AG in Wonderland


The state of Pennsylvania has ordered Internet service providers to block several hundred websites on the grounds that they contain child pornography. Many techies believe, based on the way the state generated its list, that some completely innocent sites were roped in with the porn outfits. No one knows if they're right, because Pennsylvania's attorney general refuses to release the list of banned sites, arguing that disclosing the addresses would itself amount to distribution of child pornography.


NEXT: Destined for Greatness, In One Way or Another

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Then the Attorney General, by his own reasoning, by giving the list of banned sites to the ISPs has distributed child pornography.

  2. If publication of the site addresses constitutes child porn, what about phone books publishing the home addresses of those individuals involved in production and distribution of child porn? Perhaps a Yellow Pages book burning is in order.

  3. …and talking about tobacco advertising promotes smoking…and mentioning Osama Bin Laden aids and abets terrorists…etc etc… Nice trick, to avoid legislative oversight by claiming that the details of what yer doing is illegal to disclose.

  4. I’m surprised the AG didn’t say “I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you…”

  5. The only thing more extraordinary than the growth of the internet is the legal profession’s continued and stunning ignorance of it.

    On the other hand, maybe they are all just stupid.

  6. If the sites are already blocked, how does one “publicize” them by saying what they are? Does the AG think they’re going to come back online later? Are they part of some nation-wide child pornography chain store?

    “This is not a First Amendment issue. This is child pornography, a heinous and destructive crime.” == “I say this is not a First Amendment issue, and you’re just going to have to believe me.” If the state police started arresting people in the middle of the night, holding them incommunicado, and trying them in secret, would the AG claim it wasn’t a Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue because they were criminals?

  7. This is not surprising, considering we live in a country where people are now being arrested and held in detention without being told why. It’s much easier to deliver edicts with the sole reasoning being “because I said so” instead of actually having to do things like … oh, I don’t know … accumulate evidence and prove your case.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.