Comments on: Cable giants bullied into new child porn censorship deal

Deal would give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children total power to force takedowns.

[pmocek]

Richard Stallman writes:

Several major US ISPs agreed to censor Internet access.

The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups that supposedly contain "child pornography". This term is dishonest, since the law defines "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children. They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our government calls them "children", with the implication that being attracted to them makes you a pervert.

The danger of censorship goes far beyond this specific instance of censorship. Once ISPs agree to censor the Internet for one kind of thing, they can easily censor other things. In effect, they have now constituted the Great Firewall of the US.

[rexrino]

I grew up with censorship as a child, in movies and Television. I suffered no ill effects that I can fathom. I think we have been told for so long by so many extremists that some people actually think that any censorship is wrong. If censorship were so damaging, and so evasive, it never would have allowed the content we view today. Anyone who can argue that child pornography should be allowed to be accessed and viewed by any adult is not concerned with the wellbeing of children. I would not trust such a person in any capacity, no matter what thier argument.

The fact is, there are some adults who have decided for us, that we should be exposed to this sort of thing. What happened to my right not to have this stuff thrust into my face every time I get on the internet or into the faces of my grandchildren?

There are things, mommy and daddy don't want their children to see, and for good reasons, not perverted ones. Why should stangers be allowed to dictate the world I have to live in, as long as I'm following the general, moral, social guidelines of society? Sometimes, when people can't control themselves or stop putting their smut into the faces of others, we have to control them ourselves. If the porn industry had our best interests at heart, and felt socially and morally inclined, we would be passing these laws.

Because this is a democratic country, I vote we pass the laws necessary to protect the children from this type of exploitation, even if it means I can't have pictures of nude teenage girls in my procession at any time, and I can't publicly express a desire to have sex with children or teenagers.

Believe it or not, it will not hurt my world in any degree and I'm not going to let simple minded people dissuade me from exercising my rights to determine the nature and environment of the world in which I live, as long as that world is contained within a framework of socially established morality. We have the responsibility to protect our constitutional rights and the responsibility of protecting our children and the social norm. We determine the priority by comparing the damage done to the individuals involved. In this case Children take the lead on the priority list. We can pound out the subtle differences at a later time when we have more data to work with.

If those people armed with the power to determine the amount of protection afforded to children try to exploit this power for their own agendas, we will replace them and prosecute them if necessary. If the effort becomes unworkable and we are not protecting any children, we will rework the whole idea. If one child is saved and our rights are not infringed in any noticeable degree, then the effort is worth the pain. No pain, no gain.

[pubmat]

I agree with rexrino. You actually sound like someone they should be watching pmocek, if you find something wrong with protecting kids. Especially if you think 16 year olds are sexually mature, and are open to your predations.

[pmocek]

Whoa there! I quoted someone else. The only words in the above comment that belong to me are "Richard Stallman writes." Apparently, this blog doesn't render blockquote elements very clearly.

I'm all for protecting children. We adults have an obligation to do so.

Pubmat, if you disagree that most 16-year-old humans are sexually mature, you should pick up a book about human development and read about puberty. Most 16-year-olds are indeed sexually mature: They are capable of reproducing and have developed the physical characteristics of an adult man or woman. We are genetically programmed to be attracted to such adult characteristics. It is ludicrous to think that someone who finds another person who is 17 years and 364 days old attractive is somehow worse than someone who finds that same person to be attractive the next day on his or her 18th birthday. Acting upon that attraction is undoubtedly a bad idea in either case unless you, too, are around 18 years old.

We modern humans are attracted to plenty of people who are off-limits to us for numerous reasons (e.g., age differential, existing partnership commitments, lack of mutual interest, etc.), and the vast majority of us are able to manage without causing any trouble to ourselves or others.

[pubmat]

Pmocek, when you use the term "sexually mature" you are NOT limiting it to PHYSICAL maturity. Of course many, if not most kids are physically mature at 16 or 17---but certainly not intellectually, morally, philosophically. THAT, my friend is the thrust behind the law, not the extremely narrow way that you are describing it.

[pmocek]

Pubmat, you are mistaken. When I use the phrase "sexually mature" I mean sexually mature. I do not mean intellectually mature, morally mature, or philosophically mature (whatever those are). Most people are sexually mature well before the age of 18. Most people have developed physically to the point that they possess features that normal, healthy adults find attractive well before the age of 18.

