🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3s44sa$jfp@crl3.crl.com> ivler@crl.com (J.M. Ivler) writes:
>Wakko Warner (cook@rzdisk.enet.qntm.com) wrote:
>: 	If you have something against banning smut on the Internet I
>: 	have to ask, why? Go to the combat zone. Banning bad
>: 	language? Good. Maybe it will clean up some of the filth
>: 	around here.
>
>So you would have no problem with someone setting up a canclebot to 
>eliminate all your posts? Once you start burning books and taking away 
>the freedom of speech, you have started down the road to true tyranny. 
>NOTHING is ever worth the elimination of the freedom to speak. That is 
>why that is the 1st Amendment!
>
>jmi
>ivler@crl.com


This argument has got to be on the top ten list of all-time worst
arguments.  Look, you can take this so-called logic and apply it to
anything.  "We shouldn't have any income tax.  As soon as we give
the government one dime, they'll want to take all our money and turn
us into a communist/socialist state!"  "The government shouldn't enforce
traffic laws! The next thing you know, they'll take away our right to
drive!"  "Don't spend any money on that defense program!  As soon as you
start building a bomber, it'll turn into a billion-dollar boondoggle!"
"We've got to stop providing education and health care to illegal/legal
immigrants! We give them all this stuff and they'll flood into our
country and ruin the economy!"

Basically, this argument is meaningless.  It argues that any law will be
taken to the extreme and become a tryannical threat.  It plays on fear
rather than reason.  It plays well to crowds.

I'm not defending the Exon bill.  It's probably a very poor attempt to
try to solve what some people view as a problem on the Internet today.
But I don't think its passage is going to lead to depriving us of our
basic freedom of speech.  There are plenty of places today where you can
say bad words and look at dirty pictures, and they won't be going away.

We as a society will muddle around with the communication paradigm in
the Internet until we get it right.  What *you* can do to help is to
offer reasonable alternatives, rather than irrational arguments.  For
example, if you feel so strongly about your right to speech on the
Internet, then help drum up support for voluntary classification
systems.  If parents can give their children a "PG-only" web browser
that only has access to sites that advertize themselves as PG, then we
almost entirely solve the problem.  There will be no need for this bill.
Self-policing is always a better alternative to imposed laws --- make it
work if you care.


Daniel Zappala
daniel@isi.edu