MY POSITION

I take a hard line position on this (which is another reason for me not to speak from eff.org). I believe that freedom of speech (all speech, however ugly to me or to others) MUST be protected at all costs by whatever laws, customs or state enforces and defines the common "law".

THE DILEMMA

This, as you are aware of, leads to tragedy. Pedaphiles "will" seduce their innocent prey, fascists "will" attract soldiers, and criminals "will" ride safely upon the backs of legitimate networks.

TECHNOLOGY AS A SOLUTION

As you mentioned, "some" of this "bad" usage can be lessened by technology implemented by citizens (not by the government). For example, software can be and is being developed which will help families "self-censor" the information which is processed by their computer. Each family will determine for itself what is the appropriate level of filth and/or violence. There are several such software packages and services available at this point including SURFWATCH, one of the more publicized solutions.

Thus, the market will drive technology towards self-censoring solutions. Self-censoring has several advantages.

Firstly, self-censoring allows every family to censor to the degree it is comfortable with. Thus, families need not settle for the "community standard" which may be either too strict or too lenient for them. This is correlated to the benefit that a strong minority will remain unable to set "legal" commuinity standards for communication.

Secondly, the market is a much better driver of technoplog than the government, especially in a non-mission oriented political landscape. If we leave the development up to the government, we can be assured that the technology will ALWAYS be two generastions BEHIND the "immoral" netizens who will happily go about their business as always. On the other hand, if the market is used for research and development, spurned by the many millions of dollars sucked from self-censoring families, we can be assured that sensoring technology will at least keep pace with those who would hack that technology.

Further, government's use of technology in law enforcement will increase dramatically as well. Whether we like it or not, FBI-BOTS and Police-BOTS will be roaming the net searching, filtering and reporting. Like any predator/prey relationship, the use of technology by criminals will be matched by a corresponding match in law enforcement. Panic is shortsighted and glosses over this very natural process. Of course, the prey must always be on the leading edge of evolution or else the cycle would end with the extinction of the prey. I am not threatened at all with the thought that the criminals are driving the technology rather than law enforcement. This is just a rule of evolution, not a social catastrophe.

THE SOCIAL SOLUITION

However interesting the technological solutions are, I am not particularly interested in them. To me, the real solutions stem from the community itself.

The first, and most important solution to this problem is to promote policies and social institutions which strengthen the ability of socially sanctioned "teachers" to have greater inmfluences over growing children. The school, the church, and the family unit has now fragmented and those institutions are not coming back. It is time to reformulate institutions which will serve the age old purposes. We must create institutions which will help children help themselves. Children must be aware enough to recognize things which are "bad" for them. Children and ignorance need not follow from children and innocence.

We seem to be flailing around as our card houses fall to the ground, trying to use law alone (only one of many criucial social technologies) to solve the problems best solved by other or a combination of other social technologies. Law cannot bear that burden. Politics in general is not just not the right tool, but perhaps it is actually the wrong tool. Using politics to solve this probelm may make matters worse. in fact I believe it will. But more on that in a minute.

A second imoportant social factor is education of the community as well as education of children. As long as children roam the digital frontier without adult guides, they will meet new circumstances which they have noit been prepared for. How can adults teach children to act "appropriately" if they themselves are completely unfamiliar with the media or the world. Parents MUST spend time in the new technology in order to understand it enough to help their children underderstand it. If the parent does not understand the difference between IRC and NEWSGROUP, how can they prepare their children to make good decisions.

How will parents find time to learn the technology and how will underpriveledged families in particular make due? This is a crucial and unanswered question. The fact is that in this transitional period between industrial and information society, parents are caught between a rock and a hard place. Time is at a premium and paying the bills may be of first priority.

There are a few possibilities though, which may be starts at solutions.

Firstly, there is a vast store of wisdom and time in the aged. In a society which is rapidly aging and in a society which has the health technology to maintain healthand vital lives far past the "retirement" age, it seems reasonable that we should and could utilize all those resources. In my opinion, many elderly people would enjoy the chance to learn new things and to pass on their wisdom to younger generations.

Secondly, parents must bite the bullet. If children are important enough, they must take the time to learn the material whether it is on lunch breaks, during work (fuck the boss), or at home when parents and children can explore together. This is cold hearted for many families of course whose time is limited. But people have survived through harsher conditions. If their children matter, I must remain steadfast.

Thirdly, the government should not waste its time on idiotic censorship policies. Instead, spend money and resources on social poilicies which would actually solve the problem. The government could feed R&D money into the development of technology and it could feed money into families. Of course, the governmetn won't do that, it is important to admit.

WHY NOT JUST CENSOR

Certainly the choice to not censor is not perfect. As I opened, the choice to not censor WILL lead to tragedy. Children WILL be molested. Crimes WILL be committed.

But democracy sucks like that. Democracy is not a perfect system and its strength is built on the backs of its citizens. Supposedly, the benefit is worth the tragedy. Like law which executes some innocents sometimes, Democracy sacrifices some for the benefit of all.

Yet, however imperfect, it is the best system devised so far.

Censorship is one of those particularly tragic policies. Free speech, as discussed by enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson and John Stuart Mill as well as modern thinkers like John Perry Barlow and John Gilmore, is not just "another" policy of democracy. It is a cornerstone policy. Free speech is an essential foundation of the Constitution and of democratic systems in general.

Free speech protects minorites against the state and the community. This is old hat, I won't even go into that.

But, the free flow of ideas is crucial not only in undercutting state and community oppression but in maintaining a vital environment in which the evolution of ideas may take place. Only the society which is able to evolve will last longer than a few generations. Ideas must evolve and only by protecting young ideas will we assure that they will have the ability to prove themselves among institutionalized and fortified old ones.

98% of young ideas will be proven wrong, of course. But it is for the 2% that we suffer tragedy. The minor tragedy caused by the free flow of informatioin is minescule compared to the benefits gained.

In the end, the point is that however tragic the few cases of child molestation and terrorists and KKK meetings in USENET, it is not worth giving up free speech. There are simply too many "other" solutions and free speech is too central to the democratic tradition to toss away.

CLOSING WORDS

1.Child Molestation, Terrorism, Kidnapping, and Bomb Making are more creations of the traditional media than actual creatures of the net. The fact is that like any community the cyber-community has "bad" people. But, the bad people are a tiny percentage of the good people. It is true that bad things happen. But they WILL in every community, cyber or not.

2. I do not believe that seeing the human body or the act of intercourse is dangerous for children. It really depends in how its done and I would prefer teaching childreng how to tell the difference rather than hiding them from the whole genre. IMO, one of the primary factors leading to sex crimes is censoring of sexuality from children and the making taboo of a natural act. If children are taught that sex is bad, they will perform sex badly. The same goes for violence.

3. I question whether or not democracy is on its last leg. Whatever might be coming next could reformulate the argument and perhaps this is what makes these arguments seem anachronistic. perhaps it is wrong to try to apply the needs of Cyberia to the institution and policies of an industrial democracy.