The simple no-brainer truth

In all seriousness, I think it is one of a journalist's important functions to put in print what any fool could say. Both readers and journalists can get so immersed in a story that they ignore the obvious. That's why I like Adam L. Penenberg's story on the Google-Department of Justice conflict. Penenberg points out that the DoJ could just experiment with its own Google searches, instead of demanding records from Google, in its effort to vindicate the Child Online Protection Act, a part of which the Supreme Court struck down in 2004.

Of course, the obvious objection is that this would be a pain in the ass for DoJ to do. Oh well.



Penenberg thinks it might vindicate the Court's decision and tries to demonstrate this with some sample Google searches. He says that "69" doesn't turn up much porn in the first few pages. But it does turn up some sex sites (including one for "adult" webmasters) and Google ad for "intimate anonymous sex" that could help the DoJ pass the Court's strict scrutiny test.



It's similar with "fuck"--no actual porn results, but one Google ad for a porn site and several Google ads for sex-personals sites (which arguably hold more danger and comic potential for hapless children).

So what this actually suggests--and this apparently wasn't Penenberg's intention--is that it might be insanely easy for DoJ to gather convincing evidence if its lackeys get off their evil little asses.

One more problem. Penenberg's test, helpful as it is--it doesn't address the possibility that benign words or phrases could yield porn, and that's probably what DoJ is really hoping to find--a few outrageous aberrations. I once searched "Princess Diana" while I was in middle school (this was before Google) and got a porn site.

That said, no matter what DoJ finds, the real work will likely be in making COPA the "least restrictive means" for keeping porn away from children.

Best R.E.M.-referential headline yet

Really, this is why copy editors are special.

From "nitwit" to "bigot"

Some guy writes "FUCK" on a wall, nobody pays attention. Some other guy draws a swastika and writes some racist slogans on a wall, the story hits the wires. Newspapers use weird phrases like "bias incident". Some reporters provide details, others (see the first link) describe the vandalism as "offensive writing."

This happened a few times while I attended Northwestern, often enough to be unsettling, but not frequent enough, say, to suggest a significant threat to blacks, Jews, hispanics or others on campus. Still, each time it prompted a shrill and sanctimonious reaction. Most of these incidents end up dominating the front page of The Daily Northwestern, as did some of the on/near-campus robberies I wrote about as a cops reporter. Rallies are held and buttons are distributed. It seems absurd to go to these lengths to show a few scattered vandals how virtuous and unafraid we are.

Of course, a society like ours needs to give special care to its ideas about race, yet the language of these ideas seems to provide an excessive kind of impunity--"bigot," "racist," "bias," "hate," etc.--a little like what James Baldwin called a "thrill of virtue." I think that on some basic level, we are seeking that thrill when we fume over petty, isolated "hate crimes" like this. I think it is a sign of our own insecurity that the specter of racism, even in such a pathetic form, prompts such a frenzied reaction.

I think we need to confront our virtuous selves. We need to look at the connection between our good intentions and our dumb, violent instincts. We need to realize that in the pursuit of a more moral society, we can become self-righteous assholes. After a "hate crime," one dumb kid becomes a villain, a bigot, a symbol of the racism we fear. At a public execution, one petty criminal becomes a symbol of evil and danger. In both cases, people feel free to get carried away with their impunity, probably because there is no way to defend the crime in the crowd's terms. It doesn't happen to punish the criminal--it happens so that the innocents can celebrate their innocence. It only nurtures the same instincts that make it possible for racism and fanaticism to spread among even the most "educated," "civilized" people. Why can't the innocents show a little composure?