"security or pornography" observing a debate

I have been following an ongoing debate between the proponents of the Administration attempt to subpoena Google’s query records and the opponents.

On the one hand, the “conservative” side sees the effort to get at Google’s files as an effort to defend a good law – one making the dissemination of certain sorts of particularly evil pornography unlawful. In defending legal challenges to that effort, the administration is trying to demonstrate that there is a problem. The files they seek are needed, they say, to prove that element in a complex case.

On the other hand, the “liberal” side sees an effort to reduce the privacy rights of all to enforce a law against some. They argue, as does Google, that what the administration is doing is fishing for supporting data, and in so doing, at the very least casting a cloud of uncertainty over the assumed privacy of the persons who use Google’s search engines.

In a real sense, which argument a person favors has to do not with right or wrong but with perspective. The one side sees the objective of the law as good, and therefore supports efforts to validate it. The other sees the methods of the administration as inappropriate and does not support the effort.

All agree, pornographic exploitation of children is pure evil. The issue is how one deals with evil. Neither side seems to understand, or be willing to accept the other might have a point. The conservatives accuse the liberals of favoring child porn, a base dishonesty to the left, but the effect of the liberal viewpoint to the right. The liberals claim the conservatives are willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom of thought. Both sides are wrong. Neither is anti-liberty, neither is pro pornography.

The left perspective has to do with process. Is how we do what we all agree we should do the correct way? The conservative has to do with intent. Is what we do heading in the correct direction?

Our law said in Escabado v Illinois that if the process is flawed, the conviction cannot stand. So, if we have denied a person access to counsel, in those cases, or otherwise failed to be fair, then be the person is guilty they must be judged not guilty. Conservatives hated the decision and the subsequent Miranda v Arizona cases. I recall the glee with which a subsequent arrest of Mr. Escabado was greeted.

So, who is right? Ben Franklin is reputed to have said that those who give up liberty seeking security deserve neither. Our civil law clearly takes the view that the process must be consistent with our liberties for an action to be proper.

Why then the conflict? I think the answer is fear. Franklin saw in his day, and we see now, the willingness of the sheep to give up freedom to escape the wolves. They forget that the ones taking the freedom are wolves too.