by Matt Barr

Something that will never be discussed with intelligence or clarity anywhere

The federal government wants to put warning labels on the Internet to "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images," Attorney General Gonzales said.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.

A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive "words or digital images" in their source code -- for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen "absent any further actions by the viewer."

We know where The Blogosphere is going to come down on this: The same way it does when the government wants to do anything about the Internet. Government! Internet! No government Internet governing! Keep the Internet free of the government! This is the most oppressive thing the government's thought of in 50 years!

So that'll be no help. Cue the ACLU:

A critic of the proposal said that its requirements amount to an unreasonable imposition on Americans' rights to free expression. In particular, a mandatory rating system backed by criminal penalties is "antithetical to the First Amendment," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.

In other words: Government! Free speech! No government free speech governing! Keep the free speech free of the government! This is the most oppressive thing the government's thought of in 50 years!

What we have here is the bloated, wasteful, inefficient, remote, ginormous federal government trying to figure out how to keep you from offending yourself. Nine times out of 10 you can count on someone to point out that on the list of entities anyone with a brain wants figuring out how to keep them from offending themselves, the Department of Justice is on page five. But if we're talking about pornography on the Internet, all you get is a bunch of nonsensical hyperventilation.

The ACLU should make a strategic decision to stop getting involved in pornography cases. It should refuse comment on things like the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006. Everyone knows what it's going to say, and nobody cares. "They're trying to do something about pornography." "Really? What's the ACLU think?" This exchange hasn't been heard in any form in 25 years. It's like, "There's a Republican running against a Democrat." "Really? Who does Hugh Hewitt support?"

As for The Blogosphere, its problem is obviously Government! Internet! As so:

These are the Campaign Finance Reform Republicans, the leaders we’re all counting on to keep telling the UN to stuff its plan to seize the web.

How about this. Warning labels? Has a mandatory warning label ever done anything besides demonstrate that the people who mandate the warning label are concerned, caring mommies and daddies all the warn-ees can feel safe and secure re-electing? Among warning labels that have never served a reasonable purpose ever: "Do not eat" on that little white package that comes with your shoes; "May be harmful if swallowed" on a hammer; "Employees must wash hands before returning to work." Warning labels are stupid.

Warning labels about graphic images on the Internet? Where will this warning go, above or below the gigantic graphic image? What will it say? Don't look! Your eyes! And we know exactly where this is going. When warning labels are ineffective, surprising a total of six people, all in Washington, the next Attorney General will require little pop-up warnings before the formerly warning labelled page comes up. "You have requested a possibly off-color page. Are you sure? How old are you? Who'd you vote for?" Pop up blockers will be outlawed because they surpress the new warnings. Soon, the warning label will have to be tattooed on the inside of your eyelid.

I can't remember the last time I accidentally encountered a pornographic image while looking for something else. But you're Computer Boy, you've been on the Internet for 12 years. You have blogs and domain names! What about people who haven't got the foggiest idea what they're doing on the Internet? Their eyes! Shut the hell up. We don't make cars all go 10 MPH with big flashy neon signs that say "DON'T LET THIS HIT YOU" because there might be pedestrians who are unfamiliar with how traffic works. We expect people to be rudimentarily aware of how to be safe walking along a road if they're going to walk along a road. The carnage and genocide this has caused has so far escaped major media attention.

There should be a special circle in hell reserved for people who market porn by making sure searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies get people to click through to their sites. But you know what? Maybe the kid searching for Teletubbies on the Internet shouldn't be waddling along in the middle of the road by himself. Huh, Mom? And search engines -- those strange and unusual things the textbooks sometimes call market participants -- will curb this problem to the best extent possible because it's in their interest. If people looking for one thing often find another, they'll stop using that search engine. Let's see. Federal law or profit-motivated company. Let me think.

We won't get a discussion like this, though, not about pornography on the Internet. Even libertarian sites will seize on the fact that most major religions oppose pornography so let's leverage the power of the federal government in the opposite direction, making sure the pictures of penises are as big as possible. Religious people inadvertently stumbling across porngraphic images is a good thing. Imagine the look on their faces! Ha ha!

In the face of no rational discussion or credible resistance whatsoever, the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006 will become law of the land. And the terrorists will have won!

Browse books from Amazon.com: