The government has recently asked all of the top Internet search engines an unexpected question: What is it that people are masturbating to these days? According to the Associated Press, the United States Justice Department issued subpoenas last year to MSN, Yahoo! and Google, among others, to release data about a million random Web addresses, as well as to describe all of the searches conducted over a random one-week period. They requested this information to find out how often searches on the Internet retrieve pornography, with hopes of reviving an old Internet child protection law that was shot down in 1998 by a more liberal Supreme Court.

This is interesting on two levels: At first glance, the government's intrusion into our private indulgences bears a creepy resemblance to 1984-style monitoring. At a deeper level, there's something else going on: The more conservative Supreme Court is visiting cases shot down in the past, attempting to remold America in its own conservative image. Google is the only company that has refused to turn over the information, stating that the company is intent on protecting personal privacy. The first instinct of my whiney, naively idealistic, bleeding-heart liberal side was to cry foul on the Bush administration and give three cheers to Google for protecting our Fourth Amendment right to pleasure ourselves in peace.

But take a step back: The point of this law is to protect children from being exposed to some dirty content at extremely young ages. Just because somebody my age has the right to look at some pretty sadistic stuff doesn't mean that my 4-year-old cousin needs to have the same sort of access to these Web sites.

Government officials keep reminding us that they are not requesting any personal information as to who conducted the searches; they just want an idea of how often users inadvertently come across sexually explicit material and how this could affect young children. The government insists that the information will not identify individual computer users. In another context, it would be asking Playboy for their sales data without looking at who bought the magazines.

So maybe this administration, known for wiretapping, secret detention centers and negating our basic rights of privacy and free speech by invoking the Patriot Act, is simply trying to protect our children from the filth and smut so readily available on the Internet.

Perhaps the government is right on this one-or, on the other hand, perhaps different filters such as Net Nanny are enough to prevent children from accessing porn on the Internet. Who knows whether it's right or wrong? Yes, pornography is too easily accessed on the Internet by children. No, I don't want the Bush administration filtering my Internet for me. And besides, who uses Google to look for porn anyway? It's not this case that really matters, but instead the timing of the case.

The Child Online Protection Act, passed in 1998, was shot down by the Supreme Court in 2004. Well, the Supreme Court of 2004 is no more, and that case marked the beginning of what will turn out to be a stream of cases brought about by the conservative administration that will revisit old political battles previously lost to the liberal courts. It's not the pornography records that matter; it's the fact that with the recently-appointed Chief Justice John R. Roberts sitting pretty and Judge Samuel A. Alito on the way, the radical right now has the chance to write their social beliefs into law.

This inquiry into porn searches is a trumpet sounding on what will turn into a major offensive in the undeniable culture war taking place in the United States. We've all heard about the liberal activist judges tearing apart the fabric of American society, and it seems as though the new Supreme Court has a needle and thread ready to do some mending.

So three cheers to the Democrats for once again missing the boat and focusing on the wrong issues. Anybody who knows anything about politics can tell you that Roberts and Alito are against abortion; can anybody tell me about their views on intellectual property rights (which is, in my opinion, the most important issue of the 21st century)? How about antitrust laws in media conglomerates? What are their views on the Internet's influences on freedom of information, or privacy rights?

The smokescreen of abortion has prevented the American people from finding out where the Supreme Court justices stand on issues that truly matter. We shouldn't be mad that the government is making inquiries into porn searches; we should be terrified that we don't know how the new interpreters of the Constitution view the matter, or any matter other than abortion. Think about that the next time you're Googling "naked cheerleaders.