House overwhelmingly passes SAFE Act on obscene images -- Ron Paul dissents to save us from ourselves?
Look, kiddie porn and terrorism are bad. Obvious. But what better way for a government to push through controversial legislation quickly than to harness their emotive properties? After all, what self-respecting member of the US House of Representatives would vote against legislation called Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online, or SAFE? Only 2 it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul) with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to On the surface we're not happy in the least at the prospect of being required by law to do what is an ethical imperative in the first place. Besides, laws are already in place that require ISPs to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Given that the Act was rushed through under a procedure reserved for noncontroversial legislation, never voted on in committee, and was never posted (in its modern October 10th form) for public review, well, let's just say our distrust of the Nanny State has peaked. Ron Paul, care to comment on your dissenting vote before this heads to the Senate?
SAFE Act of 2007 (summary)
Voter roll call
Update: Here is the SAFE Act [H.R.3791.EH] as it was passed. At least it does not seem to require proactive monitoring of data or persons crossing your pipes. Post updated to reflect new information.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Billiam25 @ Dec 6th 2007 7:40AM
You guys did it now. Don't you know that anything relating to Ron Paul equals a bum rush of his followers spamming your comments?
John @ Dec 6th 2007 8:45AM
This legislation is pointless. I don't even like Ron Paul because I think the majority of his followers (my age, anyway) like his ideas on pot more than they like anything else about him. Regardless, does the American public even know what obscenity is? I doubt the average internet browser has any idea about the Miller and SLAPS tests, which are the current standards for the definition of obscene material. What we're going to have are a bunch of self-appointed internet police officers running around and reporting everything they can find that they don't like. There's also the logistical problem of most obscene work being posted overseas.
Furthermore, if this legislation passes, you can kiss goodbye your "2 Girls, 1 Cup" gags and the infamous anime Shitting Dick Nipples (lol).
AmazingRobie @ Dec 6th 2007 8:53AM
What ideas on "pot" are you referring to? I've been following Ron Paul's campaign for months now and haven't heard anyone there mention anything about marijuana. You must be thinking about Kinky Friedman. Which makes you an uninformed person not worthy of listening to. Go back to sleep.
edgore @ Dec 6th 2007 9:08AM
Ron Paul is for the decriminalization of all drugs, under the theory that what you put into your body is none of the government's business.
dennis @ Dec 6th 2007 9:13AM
http://stopthedrugwar.com/chronicle_blog/2007/nov/27/ron_paul_on_medical_marijuana
a.guy.named.eric @ Dec 6th 2007 9:42AM
@AmazingRobie
That movie zeitgeist is all conspiracy theory. It cites absolutely no evidence in its suggestions. I did further research on it and found only other conspiracy theories that they used to support it. Nothing objective.
Jaime @ Dec 6th 2007 12:11PM
I have been reading and listening to Dr. Paul for years. Dr. Paul has stated that when he answers questions, like the pot issue, he is addressing the issue from a jurisdictional poit of view; at the Federal level, and not at the State level.
Dr. Paul position on pot, whether commercial (bird feed, hemp fiber, medicinal) or recreational, is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to ban it. The Feds could regulate the INTERSTATE commerce but not INTRASTATE. And regulation is not the same as prohibition. Remember, alcohol prohibition required an amendment.
Johnny @ Dec 6th 2007 10:45AM
My dad says marijuana should be legalized, but he's an anesthesiologist. I think weed should remain illegal because if you're dumb enough to get caught, then you're not the type who should be smoking MY weed!
bjrcboy @ Dec 6th 2007 11:11AM
I think marijuana SHOULD be legalized, so pot heads have nothing to talk about anymore. This shit gets old.
dennis @ Dec 6th 2007 11:51AM
the other link isn't working anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk
Will @ Dec 6th 2007 11:37AM
Ron Paul favors removal of authority for regulating drugs from the federal level. States would still be able to enforce drug laws as they see fit.
jroc @ Dec 6th 2007 12:10PM
He is one of the 3 candidates who isn't on the counsil on foreign relation CFR which it's founder quoted "we shall have world government wether you like it or not the only question is wether it will be formed by conquest or consent" that was paul warburg, so hell yeah I suppourt Ron Paul. Back to the gold standard!
jroc @ Dec 6th 2007 12:27PM
@ a.guy.named.eric: Nothing objective? It speaks of the official 9/11 comission, you know where it says "the funding for 9/11 was of little significance" That is no conspiracy read the damn book. As for the North American Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjSX2kO07Y&eurl=http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_cnn_hack_nafta_superhighway_imaginary.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSe8_1U7ryk&feature=related
I don't know how much more proof you need, the mexican president admitted it on CNN. What part of that is conspiracy? Do some real research before just calling it crazy conspiracy. It is happening, they even have engadget articals on RFID and big brother.
James @ Dec 6th 2007 1:19PM
Anyone here who doesn't know much about Ron Paul yet, I hope you will take the time to at least read about him a little. Ron Paul is the first chance in decades for us to have a president who is truely for the people. He is often the only one in the House to vote a particular way because he is the only national level politician that strictly votes for what is right and good for the American people. He does not care about corporate interests! And that's why the media largely ignores him, he is not, and will not be, under their control!
EDR229 @ Dec 6th 2007 3:06PM
@Jaime:
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently ruled that intrastate growth and consumption of a fungible commodity (like Cannabis or Wheat) can be regulated by the Federal government through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The basis is that your intrastate "commerce" (or for personal use, non-commerce) effectively disrupts established interstate (or potential interstate) markets for the commodity.
This applies even if there is only an interstate black market for the commodity, as is the case with Cannabis. Doesn't matter that you can grow it and consume it legally in California for medical purposes. Because the Federal government can regulate the potential for interstate commerce in the commodity, it can reach beyond the state boundary and into your living room to prevent you from further disrupting the interstate black market with your intrastate use.
It really has nothing to do with the Controlled Substances Act at this point, or other questionably unconstitutional control by the Federal government. It's a commerce issue, which is (unfortunately) clearly constitutional until a different court overturns the Raich decision.
Furthermore, Cannabis / THC derivatives are already available by prescription. My prediction is that no matter how hard anyone tries to legalize it, it won't happen. There's too much money to be made by the pharma industry and law enforcement entities in keeping it illegal.
See the Raich & Monson cases (v. Ashcroft) and related counterfilings by Gonzalez.
Ray-- @ Dec 6th 2007 5:10PM
@James
I did just that. I've been reading a lot about Dr. Paul after not knowing much about him and all... and I must say this guys is impressive! Definately has my vote.
Rev. Matt oxley @ Dec 6th 2007 7:45AM
once again proof that Ron Paul is the only one that can save this country.
BTW...he isnt for kiddie porn, he is AGAINST deputizing americans against one another and domestic spying
John @ Dec 6th 2007 9:11AM
I do love that Ron Paul song "We be Burnin'"
huh @ Dec 6th 2007 10:51AM
Yeah, and he's also AGAINST choice on abortion and he's AGAINST same sex marriage. So much for hands off government. Conservative, alright. Welcome back to the 50s.
telepheedian @ Dec 6th 2007 11:00AM
@huh:
So your saying that not killing unborn babies is outdated? It has its uses in assault cases, but you have to understand the consequences to your own actions in those cases.
Johnny5 @ Dec 6th 2007 11:18AM
Interesting to see such an outpouring of emotion whenever Paul is mentioned.
JLTate @ Dec 6th 2007 11:12AM
He's not so much against those things in particular as he is against everything that comes across his desk, whether it be a bill that supports gay rights or a bill to ban abortion. Pretty much the only thing he has voted for of recent has been the border fence and that's just because he also happens to be a bigot. Don't believe me? Here's some unedited quotes from him:
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Putting that aside, though, plain and simple the man just doesn't understand how politics works. It's not about only using one color stamp. The red and green ones should be used equally. Our government was designed by our founding fathers to be fluid, adaptable and loud, not stationary and quiet as pure obstructionists like Mr. Paul would have you to believe. The only agenda he has is to shrink the government to the point where it does absolutely nothing.
And I bet from that you didn't guess that I'm a conservative. Hah!
Bing @ Dec 6th 2007 11:40AM
@JLTate:
You like commenting on things without doing unbiased research too, huh? Ron Paul has stated that he is against abortions, but that he would "leave it to the states" as it's not a federal issue.
Imagine that! A politican who doesn't involve his personal views when he knows it's wrong to force them on people.
As for the fence: he's trying to prevent people from breaking US law by entering in ways they're not supposed to. He's all for legal immigration, so callign him a "bigot" is completely ignorant of his stance.
