What the hell, people?

I leave you alone for a week, and what do you do? Claim that the Patriot Act didn't go far enough and let a Senate committee pass a bill allowing even more wiretapping, surveillance and all around snooping on Americans.

Then the Attorney General claims that he needs ISPs to give up information on all their users to catch child pornographers. I'm sure that there's very few people who want to defend child pornography. But just between you and me, I've never actually met a child pornographer; I don't get around enough, maybe. And I suspect most producers of said materials aren't going to hand out business cards that say "Kiddie Porn." And most of them aren't going to fill in "Child Smut Producer" in the occupation section of any sort of questionnaire. And I'd be willing to bet that 99% of them would operate outside of a country that requires a law like 18 USC 2257. Incidentally, this law requires everyone the producers to get proof of id from anyone who is visible in a porn film, nude or otherwise, and keep it available for the attorney general of the US. Presumably so he can, y'know, check they're all 21 or something, and not just to cruise for names and phone numbers and stuff.

Now, in all fairness, this hasn't just been to make the DOJ look cool. As a matter of fact, just this month they arrested some guy for importing some rather nasty videos.

But they weren't child porn. They didn't even claim to be. It was just a bunch of adults who seem to have a thing for excretions that most people don't like. Now, does this bust make your life any worse? Probably not. But it does mark one more fringe group that has been separated from the herd and picked off at leisure. The main reason these guys got busted? Their product was "obscene."

You know the classic legal definition of obscenity, don't you? Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when speaking of what could be considered pornographic, said "I know it when I see it."

That's all we have to go on: the opinion of a person who isn't even elected by the citizens of the country. And in this case, it's a person who was appointed over the objections of a great many people for his views on, among other things, who was and was not suitable for normal treatment as opposed to "special handling."

Sorry. I've gone on a bit long here. My point is this: the current administration has already clamped down on professors and teachers with politics and home countries they don't like, now they're going after people who like things in their bedrooms that this administration doesn't like.

What's to say you're not next?