Chuck DeVore Hypocritically Attacks Carly Fiorina on Internet Regulation
I don’t quite understand how California Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore who is running for the GOP nomination for United States Senate can say that his soon to be announced Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is for regulating free speech and the first amendment on the internet? From the info notes on You Tube:
Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina wants to be a U.S. Senator. At a Web 2.0 conference in October 2009 she called for regulation of speech on the Internet, saying that the Internet cannot continue to be the “Wild Wild West.” Fiorina’s proposal for content restrictions on the Web represents an unconstitutional infringement of our First Amendment rights. California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, the conservative Republican candidate against Sen. Barbara Boxer, disagrees with Fiorina’s proposed regulation of the Internet. As a U.S. Army officer and a state lawmaker, he has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America — and that includes the First Amendment.
Remember when Flap carried the Web 2.0 conference interview here.
Here is the video:
Here is a transcript of the statements at issue (i dropped some irrelevant parts of her answer):
Question: How do you think the world wide web/internet should be governed or should it be regulated?
Answer: Well, I do think that we’re coming to the point where we need to acknowledge that the world wide web and the internet cannot be forever a sphere apart from the rest of the world. The world wide web cannot be forever the Wild Wild West where anything goes. So, for example, I do think that it’s foolish to take the very complex, very onerous tax system that we have today in the physical world and just layer it onto the online world. I think we have to do—and by the way I’ve thought this since 2000 when I testified before Congress on this point so this isn’t something new—but I think we need to focus on simplifying our tax system but I think we have to now begin to blend the realities of online and offline—that is what’s happening in the world. I don’t think that we can permit the exploitation of women and children online that we would clearly indicate or believe is illegal and immoral offline. So yes, I think it is inevitable that the online world will begin to be more and more regulated and more and more similar to the offline world.
So, is Chuck DeVore just plain lying about what Carly Fiorina said, since it is clear that she was discussing children’s pornography and the exploitation of women?
Or is DeVore simply being a hypocrite in taking a cheap political shot at Carly Fiorina? I mean DeVore himself has co-authored legislation here in California that regulates conduct on the internet, AB 33, which was chaptered into law in 2005. The legislation regards internet predators:
Existing law provides that it is a crime for an adult stranger to contact or communicate with a minor, 12 years of age or younger, who the adult knew or should have known was 12 years of age or younger, to lure him or her away, as specified, for any purpose. Existing law provides that this crime is punishable by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail, or by both.
This bill would prohibit this conduct when engaged in with a person who is under 14 years of age. This bill would provide that this crime is punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified.
Existing law provides that certain property, such as a computer, may be subject to forfeiture if used by a defendant to commit particular offenses, as specified. Existing law further provides the process by which property is forfeited and by which it may be recovered by the owner.
This bill would provide that if the defendant used his or her computer to communicate with the victim in the attempt to lure the victim then that computer is subject to forfeiture.
Moreover, here is some background on the law, AB 33:
According to the author, “The proliferation of the Internet has caused child predators to move from the playground to the World Wide Web in search of unsuspecting children. Children now encounter ever-increasing dangers and parents, in turn, face a growing challenge to protect their young.
“Unfortunately, due to greater access to the Internet and a stronger sense of independence, teenagers are the most frequently targeted population for predatory luring. This bill, therefore, would increase the age of children protected by state law from age 12 to age 14. Furthermore, this bill would enhance the penalty for child luring in order to further discourage the crime and provide a more appropriate punishment. The bill also includes provisions that upon conviction would make the defendant’s computer subject to forfeiture. Removing a known predator’s access to innocent victims is a common-sense approach to preventing further victimization.”
Now, is Chuck DeVore disavowing this regulation of this “Wild Wild West” internet or should internet predators be afforded protected freedom of speech in their attacks on children?
Chuck let me know.
How about this law that you co-authored? Presumably, then you no longer favor it?
Isn’t this, what Carly Fiorina was referring to, Chuck?
I mean, come on now.
Update:
Here is a shortened video clip of exactly what Carly Fiorina said:
To put it all together, it appears Fiorina believes regulation is coming to the internet one way or another. She
is noticeably unclear on where this contention comes from in this video but it may be a nod to the party’s base around the idea of net neutrality as regulation, which is flatly false. Net neutrality preserves the internet and is does not add any additional regulations.It seems that her contention is that, in her mind, if regulation is coming, it should be used to fight against the exploitation of children and women. To parse the statement out, one would imagine she means child pornography and the belief that pornography degrades women.
Chuck DeVore pounced and released a heavily edited clip of Fiorina’s answer in a new, ridiculously self-aggrandizing web video. The poorly-produced web video — an “award-winning new media operation” can’t do better than Windows Movie Maker quality? — claims that Fiorina wants to curtail the First Amendment’s protections of freedom
of speech.It is clear from Fiorina’s answer that she was speaking of the exploitation of children and women, but apparently,
kiddie porn and the like is protected free speech?The most ironic element of all this, the video was pushed in an e-mail by DeVore staffer, Justin Hart, when Hart previously consulted for the Lighted Candle Society, an anti-pornography group.
Technorati Tags: Carly_Fiorina, Chuck_DeVore
15 Comments
Mike
Of course, she wasn’t talking about child pornography or the exploitation of women. Child porn is already illegal, whether on the internet or not. And women, of course, have some say in whether they are “exploited” (whatever that means) by means of their access to certain content. Women are sophisticated… do they really need extra “protection” in the form of limitations on their access to information? Don’t treat them like children. It’s ridiculous.
No… Fiorina was clearly talking about restricting sites (like in China) or taxing certain activities. Based on what you quoted, it certainly looks like the bill DeVore supported had no impact on freedom of speech, or even restricted internet activity… it had to do with what child predators could do in the real world, and punished them for it (taking away a pedophile’s computer after conviction is hardly a violation of the First Amendment). And I think we can all agree that’s a good thing.
