Bush's respect for the Supreme Court and privacy

[Ghoulish Delight]

In 1998, the "Child Online Protection Act" or "COPA" was passed. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that it was likely a violation of free speech. Moreover, pointing to the findings (http://www.copacommission.org/report/) of a report commmissioned by congress in 2000, they determined that the law wasn't even an effective means of accomplishing its goals. According to the study, educating the public, use of existing fitlering technologies (which would only have improved in the 4+ year span between the report and the ruling), and less restrictive/more targeted laws passed since were a more effective means that preserve citizens' right to choose and to free speech.

And yet, here we are again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/), Bush blind to or purposely ignoring the facts around him and continuing to value his personal dream of a country locked into his personal moral code over the civil liberties he swore to uphold.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And yes, I realize this was passed under Clinton, and I was angry at Clinton when he signed it. But what's particularly troubling me now with Bush is that A) He's continuing to fight this even after a Supreme Court ruling against it in a time where the question of the relation of the Executive Branch to the Court is a key one and B) He's demonstrating a disturbing belief that it's the government right and responsibility to comb through the collective communicatinos of the citizens of this country to make sure they aren't communicating anything he considers morally objectionable. He can call the wire tapping "specific and targeted" all he wants, we know that the facts are that he ordered telephone companies to release their full phone histories so NSA could run pattern seraches on the data to find anything "objectionable". And here he is attempting to seek similar authority for internet records to uphold a law that's already been struck down by the SC.

[SacTown Chronic]

Yes, but we ARE AT WAR!

This means the president can (and will) wipe his ass with the very same constitution that he claims to love (I have five dollars that says the dumb phuck couldn't pick the constitution out of a police lineup.).

[Gemini Cricket]

Surely Bush has the country's best interest in mind. We shouldn't question him, it's wartime, don't you know? MSN shouldn't have published this story, do they want our enemies to know what the president is doing? Besides, you're not supposed to be paying attention to this story nor the president's ratings nor the Dems new ethics plan that came out today... don't you know that a new Bin Laden tape came out today by those al Jazeera bastards? Besides, the last five years or so have been the Clintons' fault. Did you hear Hillary call Congress a 'plantation'? Surely she's a racist. Don't you just hate her? Why talk about all this, liberal whiner? You don't want the terrorists to win, do you? To disagree with me is unAmerican. Why does GD hate America?

[scaeagles]

I have to say that I don't see a point to this, but don't find it as outrageous as some. I won't go off topic, but this is pretty small potatoes to me. I can think of other things Bush has done that are a much bigger threat to free speech and privacy.

As far as bringing up something that has already gone before the supreme court....this is not uncommon. Cases are re-presented under varying circumstances all the time. Honestly, I have no idea if there are other circumstances at play here, but I say who cares? Just to poke a bit, and it certainly wasn't the right thing to do, most dems (not to say GD is operating from that standpoint at all, but in the government I would suspect dems will be the ones most loudly objecting) saw no problem with getting Robert Borks video rental history. I didn't like it then, and I don't see a point to pursuing this course of action, but I also don't see a major threat from it. I know, I know....slippery slope and all. But isn't that why there is a court? If the request is denied or a law struck down again or whatever, then the system worked just fine.

And yeah, GC.....the plantation thing was ridiculous, and I do regard AL Jazeera playing a tape of bin Laden calling for a truce as a bit more important, but those things aren't the subject of the thread. :)

[Alex]

Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do.

The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29june20041115/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-218.pdf) (PDF).



This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court.

I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit.

(By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)

[Alex]

Don't forget that reviving COPA wouldn't even be the first attempt to get internet pornography restrictions past the SC. COPA was passed after the similar CDA was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't like the law, but the Bush administration is doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do.

The Supreme Court did not rule COPA unconstitutional, they essentially ruled in favor of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA while the consitutional issues were dealt with in lower courts and simply said that the grounds for upholding the injunciton was that the law was likely unconstitutional (but that hadn't yet been decided). As always, reading the full opinions is a good learning experience (and they're not nearly so impenetrable as most people expect) so here a link (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29june20041115/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-218.pdf) (PDF).



This isn't an attempt to do an end-around on the Supreme Court, it is an attempt to bolster the argument they intend to make in lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court.

I don't like the law and I don't like the method they're using to try and win their case, but I also don't think it is indicative of what you say, GD. While the SC has essentially said "looks like you're a loser" it hasn't actually yet made a determination. They just said that if Bush wants to enforce COPA he's going to have to prove his case in court and that is what this current subpoena is, part of that ongoing lawsuit.

(By the way, the 2004 ruling is one of the few times when Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were on the same side of a ruling in disagreement with Antonin Scalia.)

[alphabassettgrrl]

He's never respected personal privacy (except his own), what makes us think he'd start now?