Comments on: Politician who banned abortion-related Web sites dies

Henry Hyde, 83, died on Thursday, leaving behind a federal law that penalizes Internet discussions of abortion with five years in prison. The law's still on the books today.

[bjdooley]

And this monster merits an obituary?

!

[csetzer]

Hyde

One may find the fellow loathsome, but Hyde was quite an influential senator.

[appledogx--2008]

The world will really miss another fascist

Remember the days when Republicans stood for less
government and strongly supported the Constitution? It is
abonimation that such a law is even on the books in a "free"
country. That begs the question; is it still free?

This guy was more of the neo-fascist type Republican of late,
not the old GOP respectable Republicans of old. These men
make it look like the party of Mussolini, not the party of Lincoln.

May God rest his soul and keep those flames from scortching
too much.

Hopefully, undemocratic men like him will all be voted out.

[fafafooey]

More stupid hyperbole and Democrat cheerleading by DNCnet

Why do you liberals have to inject politics into EVERYTHING???? Are you that desparate - or just sad sacks?

[hardedge]

So what you're saying is...

...that BJ Clinton issued a signing statement at the time of this bill --something that the Democrats have been howling about George Bush using-- and got a pass for doing so?

Have we forgotton that the Internet is global and that our jurisdiction doesn't extend beyond our borders? Did Clinton forget that free speech and responsible speech are undeniably interwoven? Have some of you forgotten that the right to speak freely carries no equivalent right to be heard?

And, finally, if wishes were horses, and this or that might or could happen, we'd be up to our necks in crap here rather than simply speaking ill of the dead.

[alegr]

Clinton vs Bush

"Clinton lied - nobody died".

Clinton lied about getting a BJ, which should have been a personal matter between him, ML and Hillary, not a matter for persecution.

Bush lied about reasons to go to war. As a result, many Iraqis and US servicemen died, and the whole country was f-ed up.

Bush says in his signing statements that he will ignore parts of law that limit His desires to ignore the Constitution.

Clinton said in that signing statement he will not enforce the part of law that limits rights of citizens and goes agains the Constitution.

Now who's better?

[thorninside]

hyde

Before we get all teary-eyed about the demise of this hypocrite let's take a look at the record. As I recall, he was the leader of the pack of jackals who tried, unsuccessfully, to hound Clinton out of office because he lied about a sexual liason. Somehow, however, this aptly-named alter ego of Dr. Jekyll neglected to mention his own farays into infidelity which, when exposed,were referered by him to have been "youthful indiscretions". And, by the way, the "youth" was 41 years old, and a congressman at the timw. So much for "family values".

[faust]

Speaking of sad sacks

have a look in the mirror pal.

The man was a crappy politician so of course his crappy politics will be discussed. He was a clown, now a dead clown which is better.

[charliehorse1967]

Amazing!!

I find it amazing that somebody would accuse Henry Hyde of being a clown, and yet Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy both continue to be reelcted. I also find it amazing that CNet can be so negitive about a man who sacificed a lot to serve his country (as opposed to William Jefferson). And to think that the intelectually challenged liberals deny that the news is slanted to the left (this article reads like it was writen by a Planned Parenthod unthinking drone)!

[QLorraine]

Henry Hyde = Hypocrite adulterer

when it was found out that he had a several year affair he chalked it up to *youthful indiscretion*...he was in his 40s!

[bugaboo1k]

You people are sickening

You disgusting, liberal death revelers?Your hypocrisy is always belied by your disgusting glee at someone?s death, yet on the surface you come off as caring, even nice people. You?re not. You?re garbage expressing your happiness at this, yet, when a murderer like Castro or Chavez kicks off, you?ll probably cry crocodile tears at their passing. Reasonable people can disagree, even about the big issues and adults understand that if it?s coming from a reasonable place, we can even be civilized. Didn?t your divorced parents ever teach you that? And Declan, in this country, if you want to change the law, you usually need a MAJORITY of people agreeing with you. Hyde seems to have had that.

[declan00]

majority of politicians != majority of Americans

You say: "And Declan, in this country, if you want to change the law, you usually need a MAJORITY of people agreeing with you. Hyde seems to have had that."

This is an innocent mistake, but a common one. Changes to the law are created by politicians are swayed by special interest groups (which are the very opposite of a majority of Americans).

You think a "majority" of Americans want to build bridges to nowhere? Hand out corporate welfare? Etc.?

[Joey Barney]

Ellipses

Am I the only one who gets suspicious when a "journalist" uses excessive ellipses? Unfortunately it often means he is intentionally trying to misquote a source by clever use of puntuation, and that is the case here.

If you take 30 seconds and read the actual law as it is written, it becomes clear that this legislation has nothing to do with banning "abortion-related websites."

Just read the law. You'll see that the author's mischaracterization of this ammendment is intentional.

[natophonic]

joey blarney

Yes, everyone should read the law that's so helpfully linked to right before the edited quote, but perhaps you need to take a bit more than 30 seconds. No, there's no specific mention of "abortion-related website", but "interactive computer service" and "notice of any kind giving information" could easily be interpreted in that way.

Hyde claims that's not what he meant. We're supposed to believe that of a guy who called his affair at age 40 a "youthful indiscretion?" Yeah, right.

[declan00]

Joey: You fail to understand that when dealing with an OR clause, courts absolutely interpret things with ellipses. So you're not just wrong, you're entirely wrong.

