[Prev|Next| Index] Vern Lougee lazarus@teleport.com Wed, Feb 21, 1996
4:17:34 PM

Censorship is Un-American

By Vern Lougee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Matter of Free Speech and The Internet

The idea of freedom of speech dates back to ancient Greece, as far as we
know. It is interesting to note that the decline of civilizations
throughout history seems to coincide with loosening of moral standards
complicated by governmental attempts to enforce laws proscribing activities
considered to be immoral by those in power. This, in turn, may aggrevate
influential persons, leading to the start of civil conflict, or at the very
least, unrest and social hatreds will arise. Confidence is lost. No one
trusts Big Brother.

Fellow Americans, our freedom is gravely at risk. Over the last ten to
fifteen years, law enforcement officials have lobbied to negate many of the
rights granted us by the Constitution. Some of them go as far as to say it
doesn't even apply to modern society. I cite the RICO forfieture law as
evidence. This law allows a cop to confiscate any and all of your personal
property BEFORE you ever go to trial. This can be consrtued as assumption
of guilt before proof. I was watching one of those cop shows where the
camera follows the police on duty, when they pulled some guy over. He had a
lot of cash on him, so they took it. He never got it back, simply because
he refused to say where he got it. He was ASSUMED to be a drug dealer of
some kind. There was no other evidence, except the money, which according
to the 5th ammendment, one does not have to explain and, according to the
second ammendment, the police need to have proof of wrongdoing before
seizure. So what, you ask, does all this have to do with free speech? Your
rights are being systematically weakened and abridged. This is being done
in small increments. That way it gives us time to adjust to our bondage to
the ridiculous pile of laws and regulations being passed by our congress.
Some of us have been harshly critical of the "Religious Right" as the enemy
of freedom and sometimes rightly so. This is because some, not all, of the
fundamentalist Christian leaders out there have lost faith in God as the
source of their strength. If one has faith in God, they must also realise
that God is stronger than all the evil one will find here on the net. Some,
however have lost sight of this, and insist on giving God a helping hand in
cleaning up our world. Is God so weak that he can't take care of business
anymore? This is the message the world is recieving from the Fighting
Fundies. To my fellow Christians I ask, what will happen when there are
more of THEM than there are of US; and when someone convinces the rest of
the world that WE are the evil ones? The freedoms we abridge today will not
be there to protect us and our ideologies. Don't laugh, there are already a
lot of people who consider Christianity in its various forms harmful to
society as a whole. And no, the devil didn't do it, we did when we rejected
our commision of preaching the gospel of Christ and took up crusading for
one of His attributes. If it had been compassion or patience, it wouldn't
have gone over so badly, but we chose holiness and justice, probably
because it is more fun to crusade for. Not all of those wanting censorship
of the net are fundamentalist anything. Some are just looking at a problem
idealistically, yearning for perfection and showing their frustrations by
trying to enforce their ideology through legislation. It reminds me a lot
of my children when they have a disagreement. They tattle on one another,
hoping to drag me into their arguement. I sometimes refuse to take sides,
hoping they will learn to settle their differences sensibly. Do you
consider yourself a child, who must run to Uncle Sam in hope that he will
cure all the ills of mankind and with his legislative power and all the tax
dollars the IRS can provide him, turn our world into the ever elusive
Utopia? By looking to government to solve socially oriented, basically
ideological differences, we enable the formation of the " Big Brother "
relationship between government and the governed. It is a type of
government we simply cannot afford. It is a controling body, a government
of the people which has become the people of the government. It has
happened over a long period of time and in the end, all that matters will
be, " Do you love Big Brother?" I don't think there is a general conspiracy
to subvert our rights. It is just happening. It isn't an evil cabal that is
doing it, we are doing it to ourselves. We do it every time we decide to
make our government responsible for our actions simply because we are too
lazy to do it ourselves. We want to see Uncle Sam take care of all our
little boo boos and put bandaids on us, sending us out to play with a pat
on the head and a hug. Will we learn self reliance with a mandatory saftey
net? Why not just make it a law that we should all stay home, in bed, with
body armour and helmets on, cowering because a meteor might fall any of us.
Most Americans will not read these essays, because they have no access to
the Internet. Of those people most have little or no idea what cyberspace
is; in fact, to them it may seem as remote as an alien world, sometimes
frightening. In the news you can see hundreds of bits of news about the bad
aspects of the Internet, presented in a way to give full shock value. That
is what journalism has become in general here in the U.S.; a business who's
main focus is to get more veiwers or subscribers, to make money. Shocking