Stallman's point was that it is ridiculous to refer to images of sexually-mature adults -- even young adults -- as "child pornography".

I fully agree that most 16-year-olds should not be involved in pornography. Same goes for 17, 18, 19, and 20-year olds. Of what significance, other than that which is created by our laws, is the age of 18 in this case?

The real issue here is censorship; the "won't someone think of the children" part is a ruse.

[Pete Bardo]

I'll expect the Miley Cyrus web site to be the first targeted. I was enjoying my cable-internet access speed, but, if they are going to start telling me what sites I can view I think I'll start looking somewhere else. Maybe this will make it easier for the smaller ISP's to compete with the big boys. Hope so.

[ToddWBeaver]

I have never understood how it can be illegal to have a nude picture of a 17 year old but legal to have relations with that person. Still, there is no right to child pornography and it's an important duty of our society to protect children.

[rexrino]

Better check you local laws about that photo there Todd, before telling the public you have it in your pocket. :)

[rexrino]

if the idea that you are sexually attracted to teenagers makes it out of your private mind, you are a pervert, IMO.

We all have to deal with the ideas and desires that inhabit our brains, but thinking about killing someone and actually doing it are two different activities. One is private, the other is public. But, I'm sure you already know this information. So why even bother to post such a remark?

[tacit]

It is indeed an important duty of society to protect its members--especially those members who can't protect themselves, like children.

However, it is ALSO an important duty of society to protect its members from false accusations and improper or unfair application of power. History shows that private groups that have no accountability or oversight will, when given power, eventually abuse that power. Even if they mean well.

It is ALREADY illegal to host child pornography. ISPs and Web hosting companies ALREADY take down child porn and turn the content owner's information over to the FBI. All this bill does is give a private group complete and absolute power over the ISP's content, without appeal or oversight.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely,

[rexrino]

It works the other way too. The law established to accomplish the results are impeded for the same reasons --those organizations that are given the power to do so, don't, without the appeal or oversight of those who desire the protection. History has shown that as long as laws are implemented and not enforced by individual appointed with the responsibility to do so ( which is you and I and us), that we will ultimately give up that right for all of us to private groups that have no accountability or oversight. The need of individual and organizational responsibility is what is at question here. Why don't those who are appointed do their job? Why do we have to resort to these types of actions to protect our children? History has shown that individuals, as a whole, refuse to take responsibility, leaving it to the powers that be to apply this service for us all. There will never be a time when people can live together in harmony without laws and the powers to enforce those laws. Accept it. It is the norm. I've lived my whole life in America and suffered some, but far less than I believe I would in another country.

[Idyot]

The NCMEC wants carte blanche power to issue a takedown of any customer's content hosted on a cable provider's servers. So how does going after the major cable operators solve anything when there are a multitude of other hosting ISPs to choose from? The NCMEC doesn't realize how big the sandbox really is.

[rexrino]

grew up with censorship as a child, in movies and Television. I suffered no ill effects that I can fathom. I think we have been told for so long by so many extremists that some people actually think that any censorship is wrong. If censorship were so damaging, and so evasive, it never would have allowed the content we view today. Anyone who can argue that child pornography should be allowed to be accessed and viewed by any adult is not concerned with the wellbeing of children. I would not trust such a person in any capacity, no matter what thier argument.

The fact is, there are some adults who have decided for us, that we should be exposed to this sort of thing. What happened to my right not to have this stuff thrust into my face every time I get on the internet or into the faces of my grandchildren?

There are things, mommy and daddy don't want their children to see, and for good reasons, not perverted ones. Why should stangers be allowed to dictate the world I have to live in, as long as I'm following the general, moral, social guidelines of society? Sometimes, when people can't control themselves or stop putting their smut into the faces of others, we have to control them ourselves. If the porn industry had our best interests at heart, and felt socially and morally inclined, we would be passing these laws.

Because this is a democratic country, I vote we pass the laws necessary to protect the children from this type of exploitation, even if it means I can't have pictures of nude teenage girls in my procession at any time, and I can't publicly express a desire to have sex with children or teenagers.

