I've now addressed concerns with a mandatory pornography filtering system based on conceptual considerations on the nature of pornography and technical ones about how the system might work. Now I will focus on a critique of the plan based on the governmental and regulatory considerations, as stated in the title. A main point in my last part could be summed up as, "Don't trust your ISP to keep you safe, you're better off ensuring that on your own." If we replace ISP with government that same idea will be found here.
America has a unique approach to government in that a fundamental value we hold is liberty, and are sensitive to the power of government to curtail this among individuals or groups. The conflict between this and the need for law forms a basis to our society. Whether pornographic filtering should be mandatory is another manifestation for this conflict, and I will be falling on the side of liberty as opposed to security.
The concept of safety curtailing our liberties is one hotly contested in the media with the government's efforts in the last ten years to crack down on and protect against terrorism. This even has a more direct parallel in the field of communications with recent Snowden leaks on NSA data and metadata collection efforts that, in my own personal opinion and that of at least one court of law, violates American citizens' rights granted by the first (including and perhaps primarily the right of association) and fourth amendments. With these already in peril, why would we want to introduce a new government mandate and increase their ability to curtail citizens' rights online?
Yes, yes, I know, "No one's rights are being curtailed, anyone can still opt in and get the content they want." In the short view this may be true, though many of the points in my previous two essays on the subject should demonstrate ways it may also not be. Though I'd rather not delve too deeply into the 'slippery slope' argument as it necessarily relies on speculation and unverifiable prediction, it would be prudent to mention that any law or regulation would set a precedent that our personal communication methods are something the government has every right to manage.
The proposal would grant new regulatory powers over our methods of communication. It would be handed off to either ISPs or/and government committees and reduce choice for the individual. While it's only a default setting that would change right now, the shame often involved in the complex issue of obscenity could easily cause this to be the societal norm, and forcing those who either held liberal views about sexuality or possibly a desire to protect their privacy and security online to be forced into an 'internet ghetto.' Eventually these people might be lumped in with criminals and subject to greater invasion of their rights because they 'chose to use the internet in a manner recognized to reflect dangerous and deviant behavior.'
Let me explain by way of analogy. How would you feel if car dealerships were now required to sell cars that would automatically avoid driving you anywhere where obscene or illegal activities were known to occur? They would naturally have to standardize and define what obscene behavior was, and so a federal committee would now decide what parts of town you were allowed to drive to. If you wanted to have full control over where you could go in the car you bought you would need to ask the dealer, and maybe they would have a special license plate for your car so that everyone else wouldn't accidentally follow you or wonder why they were having trouble getting to a place that you went to without problems. Does that sound OK to you, or does it seem like a massive intrusion of government control in your life?
The internet is indeed a radically new method of communication. Earlier methods often fell naturally into a pattern of self-regulation when it came to pornography. Movies created a rating system, magazines went under the counter, TV shows had a set of standards to follow until after the watershed. Phone lines were pretty much just as available to youngsters as much as anyone else but you needed to know what number to call and the commercials didn't go on until after the watershed, so their exposure wasn't really significant and in any event parents would get the bill later. The internet, on the other hand, is hugely interconnected and once you're online you have access to most resources with nothing more than a name, or if you're not sure of that a search term will probably work just as well. The industry doesn't lend itself well to self regulationas it is a personal service, the connection is to your home, connected to a vast public network.
It does lend itself easily to personal regulation, though. In my last post I mentioned a few good and fairly easy solutions to filter pornography. I explained my feelings that those who were unwilling to gain the technical skills to implement these shouldn't be foisting their responsibility to protect themselves on the country at large as well, but there's another aspect to this naivete I'd like to address: that pornography is a problem that technology or regulation can only slow, not stop. It plays to the most basic human drives and desires. This is what makes it so tempting, and destructive.
The way to fight pornography is to teach the right values, habits, and behaviors. I admit the prevalence of pornography can make this difficult, but teaching our children and selves the truth of what pornography is is the most effective way to fight it. We shouldn't pretend that we can shut off any exposure to it, and instead prepare ourselves and develop the mental and spiritual discipline to be strong against it when we do. This may include a personal decision to install some sort of filter on our own networks. Others might not even see a need for this.
Maturity comes with responsibility, taking on accountability for the way we live and the decisions we make. I see this petition as immature, trying to abdicate the responsibility for avoiding pornography by passing it along to organizations believed to be more capable of doing so. We must take this responsibility upon ourselves though, immense as it may seem, because immaturity and liberty cannot coexist. The more we decide that something is too hard for us and should be handled by the government, the greater the state will become as the citizen becomes smaller and smaller.
No comments:
Post a Comment