Grant @ Dec 6th 2007 2:14PM
I have only most recently become interested in Ron Paul for his economic policies, but after reading the rest of his stance on the government, i have to say he is an impressive and revolutionary candidate, while all the others continue to be more of the same that we have had for multiple decades.
Ron Paul is simply about removing the over-regulation of government. He is for making many programs state run, so the national branch doesn't remove funds and make national standards that don't apply everywhere.
He is simply looking to trim down what has become an intrusive, bloated, and roaringly inefficient government, by looking to constitutional rights as guidelines, which will in effect reduce taxes and allow people to continue to be as spend happy as ever.
The bottom line is that the only people who wouldn't want to support ron paul are:
1. People that have a current stake in our bloated government
2. Those who want religion in their government
3. The uniformed
4. Those afraid of change
Dauthi @ Dec 6th 2007 3:02PM
Sound bite politics are only helping the government hide things. Way to take quotes out of context and use them as you see fit without providing full-text source information so that readers have to trust that you've represented him truthfully.
Providing sound bites only helps gloss over personal stances. People who take them as solid representations of entire philosophy are too lazy/busy/uncurious to actually take the time to even consider thinking about an issue thoroughly.
In other words, fuck your quotes, sir. ronpaul2008.com for Ron Paul's policies.
Scott R @ Dec 6th 2007 7:49AM
Do you really *need* Ron Paul to comment? You already did a fine job explaining why this legislation is a bad idea.
dudeInAmerica @ Dec 6th 2007 7:50AM
Freedom in America as we know it is disappearing under the guise of "Security".
Anybody feeling more secure?
apeguero @ Dec 6th 2007 11:12AM
This country is in bad need for term limits.
ouden @ Dec 6th 2007 4:03PM
To quote a song
"The prisoner of the street shrugs "Security comes first", but the trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
Josh @ Dec 6th 2007 6:41PM
"security" is a load of crap the government feeds the public to lean further towards totalitarianism.
Case and point: Protecting germany from the "communists" that burned down the reichstaat.
mlb @ Dec 6th 2007 7:55AM
I suppose its a good thing that I roll with WPA2 on my wireless network.
bjrcboy @ Dec 6th 2007 11:12AM
Shoot yourself please.
Scott Gaertner @ Dec 6th 2007 7:56AM
Aw geez -- was there really a need to turn a tech story into a shameless plug for a white supremacist conspiracy nut presidential candidate? Please keep politics out of it.
Griff @ Dec 6th 2007 8:00AM
Aw geez -- was there really a need to post your uneducated comment? Please keep your opinion out of it.
eugene @ Dec 6th 2007 8:00AM
no kidding, every Ron Pauk post I read quickly ends with some right wing christian call to theocracy in a version of the united states that would make the klan happy.
matt @ Dec 6th 2007 8:02AM
'please keep politics out of it'
Says the man who just referred to the politician as a 'white supremacist conspiracy nut'?
Sasha Constantine @ Dec 6th 2007 8:24AM
The "shameless plug" appears to be yourself. Calling Dr. Paul these unfounded names speaks of a low-brow knuckle dragger with little intention or ability to discover the numerous qualities and greatness this man possesses. Before you slander a person, take the time to learn if you can even qualify to be in his company.
Sasha Constantine @ Dec 6th 2007 8:22AM
Slander without basis is a direct reflection of its source.
eugene @ Dec 6th 2007 9:05AM
oh please, I've read the comments left by ron supporters. Comments like:
he will bring Christ back into government!
he'll make sure the ethnic make up of america is at least 50% northern european.
Further mixing conservative values with religious dogma, blurring the line on illegal immigration with racism, these are hardly the sort of values it will take to "save the country".
Anthony @ Dec 6th 2007 9:46AM
eugene, [just about] every politician out there has some followers that are 'crazy' or 'on the fringe.' Do not kill the man for what others says.
Ted @ Dec 6th 2007 3:30PM
What a good little parrot you are Scott! Care to add anything else you've heard other people say or would you care to express an original thought? If you had done any research you'd realize how stupid you sound. I challenge you to prove one word you said about Ron Paul. You know something more common these days than intelligent, patriotic people posting comments about Ron Paul? Idiots like this muckraking without an ounce of proof. Scottgaertner.net, your resume makes you seem like an intelligent, if ego-centric, guy.(Seriously, who puts bad pics of themselves on their resume?!) Try doing some research and then expressing yourself. I suggest you start with Candidates@Goole: Ron Paul. View it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
eugene @ Dec 6th 2007 10:14AM
anthony: The problem is, I hear/read stuff like this all the time. Check out craigslist, ron paul supporters spam the local news section with their garbage all the time.
