This is why friends don’t let friends vote Republican, especially if they have even the slightest libertarian leanings.
Hat tip: Jeff Javis.
Mitt Romney hates eye candy
By Billy Dennis on August 4th, 2007
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Hmmm, I wonder if that chip will let them see Fred Thompson’s wife, even when she is wearing clothes.
Dennis, most parents would not agree with you. This is a major problem. You must not have kids.
It’s not a V-chip, it’s a filter, and it can be turned on or off by parents, not the government. Are you so libertarian that you think children should be free of all parental oversight?
C.J.: You are stating that I have a position that I didn’t take. Libertarians LOVE the idea of parental responsibility. We just don’t believe in the Nanny State. If you want to put a filter on your P.C., go right ahead. Just don’t limit MY ability to get complete and accurate information on the ‘net because Mitt Romney wants to pander to the right.
Yeah, Mitt Romney needs to learn a thing or two about civil liberties, if you ask me. What he’s describing is a police state for god’s sake! Maybe someone ought to point out that software already exists that take care of this, both for schools and corporate networks, as well as home PCs. A few that come to mind are Net Nanny and CyberPatrol. Heck, Windows Vista comes with Parental Control software installed.
If parents don’t want their kids to visit certain sites on the internet, they either need to pony up the cash for special software, or take the time to learn how to use the software that is on their computers. 5 minutes on google.com ought to do it, or perhaps a call to Microsoft support.
Then, of course, paying attention to what your kids do online is a free option. We don’t need more laws–especially not ones as downright authoritarian as what he’s suggesting–to punish the rest of us because lazy parents don’t want to look into how to protect their kids online.
Everybody calm down. He’s a Mormon. He’s trying to appeal to Iowans. He’s saving his “legalize gay marriage” speech for later.
He doesn’t want to block adults from seeing content on the Internet (and, believe me, there are politicians in Washington who do). He wants a tool to allow parents to block their kids from seeing porn. Such tools already exist, of course, and very few people use them.
My main concern is that the chip would increase the cost of a computer. If the chip obviates government censorship of the Web, though, I’m all for it.
Finally, Romney has about as much chance of becoming the next president as Bill Dennis does.
Actually, I think Billy has a better chance than Mitt.
Billy says: “Just don’t limit MY ability…” yada yada yada. That was my point, which you apparently missed: he’s not proposing anything that would limit YOUR ability to do anything. It would, however, allow parents to limit their children’s ability to look at porn. Did you listen to the clip?
The ability to limit porn or anything else, already exists and it is reasonably effective. What Mitt Romney proposes is DOA but it sure plays well with the values crowd to talk about it. Cause you know, even the ‘values’ crowd wants the burden of actually parenting their children lightened, just like everyone else seems to.
As a Massachusetts resident, I can honestly and unequivocally say that Mitt Romney sucks. There’s no phonier candidate out there. Be warned …
Don, Does your residency give you some sort of credibility? As one who has followed this campaign since oct. very very closely, I can honestly and unequivocally say that Romney is clearly the most qualified candidate and would be even if the field was doubled or tripled. He is the most likely to protect the constitution and peoples liberty. His life is a clear demonstration of doing good, serving others and making the world a better place.
CJ, how can you possibly think the government should have the power to require censorware? If you want to buy a product to filter a certain type of content, or if you want to create and distribute such a product, be my guest! Do not, however, use that ‘for the children’ BS to justify additional government power in a country where the gov’t already wields much too big a stick.
I don’t think anybody here is claiming that it’s a bad thing to keep your 12-year-old away from “Feisty Fisting Vol. 11″. What we’re saying is that the government has no right to interfere with your choice to censor your web connection or another parent’s choice not to.
Ben, The question of whether the government should require manufacturers to pre-install internet filters is a separate issue. What I was responding to was Billy’s mischaracterization of Romney’s proposal. Billy said Romney wanted to limit adults’ ability “to get complete and accurate information on the ‘net,” and that’s clearly NOT what Romney wants to do.
Why on earth would he even propose REQUIRING it? Why not require it be made available by computer mfrs, or offer some sort of tax break or subsidy for companies that do so if you don’t want to require the corporations to make it available.
If there were any kind of demand for such a product, I expect Dell & others would be all over it.
I also expect corporate America would balk at buying computers with V-chips. And such computers probably wouldn’t pass the federal government’s guidelines for purchase because they’re pretty strict about extraneous crap that could potentially create security holes or maintenance problems. (My neighbor w/ the USDA told me the feds refuse to buy Vista and it’s creating big problems for M’soft.)
“Or “booger.—
Well there goes the Harry Potter site. Bertie Botts’ Every-Flavor Beans DO feature booger-flavored ones!
Nadda. There are already various factions within the industry that are up in arms over things such as the TCPA and copyright software (Just look at the blowback from Sony’s CD rootkit blunder). Not only that, but the makers of filtering software that–and I emphasize–already exists would never stand for it. They’d really be getting the short end of the stick.
So now we’re talking not only about attacking our civil liberties, as republicans often do these days, we’re talking about attacking the businesses that already sell what he’s suggesting. Just whose side is he on? Seems lose-lose in my opinion.
What Romney actually said: “I want to make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I’m president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter and make sure their kids don’t see that kind of stuff coming in on their computer….”
He’s basically talking about pre-installed software that any adult can choose to enable or disable. Thus, it’s not a violation of anyone’s civil liberties.
However, the other points are well taken. Internet filters are already available to anyone who wants them; they needn’t be preinstalled by law. As far as I know, there is no filter that’s as easy as clicking it to block all pornography (I wish it were that simple). I think such a suggestion shows that Romney is either technologically naïve or pandering to his audience.
Don, Does your residency give you some sort of credibility?
Well, yeah, I think so, Fitzy … he was governor of Massachusetts for four years (though he doesn’t like to admit it) and we’ve seen all the flips and flops closer than anyone …