Believe it or not, it will not hurt my world in any degree and I'm not going to let simple minded people dissuade me from exercising my rights to determine the nature and environment of the world in which I live, as long as that world is contained within a framework of socially established morality. We have the responsibility to protect our constitutional rights and the responsibility of protecting our children and the social norm. We determine the priority by comparing the damage done to the individuals involved. In this case Children take the lead on the priority list. We can pound out the subtle differences at a later time when we have more data to work with.

If those people armed with the power to determine the amount of protection afforded to children try to exploit this power for their own agendas, we will replace them and prosecute them if necessary. If the effort becomes unworkable and we are not protecting any children, we will rework the whole idea. If one child is saved and our rights are not infringed in any noticeable degree, then the effort is worth the pain. No pain, no gain.

[t26l]

It is disappointing, although not surprising, to hear the same well intentioned yet ill advised arguments for censorship, government control, or the need to give up a little liberty in exchange for some promise of protection (which never materializes in any case). In fact, you have things almost exactly backwards. The Constitution is a document which lays out the concept of negative rights (i.e. the right to an opportunity, the right not to be unduly interfered with, etc) and NOT positive rights (i.e. the right to receive entitlements or a share of your neighbor?s property or indeed to NOT be offended by the free speech of others). The notion that some individual liberties must be sacrificed for the collective good is most definitely NOT based in the American tradition of freedom.

There is NO right to force other people NOT to offend you. There is NO right to FORCE the world to conform to your view of the way things should be. If you are on your own private property then you may set whatever rules you wish for your guests or members of your household, but if you go out in public and you are offended or even if a majority of people are offended there is NO right to silence the offender. Now, people can be held to account for what they do and say in public and you answer speech with speech, but this notion that censorship is not harmful or even desirable to protect sensibilities is dangerous and necessarily against freedom. It is not American.

Now of course, those of us who take these positions are not advocating in favor of child pornography, but it is distressing to those of us who still value freedom and recognize that freedom is basically an all or nothing proposition to see the same trump cards, as Mr Soghain puts them, of child pornography, terrorism, and illegal drugs used as a cudgel to beat down any reasoned opposition to their well intentioned, but ill advised, use to curtail basic principles of a free society in service of some short term goal, however laudable that goal may be, without regard to the collateral damage they cause to freedom down the road. Indeed, once the slippery slope is trod upon it is all downhill from there.

If the price of a free society with free speech is you being offended from time to time or even most of the time then so be it. The founding fathers were exceedingly wise in the careful balances that they struck in the Constitution and we should think twice, thrice, and ten times before we encroach upon those freedoms with censorship, no matter how worthy that censorship may seem. As others have pointed out, the government already has sufficient powers to investigate, convict (or not) in a fair trial, and punish without putting the Constitution through the shredder in the process simply because it is expedient or the government cannot be inconvenienced with due process when it comes to terrorists, drug dealers, and child pornographers.

It is my own belief that your incorrect notion of the way things should be stems from a basic tendency of people to take for granted the good things in life and to regard as the work of the devil any bad things which happen to good people. Moreover, it is a very appealing and easily understood point of view to say, ?there ought to be a law against that? or ?the government should do something about this or that?. Unfortunately, the idea of protecting freedom, even though it might sometimes hinder our ability to ?get the bad guys?, is based upon a much more subtle line of reasoning that many people are not wise enough to appreciate even though the benefits of the free society that they enjoy (or what is left of it these days anyway) derive from that more subtle line of reasoning as embodied in our Constitution. The point of all of this is to be careful what you wish for when you go down the road of censorship, you will get more than you bargained for in the end and the gain (which is by no means assured) will NOT be worth the pain.

[jlsdev]

"I'm not going to let simple minded people dissuade me from exercising my rights to determine the nature and environment of the world in which I live, as long as that world is contained within a framework of socially established morality."

YOUR rights and whose 'morality'? What, did God go on vacation and leave you in charge? I'm not defending child pornography by any distant stretch of the imagination but I DO oppose ANYONE who decides to impose their immediate and particular view of what constitutes "morality" on anyone else. "Morality" is not a constant but an ever-changing, elusive and extremely subjective quantity/quality and what is immoral for one individual may be perfectly moral for another, might not have been yesterday but is today and vice versa which is exactly why it has been impossible to come up with any definition of what constitutes "pornography" beyond the oft quoted "I know it when I see it".

