouse being used like a brothel, but I do have a problem with our constitution being treated like toilet paper.

The legislative branch of our gov't is no longer defending our constitution. This has been verified by the judicial branch. The present members of congress are not holding to the vows and pledges they made when they took office, and should be removed immediately.

How do we impeach congress?
posted by ZachsMind at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2000

The question is whether the legislators proposing the unconstitutional laws are doing so because they believe in the fight against internet p0rn (or whatever) or whether they are cynically exploiting the fears of their poorly-informed constituents in order to get re-elected. Said constituents won't have a clue when the law gets thrown out, but the politician can get tons of mileage out of having proposed it in the first place.

My money is on the latter, but I'm pretty cynical too.
posted by elgoose at 4:48 PM on June 28, 2000