WEEKLY WHINE

Control freak

Many of you who know me, or who think you know me, might have expected this Whine to be about the end of the NBA lockout.

The NBA lockout ended.

I hope that satisfies you. The rest of you may keep reading, since I'd like to address another issue. There is something that I'd like to mention, but it wouldn't fit in with the overall nature of this site, so it will be left for another day. That leaves me with quite a bit of contempt, however, so that contempt is the issue that I'd like to bring to the surface for you today.

Throughout all of society, fine lines exist everywhere. When does technology make the leap from convenience to nuisance? At what point does distaste give way to disgust? How do we distinguish between free flowing creativity and utter chaos? Who decides when we stop informing and start entertaining?

Of particular interest to rogue, uncontrolled web residents such as myself is the question of whether our data is simply different or if it is completely distasteful. We must not tread lightly across these grounds, since there is much ire that may be raised in these instances. All people have their standards as to what they would and would not like to see, and the purpose of the Internet is to ensure that everyone sees what they would like to see and not what they would not like to see. This is the importance of advertising, for those who do it, and of disclaimers, which are often present despite the fact that nobody likes them in the first place; I just have them because they're funny.

But one thing that isn't funny is the fact that there are volatile materials available, the kind that is generally belived should not be allowed to fall into the hands of your average youngster. Parents and guardians pop up in this case, the only arbiters with the authority to say to us, "Yes, I am not afraid of my child finding certain rated content", or, "No, I do not want my child to see anything even remotely resembling content that could be distasteful, harmful, explosive, graphic, conservative, liberal, startling, or out of the ordinary".

They have all the authority. We are powerless next to the most fearsome union that ever lived, the union of caregivers of youth. For although they charge no dues, hold no meetings, and pass no measures, they still have the most direct control over the 0-12 demographic, and, it could be argued, the 13-17 demographic as well, with the exception of some well documented cases. They have the means, the motive, and the opportunity to protect their children, and we should respect this.

If not parents, who is to raise these young people? The federal government? Even if it can be proven that it can raise itself, would anyone entrust it with their children? Most lawmakers have lost touch with their families, their constituents, or both. In some cases, they gain touch with a third party to replace that, but as I mentioned previously, some things don't fit in with the overall nature of this site. I, for one, would consider it a very dark day indeed if an executive Department of Protection of Children is formed.

Most importantly, any time the government attempts to "protect" people below a certain age, it invariably ends up "denying" the rights of others, frequently those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America, the law of the land, that which stands high above anyone and anything that tries to impede it even slightly. Before the thirteen original states would ratify the Constitution, ten further articles had to be appended, amendments that would guarantee, among others, the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. These rights may only be suspended in the case of dire emergencies.

How, then, do our representatives and senators get off passing not one but two bills that summarily negate everything that has come before them? The Communications Decency Act passed Congress, was signed by Bill Clinton, and was immediately deemed unconstitutional in nearly every court in the land. Its sequel, the Child Online Protection Act, was to patch all the bugs with which the CDA was completely laden. Again, it sailed through both congressional houses. Again, it reached the Oval Office and continued along its merry way. At the moment, courts are busy proving the unconstitutionality of this one.

It's definitely worth asking: How? These people are posing as the great protectors, relieving parents of the burden of policing their childrens' online activity whilst simultaneously policing every child's online activity, not to mention that of every completely legal adult in the nation. It is now time for an analogy: It is conceivable that every single piece of literature offends some person somewhere in the world. Thus, to prevent them from seeing anything offensive, these people are not allowed to see these literary works. The clear solution is that all literature must be destroyed. The observant among you will recognise Fahrenheit 451 as the story idea.

Similarly, lawmakers at first thought that the way to protect children from volatile and/or disagreeable material on the Internet was to destroy all of it. For painfully obvious reasons, the CDA was struck down. Your friendly representatives, not to be deterred, put together yet another censorship bill. COPA was to require all adult-oriented web sites to verify that its users were at least eighteen. How would you prove this? Hmmmm, those over 18 have access to credit cards. COPA, then, is secret code for: All adult sites must henceforth be pay sites. For those of you who think that such people have money to pay for this, you are in hot water. Very hot water. The fact is that the Internet's very nature makes the concept of "pay site" absurd. If someone charges its visitors for a certain service, someone else will come along and offer the same service making income from a different source, like those irritating banner ads.

People are resourceful. If you tell them not to do something, they'll still find a way to do it. So, given that such resources will always be found on the Internet, we must instead find a way to minimise the harm done. This is very simple: An endless supply of utilities will keep young people from seeing things that their parents don't want them to see. We have people from two, three, even four generations ago losing battle after battle in this generation's war. It's time for them to step aside and realise that they do not have the solution; we do.