If you want the version with minimal ellipses, here you go (yes, it's poorly written):

Whoever... knowingly uses any... interactive computer service... for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce... any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made or whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

[Jonah Johansen]

Projection

Classical Freudian projection the left ascribes all of its own faults to its enemies.

The left accuses the right of being mean spirited and vicious. 10 minutes of reading this or virtually any other controversial thread puts the lie to this.

The left accuses the right of censorship yet whose speakers are banned from campus, shouted down or assaulted if they dare to appear? Who loses their job if they ruffle the feathers of the left's protected classes? Who wants to remove the one TV channel not reporting the news with a liberal spin, who is it that wants to silence those who use the radio to express their views? Who is it that controls what movies get produced, what TV series are produced and what slant on history and public affairs children are indoctrinated with?

The level of venom, profanity, vulgarity, violent fantasies directed at their opponents is an order of magnitude worse on left wing blogs, forums and internet postings than on right wing(this fact is easily observable by the most casual reader).

[letsbereasonable]

Common decency

Whether you agree or disagree with the man personally, professionally, or politically you should show some restraint at the least and respect at most to a man who dedicated his life to public service. Cherry picking a couple of hot button issues and sniping at a dead man is in poor taste.

[gear1152]

Good riddance to bad rubbish

'nuff said.

[btljooz]

But the [u]true[/u] Rubbish is still around...

The laws that this person spearheaded are still on the books. Until [b]THAT[/b] Rubbish (AKA male bovine fecal matter) is gone there is no "good riddence" at all.

[btljooz]

Get over yourselves, people! ...And

your ridiculous [b][u]extremist[/b][/u] [i]POLITICS[/i]. :|

The man was 83 years old!!! That is the [i]average[/i] lifespan these days. Therefore, his passing is a [b]NATURAL[/b] occurrence!

Dissing a dead man 'who [i]served[/i] his country' may be in bad taste, but it IS [u]STILL[/u] [b]Freedom of Expression[/b] covered under the [b][u]First Amendment[/b][/u] of the [b][u]Constitution[/b][/u]!!! The very Constitution this person has changed as evidenced in this article. It just so happens that the change that he facilitated is TRUELY founded upon ridiculous [b][u]extremist[/b][/u] [i]POLITICS[/i]. THAT is where the [i]rub[/i] should be on BOTH sides of the [i]coin[/i]. ;)

This man changed some laws around to suit himself and a few others with said ridiculous [b][u]extremist[/b][/u] [i]POLITICS[/i]. Our current [i]Administration[/i] hasn't even bothered to change laws to suit them, they have simply ignored a lot of laws that are already there!!!!! So if you REALLY want to bring [i]politics[/i] into this discussion, [b]THINK[/b] with your BRAIN (if you [u]still[/u] [b]know how[/b] by not allowing yourself to be brainwashed) and simply respond with [u][b]logical rationality[/u][/b] INSTEAD of all of this (distateful) typical ridiculous [b][u]extremist[/b][/u] [i]POLITICS[/i].

[b]UNINTED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL[/b] ... people, we are falling [b][u]FAST[/u]!!!!!!!!!![/b]

[spothannah]

Sad

I'm sure he meant well. What he didn't understand was that a person could be pro-child, pro-life, pro-family AND pro-choice all at the same time. If you don't want to have an abortion don't get one.

[lvlasyuk]

If you're on one side...you can't possibly be on the other side. You can't be pro-life And pro-choice. If there are people like that, then they aren't truly pro-life, they're pro-choice. Especially when the question of abortion arises. Abortion is a very controversial subject and a major dilemma in this world of ours. You have many people who are for or against it. I had done a paper for one of my classes and I did a lot of research on abortion. I think that it comes down whether the person thinks abortion is morally right or wrong. I agree that women should have a say as to what happens to their bodies but I also agree that nobody should have that kind of power or authority over choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. It's sad to see that we say, "One Nation, Under God" but we think so differently and judge one another. Whatever happened to our belief, hope, peace and love for one another? Where is the love?

[aidsnews]

Congress ran scripted debate to say they didn't mean it

When Congress was about to pass this law, the so-called "Telecommunications Decency Act," one of the opponents noticed the abortion-information language, which someone had cut and copied from an old law even though the courts had thrown out that section. (The rest of our representatives didn't read what they were about to pass -- understandable, since the huge final text of the law was kept secret even from most members of Congress until the last day.) Well, passage of the act -- mainly intended to improve regulation and competition, which it largely failed to do -- was supposed to be a done deal, and there was no time to change a single word of the text and get all the sign-offs required. So a leading supporter and leading opponent of the bill ran a scripted interchange on the floor of Congress, making clear on the record that neither side intended to ban abortion information. Abortion supporters went along because they wanted the rest of the law. Then they passed the bill.

You can see this exchange at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r104:./temp/~r1043uWMvI
(search for 'abortion'). Or find the "UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT (Senate - February 01, 1996)" in the 104th Congress, and search for 'abortion'.

The idea was to allow supporters of choice to vote for the bill despite that language in it, since the defendant in any future prosecution would have an open-and-shut case that banning abortion information was not the Congressional intent. That's probably why the Bushes haven't prosecuted. But who knows what may happen in the future?

John S. James, www.smart-accounts.org