Killing The Messenger

We should be warned that the upcoming U.S. House contest between Repug Mike Fitzpatrick and Dem Patrick Murphy for the 8th district seat here in PA is going to one great big “snit-fest,” and I would imagine that the fits of pique will be coming just about entirely from Fitzpatrick’s side.

I actually feel an almost microscopic thread of sympathy for Fitzpatrick here. He hasn’t had anyone to challenge him on this con he’s running that he’s some kind of a moderate Republican (a breed which doesn’t exist anymore as far as I’m concerned), so by reflex, he probably feels that we should all just assume that he doesn’t do anything wrong. Fortunately for us all, Patrick is here to change that.

I say this because, as reported in the Bucks County Courier Times today (the paper has some good reporters – I just hope that they never decide to join the Editorial Board, or else they’ll become hopelessly compromised), Fitzpatrick introduced a bill that would “require schools and libraries to install screening software to block children from viewing (commercial social networking websites) and require the Federal Trade Commission to set up a Web site with information on the dangers of sites such as MySpace,” quoting from the story.

Patrick Murphy thinks this is a bad idea because it would “trample constitutional rights and do nothing to protect children.”

I agree. I would also add that passage of this bill would initiate legal challenges that, in all probability, would end up overturning it anyway (I say that because that’s what frequently happens with this type of legislation, since it depends on the definition of “obscenity,” and also what constitutes “a commercial social networking website,” as stated in the bill’s language…hell, that could include blogs like this one – PERISH THE THOUGHT!). Also, given Murphy’s legal background, I would assume that his objection would be well founded on that basis.

My own concerns of a secondary nature notwithstanding, I should mention that Murphy’s suggestion is to hire more police to search online for predators (it almost makes TOO MUCH sense to do that instead). After all, these cretins who prey on kids are just going to go somewhere else instead if they can’t go to schools or libraries.

And doesn’t Fitzpatrick care about what happens when kids access these sites when they’re NOT at a school or a library? I think this legislation should be called “The School And Library Immunity From Prosecution In The Event That Something Awful Happens To One Of Our Kids” Act.

Besides, what Fitzpatrick communicates to me with this wrong-headed bill is that he thinks kids use these sites just for gossip and chatting with friends. Suppose they use these sites to complete school assignments also? Why take away the option to go to MySpace and other sites for that purpose and maybe learn something because of the vermin out there (whose existence isn’t their fault anyway)?

Here’s another idea: instead of trying to pass this bill and grab some publicity by taking away something that most of our kids use with no problem whatsoever (punishing the many for the few, as always), why doesn’t Fitzpatrick SUPPORT ADDITIONAL FUNDING for our schools and libraries so they can hire people to monitor how our kids use these sites, instead of taking away the right of the kids to use them to begin with?

Aside from pointing out what I think are the flaws in Fitzpatrick’s legislation (and you KNOW something is up when Crazy Curt Weldon signs on as a supporter), I want to draw attention to Fitzpatrick’s typical, petulant, kicking-and-screaming response to any criticism, which he demonstrates again here.

Mikey said that Patrick “seems more interested in the constitutional rights of online predators than he is about protecting young children,” and Murphy “ought to be ashamed for opposing it.”

We heart you too, Mikey (nice to see that you’re upholding the best Repug tradition by trying to belittle and denigrate anyone who disagrees with you any way possible).

Update: Isn't Mikey the best? And yep, Booman, it's definitely something in the water, and 200 per day is probably a "low ball" estimate.