So DeVore punishes child predators without touching our First Amendment, and Fiorina wants to restrict your access and tax your activities. Sounds like Carly could learn a thing or two from Chuck.
Flap
No, I think like DeVore you are obviously not listening, putting words in Carly’s mouth and creating strawman arguments.
Mike
Great comeback… She said in that interview that she wants to put a new type of taxation on the internet… not just layer the real world system on. Those are her words. She said that the internet has to become more regulated. Those are her words. Just because she said “it’s for the children” doesn’t make it okay. You’re a dentist, right? Maybe we should pass a law that all dentists must provide free dental work for kids. I mean, it’s for the children.
I listened just fine, quoted her, and made an articulate argument you don’t like. There are fundamentals in this country and freedom of speech is chief among them. Why would you support anyone who would limit that no matter how “good” the cause? Carly’s position on this is pretty identical to Boxer’s. Why don’t you just vote for her?
Flap
You are all over the place.
Sorry I just don’t see the connection between your argument and what she is saying.
On taxation:
You are attributing to Fiorina, something that is just not there.
Mike
You’re amazingly dishonest. Please do your readers a favor and finish where you left off. She said “…focus on simplifying our tax system…” You stopped there. Write the next 16 words she said. Please. I dare you. I’ll give you a hint… it starts with “…but.”
You’ve sort of surrendered your right to criticize DeVore for editing or to claim he’s taken anything out of context, given that you just did it yourself. Please remove the word “Hypocritically” from the headline, or attach it to your byline. And don’t tell me I’m making things up when you know precisely that you’re lying and misleading your readers.
Flap
The entire quote is listed above and adds nothing to the context and in fact is a bridge to her next statement. Remember this is a spoken conversation.
You are trying to put words in Fiorina’s mouth and so far are failing miserably.
Read my terms of use above and abide by its rules if you wish to continue to comment here.
Mike
On taxing the internet, Fiorina says, “but I think we have to now begin to blend the realities of online and offline.” She means taxation. That’s not me putting words in her mouth (saying otherwise would be like arguing that because the president hasn’t said “I want government to control every aspect of your healthcare” means it’s not the endgame). You can say I’m “failing miserably” if you want. You can kick me off for disagreeing and calling you out for obviously misleading your audience if you want… It’s your site… you know, for now. Do you really want the government involved in what you post here? You seemed happy on another post about the rise of conservatism… but you’re supporting someone who is clearly not a conservative. That’s your right, and I respect it, but just saying “no, you’re wrong” and calling me a liar, when I’m citing FACT and pointing out stuff that is obvious to anyone who reads our exchange is kind of silly. I feel disinvited to post further. You can have the last word, but I hope you’ll think about your choice a little bit. This isn’t light and fun stuff. It really means something for the fate of our nation.
Flap
How does that mean taxation?
Sorry, but she then goes onto to say about simplifying the tax system.
Here is the entire question and answer again:
Mike
She doesn’t “go on” to talk about simplifying the tax system. She talks about simplifying it in advance, to make her recommendation for taxing and regulating the web softer and more palatable. She says (I’m paraphrasing to help you):
The internet can’t be a place where “anything goes”
Yes we need to simplify the tax code, but…
We have to make the internet like the offline world (CLEARLY AND INTENTIONALLY IMPLYING THAT WE SHOULD FIND A WAY TO TAX IT… SHE MUST BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE YOU’RE APPARENTLY THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET WHO DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE WAS SAYING).
And, on top of that, we need to restrict the internet to protect women and children.
These are not just inferences. She is clear on where she stands. If you can’t see that, it’s because you’re intentionally ignoring what she was saying in a candid, honest moment. I don’t fault her for being honest. I just think she’s wrong.
Flap
You are reaching.
The only person? Nahhh there is at least one other – see the update already posted above.
Kevin Durham
Thank you for the video, and post
Andrew Vandever
Wow, you’re comparing apples to oranges when you call Chuck a hypocrite. There’s a big difference between seizing physical property when you have reason to believe it contains evidence related to a case, versus regulating traffic on the internet. The second case is a first amendment issue, the first is not. Since child porn is already illegal, of course we should be aggressively convicting people who download and/or provide it, and working to take down their content. But when you start talking about more regulation, to me that implies things like deep packet inspection and the like, which are NOT okay, just as warrantless wiretapping is NOT okay – whether it’s Bush’s or Obama’s DoJ that’s defending it. And it’s rather naive of you to say what you do about Net Neutrality, trying to demonize Conservatives over it. I, too, used to be a big fan of Net Neutrality, until I read the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s article questioning its effects (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise). While I still believe in the original principles of Net Neutrality, the jury is still out regarding the way our goofy politicians are actually typing it out. You should probably read up a bit more before spitting your ill-advised opinions all over everybody’s webs. Meh!
Flap
No, this issue is not about Net neutrality but about a politician spinning comments for his own political gain.
DeVore mischaracterized Fiorina’s statements in order to attack her.
Pretty simple really.
Andrew Vandever
So, explain to me again how seizing physical property suspected of containing evidence pertaining to a case of child pornography is the same as regulating the internet. I only brought up Net Neutrality because it’s in your original post.
Flap
Already discussed.
Maybe DeVore himself can come on and explain why he has mischaracterized Fiorina’s statements.
Net neutrality was from another blogger. See blockquotes above.
For more and Fiorina’s answer to the flap, you can go here and watch the townhall where I saw her answer a question about this yesterday.
Link: http://flapsblog.com/2009/11/04/video-carly-fiorina-u-s-senate-campaign-announcement-townhall/