news sells. It outsells good news by a long shot. We live in an age where
voyeurism has cast out privacy. If you were enjoying sex with your wife,
say in the bathroom, and the window was inadvertantly left open to where
your neighbors could hear and or see you to ANY extent you are less likely
to have your neighbor knock and ask politely that you close the window than
you are to have them call the police and have you arrested. Or worse,
videotape you and sell it to the media! Have we in America never learned
what it means to just be good neighbors? It means caring about each other,
but enough to mind our own business when we ought. I feel cyberspace is a
place where there is a mirror effect. The mirror reflects not the outward
person we see each day in real life, but the inner person, with all its
aspects good or evil. Those who wish to restrict the way we interact on the
Internet have taken a look inside the hearts and minds of some of us and
they are scared to death of what they see. They think that the Internet
will give us a way to overcome social restraint in real life, but they seem
unable or unwilling to comprehend that these thoughts and emotions were
there and are there anyway. Making it illegal to use expletive language or
"indecent" themes won't make these thoughts go away; in fact it will just
add another criminal element to our society. More money to spend, and guess
what? We don't have the money! We are already spending billions of dollars
to put our sons and daughters in jail for drug crimes. We created the
criminal element when we made dope illegal, just like alcohol. You might
say, " Aren't drug users and dealers dangerous?" I would have to say they
may be, because what they do is illegal. Who made it illegal? I ask you
this: Do we really need and can we really afford another criminal element?
I think not. I cite a FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit as reason for my
opinion. So you say," My kids might see or do something inappropriate for
them if the net is not censored." To this I say two things. First,
censorship of the net will not be accomplished without the government
having virtual access to your home. Will you like that? Do you want an
agent reading selected posts of yours, or listening in on your "private"
chat with Joe Doaks? Secondly, you should no more allow your minor child
free access to the Internet than you would New York City, if you aren't
able to trust them, or they aren't mature enough to be here. And if you are
offended by anything you see or read there is always the "back" button, or
the close file option. No one makes you go to triple-x areas. In fact, I've
found those who operate such places label them very well with warnings. It
shows a lot more respect for the rights and feelings of others on their
part than I have seen on the prohibitionist side of this arguement. Until
recent development of electronic media, both television and the Internet,
we had no idea the extent of social problems in our nation. With the growth
of these media, we have begun to see numerous unpleasant truths about
humanity, i.e. childmolesters/ neglectors/ abusers, serial killers,
domestic violence etc.on a more frequent basis than we had thought or even
imagined. Did the net create these people? Did the net create the
anarchists? The pornographers? No, they have been with us for ever. Does it
enable these people? Perhaps it does, but to no greater degree than it
enables decency, sharing of ideas, feelings, and even moral support. For
that matter just knowing they are there is a step toward dealing with them.
Censoring the net is tantamount to sweeping the problem under a rug and
pretending it will go away by itself. Censorship is and always has been an
un-American thing to do. We didn't let other nations censor our World Wide
radio networks, so why should we let them pressure us into censoring our
computer network? Who is calling the shots in this country? The duly
elected representatives, or the United Nations? If someone in Germany
doesn't like what they see, can they not browse elsewhere? Or just leave
altogether. If they leave they are missing out on the cultural interchange
we are experiencing. The exchange of ideas on the individual level is the
sole reason for the end of the Cold War. It wasn't all the high level
talks, but rather when Joe Doaks began to realize that some guy over in the
Soviet Union might just have the same hopes and dreams that he did. It's
hard to be afraid of an enemy or even be an enemy of someone with whom you
can identify on a personal level. With that said I will add that I think
these freedoms should only apply to those with guts enough to be
responsible for what they publish. Freedom cannot exist where there is no
resposibility. I give no creedence to any post by an anonymous user, so any
thing they might publish which one would consider harmful, distasteful or
offensive, I ignore, and you can do the same. I close with the conclusion
that the Exon amendment is unneccesary, illogical, ill conceived,
unconstitutional, unpopular and unenforceable to the greater degree, just
like any other prohibition based on the ever changing values of society. It
will needlessly lead to the destruction of the net, or the creation of a
criminal element within it.

Vern Lougee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 hours of Democracy Web site | Random Access | www.gulker.com | Help/Info
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords: "San Mateo County", "California", email: webmaster@gulker.com