Few things are more difficult than agreeing with a politician. You want to agree, really you do, but there's just so much to disagree with. Good reflexes, but maybe the reaction is all wrong? Nice idea, if maybe it was based in reality?
So it is with Max Baucus' letter to the Bozeman Chronicle today (I would presume other papers as well, but I really haven't checked). Max says:
Internet predators, pedophiles, and child
pornographers are lurking in chat-rooms and on Web sites, soliciting
young kids and trying to peddle their smut over the World Wide Web.
Experts say more than 60 percent of all Internet traffic is related to
pornography.
And the "experts have no fricking way of really knowing. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple. Let's assume, for a second, that Max's "experts" are correct. What constitutes "related to pornography"? If you say "scantily clad womens", I'd be likely to agree. If you say " Internet predators, pedophiles, and child
pornographers", I'm gonna tell you that you're overstating the issue to a gross and destructive degree. Now who's right? I haven't got those figures, and Max doesn't either. But that doesn't stop him from promoting fear, does it?
Instead of putting our heads in the sand and hoping
cyber crimes go away on their own, as the Chronicle suggested in a
recent editorial, we must work together to fight back. We have to take
aggressive action to stamp out cyber crime and stop online predators
that target Montana's children.
We haven't even defined the scope of the problem, but that doesn't stop an inordinate reaction? It damn well should.
On Feb. 8, the Chronicle stated “The Internet is
doing just fine without Congress” and took issue with a proposal of
mine to establish a new .XXX domain name for adult-content Web sites.
Don't get me wrong. I think the proposal of the .xxx domain is a good idea, but obviously not for the reasons Max does.
It's hard for me to believe the Internet is doing
"just fine" when one out of every five kids gets an unwarranted sexual
solicitation. Every day children in Montana are being sexually
exploited online, some with tragic endings. I doubt that the parents of
those children would agree things are just fine.
The absolute proof that someone is overstating an issue is when they appeal to the worst case scenario as the norm. Every single day someone is infected with flesh eating virus. IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!!! Do something, do it now!!! There are certainly tragedies that occur facilitated by internet access. That doesn't mean that the internet causes them, or that controlling the internet will solve them. And the worst part of this appeal is that he neglects that his "solution" to this undefined-in-magnitude problem will actually affect me, when the problem itself clearly doesn't. I've no stake in the problem, but I've clearly a stake in the "solution". Free speech? Anybody?
And let's not be naive. Most juveniles who are molested are done wrong by family or friends. Should we abolish family and friends? Does that make sense to anyone?
Nobody's talking about imposing strict new bureaucratic regulations on
the Web -- private business and enterprise will always be the vehicle
driving the Internet. My plan to establish a new .XXX domain name is no
different than our local communities passing zoning laws for adult book
stores.
A .XXX domain would simply section off a piece of the
Internet neighborhood to confine adult sites to a central location,
making it easier for parents to filter out smut on their home
computers. And it'll help schools and libraries do the same.
This is the part that makes sense, but makes no sense. Establishing a red-light district for the internets is a good thing. Everyone who wants such things will know where to find them. BUT, zoning laws against adult establishments are usually established after the fact: as in, we don't want you here so you must move. I'm sorry, but that smacks of fascism. If someone owns the lucrative domain "buttseks.com", then telling them to move is an affront to business, to liberty, and to the free dissemination of ideas. The .xxx domain is a good idea, but attempting to force business persons to use it is not.
In addition to establishing a new .XXX domain, my Cyber Safety for Kids initiative will help tackle cyber crimes by:
€ Giving law enforcement more resources to crack down on Internet predators.
How? This is undefined. Are Yahoo chatrooms all going to be moved to the .xxx domain? Of course not. It's a minor impediment to entry for the cyber predator. This would be, at best, useless.
€ Establishing a new Montana Cyber Crime Task Force.
I'm so sure that cyber crime is a huge problem in Montana. Save us, Max, save us. Look, we're special little snowflakes. Please reject this line of craptastic bull.
€ Providing educational resources and training for parents and teachers.
Now this might actually be useful. I suggest emphasis on the parents.
€ Requiring adult-content Web sites to use age-verification software to ensure viewers are 18 or older.
I couldn't agree more. And how will this be done? This is a worthy idea that has little hope of actual implementation.
€
Imposing a new 25 percent excise fee on adult-content Web sites, and
using the increased revenue to help fight back against Internet crimes.
Oh yeah, that's gonna provide incentive for business owners to move to the new domain. Sure, no problem. (/sarcasm). Max, that just won't work.
Look, an enormous majority of people want to do the right thing. And an enormous majority of people want pornography (of some form or another). Attempting to isolate porn in the .xxx simply won't work. The internets are vast and wide. They won't be molded or controlled. Educating parents is the only response that actually provide results. Anything else is a poor attempt at pandering to a public fear. And I don't think I've been real unclear about what I think of that.