In addition, speaking of "simple minded", it is important to realize just what a "huge place" the Internet really is with servers all over the entire planet. So let's say one or two or even several or all ISPs in this country start "enforcing" this "ban" on child porn... We can learn from the spammers who simply "hop" from provider to provider in all of the other countries that exist and do not have any laws preventing whatever activities one happens to disagree with at 11:28 am on Sept 11, 2008 - It's the "whack-a-mole" approach and it simply does not work and what, exactly, happens here in the USA tomorrow when someone else with a different view of what is "moral" comes along with their unique and individual idea? Does that override the previous or add to it and if the latter is true just exactly when do we reach the point where all information flow ceases because it must be objectionable to someone, somewhere, the plug is pulled on the Internet and anywhere else entirely and neither you nor I have any opportunity to voice any opinion?

When it comes to giving up rights and "exercising rights" be very, very careful what you ask for - You just might get it and once rights are gone, rest assured they are never coming back. "I may disagree with your opinion but I will fight to the death your right [and mine] to express it".

[behni]

The NCMEC is not a law enforcement organization; how is it that the major ISPs knuckled under to this. especially in light of existing federal laws that cover this situation.

And what, exactly does NCMEC plan to do about those sites overseas?

[Mindset22]

Agreed. Tacit's point is valid. This is about radicals wanting control. When they themselves would be infringing on American's rights to private matters. I'm all against child pornography personally, and protecting the children is important; but as Tacit has already stated they're laws for their protection already.

As rexrino says: and i quote, "Why should stangers be allowed to dictate the world I have to live in, as long as I'm following the general, moral, social guidelines of society? Sometimes, when people can't control themselves or stop putting their smut into the faces of others, we have to control them ourselves....
...Believe it or not, it will not hurt my world in any degree and I'm not going to let simple minded people dissuade me from exercising my rights to determine the nature and environment of the world in which I live" This goes both ways, I like my freedom.

And finally as Pmocek says, teens already have sex. I guarantee 50% if not more have sex, do drugs, drink, etc. Hell, half the time it's the kid's making the kiddie porn. Much like all censorship issues, parent's can not be lazy, *****, and whine. They must stand up, and protect their children from these issues personally. (Cyber-Nanny, blackboxes, knowing where they are at, who they are with). The majority of responsibility rests on the Parents...passing on their wisdom to the kids hoping they become responsible enough not to stand in the middle of a highway.

[JCPayne]

Yuck.... It must suck to be in the US these days.

[Gunther45]

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but I think that besides making the stupid people believe that the ISP are somehow single handedly stopping child porn they can then remove all of there newsgroups ( more to the point ALT.BIN news groups ). Lots of ISP severely limit their newsgroups as it is, because it takes up lots and lots of space and most newer users don't even know what NEWSGROUPS are, even though that was the main internet before we got all graphical. I would actually like to see into the books of the NCMEC, they are probably funded by the RIAA and the MPAA to stop transfer of illegal copyrighted material by stopping the newsgroups. There are probably less than 20 out of 100,000's of newgroups. They could just stop those which many if not all for liability reasons already do!.

As far as the selective websites being banned by a group with no legitimate legal enforcement rights, that's crazy. Is there a panel that decides this or just some Flanders's guy surfing for things he believes is inappropriate?

If that's the case you could say goodbye to any Japanese web sites of any product that has a model wearing a Sailor Moon Costume ( Japanese Schoolgirl). If she looks provocative wouldn't that be inappropriate considering she is wearing a schoolgirl outfit? This is going by the child porn law that says even if its not a child if it simulates a child. I don't know if the law states there has to be sex or just look like they want to have sex, but know photographer is going to tell the model to hold the product but look bored and uninterested!

As far as the whole child porn thing! I think its 90% hyped BS! When I was a kid I never heard about this or that happening to any kid or that child porn is a multi billion dollar industry. Did 10 years ago all of the pedophiles just say lets go take over the world! Other than the train shop guy trying to touch Arnold in the bathtub, it wasn't as prevalent. Before like 72 or 73, I think it child porn movies were legal.( I could be wrong about that). Either way it existed, so its not something new.