Why shouldn't I judge someone by the company they keep, by the people the attract? There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy.
andy @ Dec 6th 2007 11:02AM
"There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy."
Nazis would support democrats against communists. Does it follow that democrats are nazis or that "there is something that caused the intolernat nazists to come out to support such party"?
JLTate @ Dec 6th 2007 10:57AM
Goddamnit, Engadget. I'd like to remind you editors that this is ENGADGET, with an emphasis on "GADGET".
Unless Mr. Paul is releasing a new cell phone with a 5 megapixel camera, 64MB of RAM and a 4.1" VGA touchscreen, I don't want to hear about him or any other politician. There's PLENTY of other politics blogs out there and I'm pretty sure if you guys really wanted you could request from Weblogs that a new one to be started.
Thomas R @ Dec 6th 2007 11:07AM
Scott/eugene: Your post is nothing but a shameless ad hominem fallacy of association. By your logic, if a crazy with a keyboard posts 'kill bunny rabbits' on a Clinton blog then Clinton's platform is thus to kill bunny rabbits.
Balden @ Dec 6th 2007 12:30PM
@eugene:
As I know that guilt by association logic is employed (usually) only by children, I am glad to know morons such as yourself won't be voting this election cycle.
eugene @ Dec 6th 2007 1:22PM
Okay, if the overtly religious and racist bloggings by his supporters aren't enough, here's some of ron's own words:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Further, while all you ron supporters would like to say that just because religious nut jobs and racists support Ron, that his has no bearing on Ron... why hasn't Ron come out and condemed these guys? Why does he accept their donations?
Of course, maybe Ron supporters don't see anything wrong with an american for white christians.
Dauthi @ Dec 6th 2007 3:24PM
Again, since these are out of context, I can't make 100% truthful translations of them.
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Or, reworded for the ignorant "Going by DC's (ridiculous) criminal justice system, 95% of the cities criminals are blacks". Now, since I'm literate, I read that as "DC's c.j.s. is, probably unfairly, persecuting its black civilians."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
This one's trickier, since there is absoluately no context and no belying vocabulary. My take? "I (Ron Paul) define 'sensible government' as maintaining a free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Therefore, (3rd party) opinion polls consistently show that about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Dumbing it down further... "Only about 5% of blacks, as poll resultes show, share my (Ron Paul's) political opinions." I grant you it could have been worded a little clearer/politically correct.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
This is just a statement of experience, as far as I can see. Maybe he's never been robbed by a white teenager, or a Mexican one. If he had, perhaps his statement would reflect _that_ experience. I can't really speculate anything else; no context.
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
Statement of political opinion. Many Americans believe that the Israeli government gets overly-preferential treatment. That being said, I don't know much about their lobbying and therefore cannot attest/speculate any further.
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
Sigh. Why are people still illiterate in this day and age. "Based on an objective reading of this resolution, it would seem that all of the terrorists [Lebonese] and all of the innocents/victims [Israelis] are on opposing sides. This seems unfair, especially considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among the 'terrorists' (Lebonese)." Dumbing it down more: "This resolution says that all of the Lebonese are terrorists and all of the Israelis are innocents or victims. Which seems unlikely, as the Lebonese have higher civilian casualties."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
This is just a statement of logic. Any entities of power are going to vie against each other. Religion claims God surpasses the state, and since you can't really argue against that, secular government tries to more directly undermine religion's authority by limiting its interactions. Nothing in there says that he is _for_ the Christianization of our federal government. It just expresses that he believes the founding fathers wanted Christianity in the government, which I happen to disagree with. Churches are more successful at teaching morals and civility---that is, after all, part of their purpose, whereas it is not part of the government.
(I, for one, welcome the destruction of Christmas as a holiday.)
In summary, if you're illiterate, you probably don't like Ron Paul.
Roger @ Jan 22nd 2008 8:47AM
ho hum
Ethan @ Dec 6th 2007 7:59AM
The thing about the web is you can't really take content down, it just gets posted somewhere else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but an Act that I think encourages people to go looking won't help. I've never 'bumped into' this kind of content, you have to want to find it, or somebody has to give you the link.
Oh and yay Ron Paul for sense.