Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Huh?
In a news commentary for ZDNet, columnist Declan McCullagh commented on his expectations about John Ashcroft's soon-to-be exposed zeal to attack Internet porn purveyors. Mr. McCullagh stated, "In an election year, it's also an easy way to rally conservatives, who are otherwise lukewarm toward a president who spends like a drunken Democrat."

I must respectfully disagree with Declan's overall submission to the validity of such an old set of talking points. As well, he should certainly be aware that drunken Democrats spend very little money. In that condition, it's nearly impossible for one of them to locate and reach into the pocket of a nearby Republican.

By the way, for you sweaty-palmed Friday-night types, not to worry. Internet porn is safe as it can be. Although obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, two impediments to wide-spread prosecution exist. First, no one has, to date, defined obscene clearly enough such that a religious mass couldn't be claimed obscene by an atheist. Secondly, the ruling sighted in the ZDNet story, in an attempt to define obscene, states, "'the average person', applying 'contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest..."

That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms as to what defines the average citizen in general and, further, given the world-wide nature of the Internet, what defines a global average citizen. Thirdly, as much as the United States Supreme Court and its siblings appear to like to change the laws of the United States, last time I looked, there were a few other countries involved in the world and a few of them had different ideas.

# Permalink   Posted at 11:19 AM        0 comments       Email this Link

---