I seriously believe that the child pornography problem is no where near the proportions that they are claiming and they are using this as an excuse for further censorship in a decade that has seen more liberties and freedoms be squashed in the states then it's whole existence.

So no one thinks that I am a proponent of child pornography. ( this issue is about Censorship)
If someone harms a child in a sexual manor please just try them legally in the justice system and save the tax payers money and shoot them!
If some are against capital punishment, you could relocate all legitimately convicted pedophiles in walled community with an adult achondroplasia community within the wall as well. No children get hurt and everyone is happy!

If families just interacted with the children more we wouldn't need other groups to try to protect them. School shooting didn't exist when I was a kid and I know guns did!

[darkgoob--2008]

Easy:

There are often PDF files hidden within JPG files that are posted on "anonymous" image boards (the chans, 7chan.org etc). I've gotten the bible in PDF form this way.

These are sites that allow you to post anything though any illegal content such as "CP" is against the site rules and removed by moderators when it's found. However of course since there have been 56 million posts to these boards in the past year, the number of appearances of "CP" is probably much higher due to the overall activity level at these sites (though the overall ratio of "CP" to other content is extremely small, and not enough to justify calling them "CP" sites).

Frankly though if these sites are cut off by comcast or anyone else then it will spark SOMETHING THAT THE CABLE COMPANIES DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH.

Lets just say that. We WILL NOT tolerate our freedom of speech being *****'d with.

[rexrino]

I kinda don't want my freedom of looking being ********d with either. If I don't want to see something, I don't want it forced into my face. That's exactly what these smut dealers do. They trick children into coming to their sites and spread sexual innuendo where ever and when ever they can. They don't respect us or our children's rights to privacy and freedom of information. They insist they have the right to create the media in the world by standing behind the rights expressed in our constitution. So why should we protect theirs?

We have to stop it somewhere. I say we try it and see if it works. If it doesn't, we'll just ditch it and find another solution. Nobodies freedoms are going to be hurt except the smut dealers.

[malcarada]

It is time to start striking the pockets of all these so called "childrens charities" who continue to spread lies in order to justify their fat cat salaries.

They censor themselves if they bored but leave out internet alone, you t***s

[rexrino]

Please..... the fact your not concerned for children is so much in what you write. You don't have an internet. When did you ever create anything?

[frgwtr]

when all this is going on who will watch the watchers??

[rexrino]

I will watch the watchers. You watch yourself.
:)

[XiroMisho]

"Yuck.... It must suck to be in the US these days." - JCPayne

yeah - totally. I mean, dude I tried to take pictures of the 7 year old kid next door and exploit his pictures online in a sexual matter - definatly terrible. I mean, it's a free country right? Why can't I bait a minor to come over to my place for a few nude pictures and E-laced candy bar...

ARE YOU INSANE?! This is a "BAD" thing? It's eradicating Kidde Porn! They aren't going after the King James Bible! They aren't going after music or bittorrents, there is one solitary goal in mind here - the eradication of child pornography and, perhaps optimistically, the capture of those viewing, uploading, and hosting this vile garbage!

they aren't policing your PC, they aren't invading your privacy - unless you're a sick individual who actually thinks this stuff should be defended! What?! Are you serious??? this is... this is great news! More child pornographers and those who choose to enjoy the sick act behind bars? Why would you protest such a thing? Unless... well I'm just using my powers of observation, not accusing, but if this actually outrages you perhaps we should look into your browsing history...eh?

and as far as "Radicals wanting control" maybe it's concerned parents getting together (these board members might be parents you know) and making sure that these things don't happen. Some of these sites are created by willing children... okay maybe, but I'll guarantee there aren't enough 'Willing' children out there to make a living off of, what about kidnapped children? children in third-world nations sold to a child prostitution ring. you want to support that? You know what, if you have a problem, write your cable company or congressmen, but honestly this is a good thing, these aren't good Samaritans, they're the scum of the earth.

and lastly, to the person who said the kids are willing... any "Child" will be willing when someone threatens them. Children are easily scared. usually the children on these sites tell people that the person taking their picture threatened their mother's life. it's one thing if you're Marv from Sin City and you can break someone's arm in three places with a well placed grab, but when you're a five or twelve year old... there aren't alot of options.

