Sen. Kerry wants to ban Internet images of dog fighting
It's time to add onetime presidential hopeful John Kerry to the long list of politicians who have scant understanding of free speech and the Internet.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a press release on Friday that he wants to make it "illegal to transmit images of dog fighting, to run websites that cater to dog fighting."
Sen. Kerry wants to outlaw the 'transmission' of this image over the Internet
(Credit: copyright-free-pictures.org.uk)Such a law could, of course, imperil news organizations and animal rights Web sites that "transmit images of dog fighting" as part of reporting on or, alternatively, condemning the practice. It could even make this article, which includes a photograph of dogs fighting, illegal.
Thanks a lot, senator.
Now we should say at this point that we're hardly fans of dog fighting, which is a brutal, bloody, and awful practice.
But neither are we fans of Washington politicians who fasten firmly onto a topic, like lamprey eels, immediately after it hits the headlines. As far as we can tell, Kerry is no longtime, principled opponent of dogfights: a Web search shows his first press release on the topic appeared two days after NFL star Michael Vick's indictment on dog fighting charges hit the news last week. Kerry, of course, has been in the U.S. Senate since 1985.
It's true that dogfighting is illegal in every state, at least according to the Humane Society of the United States. And a recently amended federal law already bans interstate transport of any animal used in a "fighting venture."
But just because an act is illegal doesn't mean that photographs of it should be. Photographs of murders appear in documentaries and in news articles. Images of the My Lai massacre, in which U.S. soldiers slaughtered unarmed Vietnamese civilians, helped to end the Vietnam war. Should photographs of a college student using peer-to-peer networks to trade copyrighted files--a federal crime, no joke--be outlawed by the U.S. Congress as well?
Now, we recognize that the senator from Massachusetts could probably write legislation in such a way that would get a thumbs-up from the Supreme Court and not create another gaping hole in the First Amendment's shield protecting Americans from government censorship. (Something like: "No person, in order to promote a dog fighting event that is prohibited under state or federal law, shall knowingly post on the Internet videos showing dogs fighting at an organized match or competition...")
But Kerry's self-congratulatory press release gave no sign that he intended his harebrained scheme to be limited that way, and not giving politicians more credit for constitutional intelligence than they actually deserve should be a tenet of all political reporting.
Kerry, by the way, received a remarkably poor grade of just 15 out of 100 possible points in CNET News.com's 2006 Technology Voter Guide. That's in part because of his dogged support for other censorial measures over the years, including the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "anti-circumvention" rules, and to place Internet filters in schools and libraries. At least he's consistent.
We should note, to avoid charges of partisan bias, that Kerryesque censor-happy proposals are hardly limited to Democrats. The Bush administration is no champion of civil liberties, and Republican politicians have recently floated ideas like forcing Web sites to report illegal images, requiring Internet providers to keep records on their users' activities and demanding that naughty Web sites be labeled.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
On the other hand, hairbrained would equate the person's brain to the size of a hair. In John Kerry's case, the latter would certainly seem appropriate. Never mind that it isn't in the dictionary!
Typical American politician. The quick fix to all of our problems seems rooted in the limitation of our freedom.
He's probably afraid that he's going to show up in one of those
pictures and damage his campaign.
But, the good Senator is barking up the wrong tree on this one ... 'nough said.
warned me about. They're all compulsive little fascists at heart,
aren't they!
Americans need to unite and get theae Democrat idiots out of office. That goes for the Republican jerks also.
comment:
"Another example of Kerry's thinking process. Who the hell put
this jerk into office? He may be a billionair but he is short on
rational , common sence thinking. This guy like all the
Democrsts needs to be put on a slow boat to China and half way
over, sink the boat to give this jerk a feeling of what its like to
be an idiot, who thinks he is intelligent."
Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaida, and what years
of war has given us (hint: many dead, terrorism thriving) ...
Another example of Bush's thinking process. Who the hell put
this jerk into office? He may be a billionare but he is short on
rational , common sense thinking. This guy like all the
Republicans needs to be put on a slow boat to China and half
way over, sink the boat to give this jerk a feeling of what its like
to be an idiot, who thinks he is intelligent.
See? Does it seem like a good idea to pull polarizing political BS
on us when we have a terrorist supporting nazi moron running
the White House and trying desparately to burn the constitution
to the ground?
Kerry is wrong on this point, not Democrats.
all the problems we face in this country and all the issues we need
to resolve - Sen Kerry is focused on dog fighting. Perhaps we need
to ban Sen Kerry.
Sorry, I don't buy into your rational. I am willing to give up a little freedom if it protects the innocent and discourages discusting activities. Count me on the side of Senator Kerry, at least he is addressing this issue as he has child pronography on the web.
Maybe all news should be text only? No illustrations that might depict illegal activities. But since more and more countries outlaw not only child porn photographs but also drawings and text, should we ban crime literature as a whole? Can you write about crimes? Do you have to wait until the perpetrator has been caught and convicted so as not to give the impression that criminals get away?
"I am willing to give up a little freedom" - it STARTS with "a little". It ALWAYS starts with " a little".
You could start with banning actual crime-inducing media like those police chase shows on TV that make people try and get fifteen minutes of fame while they wreck property and endanger passers-by...
Your argument is flawed, the definition of porn is: explicit writings, photographs and video. So yes banning child pornography does include banning the images because thats what it is. Dog fighting, on the otherhand, is a vicious physical act and rightfully should be banned, but is a picture of dogs fighting the same as the act? I dont think so, otherwise a picture of a illegal weapon would be the same as owning it, or a picture of drugs the same as using them.
- Sen. kerry
- by Cwadsgo July 24, 2007 7:33 PM PDT
- sen. kerry is a FOOL
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)