Politics: September 1998 Archives

I read the other day in Salon[*] that Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the EFF, is concerned that seemingly no one is taking up arms against the soon-to-be-infamous CDA II, or Son of CDA, the new version of the Communications Decency Act that is about to pass the house, will likely pass the Senate, and then be signed into law by our Chief Moral Offier (I'd like to get my hands on the pen that signs THAT bill).

You want to know why no one cares? Because it is a non-issue. This law specifically outlaws only distribution to minors, and it specifically only outlaws smut, and it specifically only targets commercial distribution. I would, of course, like to see the "commerical" definition tightened up, and that in itself might be grounds for another court ruling that this one is unconstitutional, too.

But let's be real: this is something most Americans WANT. I know few people who WANT other people to be able to give actual pornography to kids. This bill is a mostly targeted attempt at preventing this, and only this. It is something most Americans can support, with little reservation.

But the other reason no one cares is because of the lies perpetrated by the EFF and other opponents. For instance, it is a lie to say that the Starr Report would fall under CDA, in any form. First, the Starr Report is a congressional document, which means it is privileged in the eyes of the law, and not subject to defamation and obscenity laws. Second, even if it weren't, any court in the land would rule that it is protected speech simply because of the overriding national interest. Third, even if there were not an overriding national interest, the content fails to meet the standards set in the bill itself: it has a serious political interest, which means it is exempt, under section 3.e.7.E.

There are other lies. They say that news organizations can be subject to this law by reporting about smut. There is nothing in this law that would void the special status the reporting of news already has in this country, and few news accounts would ever amount to a depiction of patently offensive sexual acts, unless there were an overriding interest (such as in the Starr Report case). Further, reporting "smut" in your business is not necessarily the same as being engaged in the business of selling or transferrting "smut".

Also, the EFF claims that CDA II keeps almost all the unconstitutional portions of the original. This is simply untrue. It keeps none of them, though possibly introducing a new one, with the vagueness of "commercial" (but I think it is sufficient to pass constitutional muster).

Then they go on to say stupid things about it being parental responsibility, not the governments. Most of these same people don't complain about laws against giving drugs to minors. We have laws to protect minors: in the end of the day, it is absolutely the responsibility of the parents. But that does not mean we cannot or should not have laws to help.

Am I for CDA II? Probably. But even if I were not, I would be upset at the lies told by EFF and co. I was against CDA I, and I attacked the EFF and ACLU back then, too. The end does not justify the means.

[*]Of course, being that I am loathe to trust Salon after its poor judgment in the Hyde incident, I am not trusting that he actually said what he said; but though I don't trust Salon to be responsible with its judgment, so far they seem to be trustworthy in the facts they report. :-)

Not much worthy to say about the Clinton thing, except this: mothers were complaining about the Clinton tape being on TV. Well, turn the damned thing off.

One high school senior interviewed about the tapes defiantly told the interviewer, "Just because it's on TV, that doesn't mean I have to watch it." While I agree with that, I was shocked by the thought that anyone would think differently. Of course you don't have to watch it.

I watch TV. I like TV. I watched the hearings (mostly listened, I suppose) as I worked. But there is no obligation for anyone to even HAVE a TV, let alone turn it on, let alone watch it, let alone watch something in particular.

So mothers, if you cannot be bothered to turn the TV off, or at least change the channel, then I could always use another TV. And I know plenty of people who want children, if you can't be bothered to take care of yours.

I wish Clinton had not lied. I wish he had not done what he did. But he forced us into where we are now. Not Starr, not the Republicans. He did it himself. I wish he hadn't, but it was nothing that I did not expect from him, which is one reason why I voted for George Bush and Harry Browne.

Many people claim that we have no right to look into Clinton's private life. Well, that simply is not true. Jones' attorneys had the obligation to their client and the right under the law to look into his private, sexual life. And Judge Kenneth Starr and Attorney General Janet Reno and a certain three-judge federal panel had the right and the obligation to look into claims of perjury and obstructing justice. And when Clinton further lied about it, Starr and the U.S. Congress had the right and the obligation to publish the evidence against his claims.

For the lawyers, judges, and congressmen to do anything else would be to ignore the strong evidence that President Clinton was breaking federal law right in front of their noses. It's a long, ugly, winding road. And it is all Clinton's fault.

Now we have a Salon report about Henry Hyde's past marital infidelity (for those of you who don't know, Salon is a mostly liberal version of The Drudge Report, but done with even less care toward responsiblity to the readers and the subjects than Drudge himself).

And the question I ask is, yeah, so? This has no bearing on the man Henry Hyde. I am 25 years old. This happened before I was born. The fact that he had an affair 30 years ago has no meaning. If he did it last year, and had sex in his congressional office while talking on the phone to the CEO of a tobacco company, then yes, it might have some meaning. But it has no meaning at all. It does not make Hyde look bad in my eyes. It makes Hyde of 30 years ago look bad in my eyes. So what?

Speaking of 30 years ago and looking bad, George Wallace comes to mind. He looked bad 30 years ago, too. But in the many years since then, he had done an about-face on his racist position of old and was a man we could all look up to as a courageous figure in our struggle for freedom for all people. Ironically, he died last week, just in time to remind us that transgressions of yesterday do not make a person bad today.

People change. To think that the Hyde affair matters is to assume that he has not changed. I have changed a great deal in 25 years, and I can't assume he hasn't done the same in 30 years (of course, probably not to the degree that I have :).

So what was their motivation? Why did Salon print this? Well, they claim they did it because we have a right to know. Know what? Know something newsworthy, sure. We have that right. But this clearly does not fall under that heading. They say that, well, Clinton is in trouble primarily for lying, and Hyde must have lied too, so it is the same. Hyde did not lie under oath, he did not lie to the American people, he did not try to obstruct a lawful investigation into his lies.

When it all comes down to it, Salon admits they are trying to beat up on Hyde for no reason other than the fact that Hyde is beating up on Clinton, regardless of the simple facts that what Hyde did 30 years ago has no meaning. That's it.

We hope by publishing today's article to bring this entire sordid conflict to a head and expose its utter absurdity. Does the fact that Henry Hyde engaged in an adulterous affair, and tried to keep it hidden from his family and constituents, mean he is not fit to hold public office? Absolutely not. And the same is true of President Clinton.

If that's all that Clinton did, then we would not have a problem. Clinton did not "try to keep it hidden," he committed perjury and probably obstructed justice. Clinton did not do it 30 years ago, he did it last year. They are deliberately distorting the facts to make their point.

Of course, along the way they throw in terms like "sanctimonious" and "moralistic". If insistiting that perjury and obstruction of justice not be tolerated in our public officials is sanctimonious and moralistic, then I guess that's what I am.

So we have "journalists" who report what is not newsworthy, what is not relevant, what is not consequential, and what is slanderous, for the simple, admitted reason that they want to smear Hyde, because he is "smearing" Clinton. That is not only childish and irresponsible, but it does not make sense considering the facts of why Clinton is under investigation.

Buncha hacks is all they are. Keep that in mind whenever you hear the word "Salon" associated with the words "news" or "story" or "journalism". As I have many times mentioned, we can only trust sources, not information. And Salon has demonstrated that they are not to be trusted; not because they are not telling the factual truth, but because they are blatantly irresponsible with the factual truth.

ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY
ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES KENNETH A DULL BOY

We find the President of the United States to be a blameless individual, unflaggingly faithful to his beautiful wife and child.

REDRUM