[sisob1]

That's it? You come this close to real reporting and flake out? The issue is not whether NCMEC knows the difference between a video of a screaming toddler being raped from the King James Bible. Get a clue.

The issue is the nexus between the federal law enforcement, major corporations and NCMEC. The mainstream media won't look, and the privacy media never gets beyond sophomoric, snarky blogging. Let's face it, Soghoian, child exploitation isn't your issue and privacy isn't mine. But if you really care as you say you do about child pornography being used as a Trojan horse to take away your rights, you ought to start digging deeper, starting with a copy of that MOU. How hard could that be? Maybe you'll end up also caring about children being used as commodities.

[sisob1]

That's it? You come this close to real reporting and flake out? The issue is not whether NCMEC knows the difference between a video of a screaming toddler being raped from the King James Bible. Get a clue.

The issue is the nexus between the federal law enforcement, major corporations and NCMEC. The mainstream media won't look, and the privacy media never gets beyond sophomoric, snarky blogging. Let's face it, Soghoian, child exploitation isn't your issue and privacy isn't mine. But if you really care as you say you do about child pornography being used as a Trojan horse to take away your rights, you ought to start digging deeper, starting with a copy of that MOU. How hard could that be? Maybe you'll end up also caring about children being used as commodities.

[CaptainMetal]

Seriously? What's the deal with all these ISPs?
I don't know, maybe I am the only one who trusts the government more than a private organization.

Here I thought the FBI was making progress with this issue; I sure haven't seen much news about child pornography spreading like a virus. So then, why were the ISPs so quick to bend over for some private organization???

I thought child pornography is only a small part of child exploitation. I thought a group like NCMEC would be more concerned with child labor or sex-slavery. Oh wait, they only focus on issues within the United States! Jesus, CP is being created from within the US? Not really? Okay, I get it...
They think that watching CP is causing normal people to become child molesters? Not really? They think that CP being watched by pedophiles is magically harming the children in the videos more than the initial event depicted in the videos? Not a chance? They think that children who somehow find CP will go get themselves molested? Huh? I didn't even know there was such a thing as CP until I was 17 and got bombarded by the crap on file-sharing networks as renamed files (along with plenty of 'snuff' files).

Why aren't they (at the NCMEC) getting some balls and going after the child molesters that make the videos? Oh right, because most of them aren't in the US!
This whole NCMEC thing stinks of conspiracy. The NCMEC is not going to end CP unless they can cross borders and get rid of the sources. The FBI has a much better chance of doing just that.

I am all in favor of eliminating child pornography from the Internet, but that will never happen if they (government or otherwise) can't eliminate the ones actually creating it. Still, I truly believe that nobody is born a child molester; instead, I feel that it is a result of something gone awry in our foul societies. So then, this is all a farce to turn our attention away from our segregated and degrading societies.

Or not, you decide for yourself.

[johnxtampa]

I swear the usenet thing was secretly engineered by the RIAA... I wish someone would expose that. If only there were some kind of activist journalist with the ability to look into that, for things like big donations to NY governors, things like that.

[SVValk]

The comment that "Americans of age 16 ... are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive" is irrelevent. Just because they are doesn't give adults the right to prey on and exploit them. And we're not simply talking about 16 year olds here or is that the white elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I also think taking the attitude that this is the start of a huge censorship surge a la Fahrenheit 451 is a little like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. The fact that we're giving a group who protects children from people who intend to do them harm info. on those very people doesn't make me worry. If they come after my copy of Harry Potter, then I might start to get a little concerned.

[pmocek]

SVValk wrote, "The comment that "Americans of age 16 ... are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive" is irrelevent. Just because they are doesn't give adults the right to prey on and exploit them." This was probably in reference to my quote of Richard M. Stallman's take on this. Those things are relevant. We're talking about labeling someone a pedophile because he or she looks at a picture of a sexually-mature young adult. Neither I nor RMS nor anyone whose comment I have read here is advocating anyone preying upon or exploiting anyone else, child, adolescent, or adult.

The issue at hand is censorship, which is almost always a bad idea.

[jlsdev]

Don't worry, they will, and as for your 'little' concern; by that time it will be way too late.

Pastor Martin Niemöller circa 1946

When the N@z1s came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the J***,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a J**.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.