The Mirror Cracked
Broken mirror by ~111Melody on deviantART
“… what we’re seeing on the net is a reflection of the society we live in. When you have a problem in the mirror you do not fix the mirror, you fix that which is reflected in the mirror.”
Vint Cerf on speaking on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme 29 August 2007.
Cerf’s comments stem in no small part from calls by some politicians, groups and individuals to impose some form of censorship on the content of certain sites.
I have a great deal of respect for Cerf, his work in creating the TCP/IP protocol made the Internet possible and was carried out at a time when personal computers were just a sci-fi writer’s dream and before mobile phones, satellite navigation and mp3 players for just a few quid were decades away.
I could not agree more with his assertion that we must not blame the Internet for the ills, and let’s face it, plain sick-mindedness of certain members of society. The Internet simply affords the weirdoes and dangerously deluded members of our world an easy and too often anonymous medium by which to communicate and propagate their poisonous filth. Violence, hate and degrading acts can all be found out there if you’re minded to search for them.
But all of these things are a product of human minds, not TCP/IP, HTTP or a sentient and evil JavaScript program.
Free speech is a privilege, hard won with the blood of generations and should not be taken for granted. Ask bloggers who live under some of the more oppressive regimes around the globe. Oh, you can’t because their governments’ censor email and block them from seeing certain web sites. To remove the freedom to express oneself would be a crime against all of us and would throw a stifling blanket over the Internet. Bubbling cauldron of ideas and invention it is today into a pale and fettered echo of what it can be.
There’s an irony, Cerf’s current employer values free speech so much that it caved in to the Chinese government about filtering search results for Google’s Chinese search engine.
What I think must be emphasised is that while yes, the Internet is a mirror, it’s a mirror to those of us who stand in front of it. Some sections of our (world) population are unwilling, or unable to use the Web and we do not see them in our online community. Only 1 in 6 of the world population has web access so Cerf’s mirror is a little distorted.
Do I believe that we should censor the web, especially on social networking and self-broadcast sites like YouTube? Yes undoubtedly, if the content includes acts that depict, incite or encourage harm of, oppression of or violence toward another human being.
The current craze in the UK amongst the sick youth of the country is “Happy Slapping“. Sickening. It displays a lack of empathy for others that does not bode well for the perpetrator’s future conduct. Combine that with increased knife and gun carrying and it’ll not be long before snuff mobile phone videos come online.
The BDSM community tend to apply the rules “safe, sane and consenting”, for me that’s pretty much perfect as a measure of what should be allowed.
As for human rights and the right for free speech? I value the rights of children above those of adults, the rights of the weak over those of the strong who would try to control them and the rights of anyone without a voice over those who would seek to shout and drown them out.
How about you?
Tags: Vint Cerf, Internet pioneer, TCP/IP, HTTP, censorship, internet censorship, free speech, Internet porn, happy slapping, YouTube, Google, blogging, human rights, search engine, search engine results, search engine result filtering, BDSM
Agreed! One hundred percent.
Good Thursday morning to you Suze and Alex !
It is very much a mirror. Good point.
There is much good out there in blog-land. Some indifferent and boring. And a few truly evil.
It is what rests within the individual that is published. Some I think SHOULD BE BANNED from being published if it truly crosses a line of depravity/would be considered a crime by the law.
But regular erotica including BDSM ? Nah. That’s consenting adults making choices that work for them. Writing about it is harmless.
I was reading an article the other day, unrelated to internet censorship in relation to adult content and the like, but more in relation to the current spate of virtual terrorism networks who are using the Internet to promote their zealotry, and a commentator within the article said that it was impossible to censor the Internet, because of its design or something along the lines of the Internet being designed by the military to function, regardless of all the programming that would be put into place to censor bits and pieces; so there’s always a way to add content, and the vast amount of content would mean a large amount of time. It’s literally a complex web.
A lot of this censorship, or that which relates to adult content, or content that contravenes the ‘safe, sane and sexual’ (which isn’t a finite definition to me, as many can twist it around for their own purpose; sanity and insanity are more legal definitions than social definitions. A society of today may abhor extreme sexual violence, and the society of the next millennium may see it as sane or necessary in some way, who knows?).
I don’t think that freedom of speech exists in a pure form, there is no full freedom; a person is held accountable somewhat, or judged on various platforms, by various groups around the world, and categorised in some way or form. Freedom of Speech (as a concept) varies from one country to the next. In the US this definition includes everyone having the right to utter whatever they like, including groups like the Ku Klux Klan. It’s one rule for all, not one rule for the few, which is fair on the outside, I guess, but riddled with so many flaws; racial hatred, for example, isn’t a positive social facilitator. So taking that one example, the freedom of speech idea within the US and its splinter groups, this right enables the KKK to slander groups they don’t like, based on things like skin color and sexuality, and it gives the others the right to slander the KKK; an endless tit for tat carousel that never sees anything resolved, and because of this, I think that definition of ‘freedom of speech’ is more ornamental, than anything else. It enables some to put forth good views, and others get fat financially, while offering few solutions; one example for me is Spurlock and his crap documentary that tried to transform McDonalds into Satan, when only an idiot would eat that food 24/7 and nothing else.
I don’t know where I stand on the issue. I think everyone has the right to say whatever they like, or vent, but at the same time I also know that as long as corporations overrule governments, that no full freedom exists, especially when political correctness exists.
i never thought about the “mirror” concept, but it is true….blogging is a medium that many use for different reasons…there are many people who write and are completely harmless, but there are also those out there that are just plain scary…and blogland is an anonymous place for people to share their thoughts….unfortunately, it is those scary ones that usually ruin it for the rest of us.
xoxo