Cyber-Bullying an attempt to legislate good manners?
I am starting to get really concerned about this talk of legislating against 'cyber bullies'. This is all, of course, spawned from a single tragic event where a child took her own life after having been insulted online.
This is a tragic situation indeed, but I think there is a lot of misplaced anger in trying to create legislation that would be the greatest attack on free-speech in our history.
I know of no laws on the books that would suggest that a person be jailed for telling someone, to their face, that 'they ought to drop dead'. If verbal abuse were a crime then how many husbands and wives would be locked up in jail right now?
And, isn't an insult to your face much worse than the nonsensical spew that happens online? People should know, learn, or be taught that discourse on the Internet should be judged at a different level than other forms of communication.
Having been interacting online myself for decades I have experienced a lot of this directly. In online debates on various message forums I have frequently been accused of being a 'bully'.
What horrific crime did I commit? I stated facts. You see, when you are in a debate with someone who has strongly held beliefs, especially if those beliefs are delusional or based on 'faith', these individuals can react quite strongly to hearing things like facts about science and history. Add to this mix individuals who are unstable and we find that simply engaging in open debate can be viewed as 'bullying'.
Let's say you are insulting someone online, is it reasonable to expect them to commit suicide based on such a comment? If we are going to criminalize people 'flaming' each other on the Internet then there are not enough prisons on the planet to hold them all.
I think the real problem with Internet discourse is anonymity. When people write anonymously on the Internet they seem to lose all sense of good manners. In my own personal online presence on the Internet, over the course of 25 years, I have almost always posted under my own name. I have always felt that if I had something to say I should not hide behind a handle of anonymity, but should rather stand behind my opinions and answer for my actions.
If everyone on the Internet were forced to identify themselves I believe the general level of discourse would rise dramatically.
At the end of the day, I don't see how you can legislate good manners? And, if you are going to make it a crime to verbally bully someone online, then you would have to also make it crime to verbally abuse someone in person and, if that were the case, as I said before, we can't build enough prisons to house half the population of the planet. For who hasn't hurled an insult in frustration or a moment of anger?
Now, people are emotional about this particular tragic case because the acts were willful and with malice and it involved a child.
Well, my first question here is who let a child have a computer connected to the Internet in their bedroom? That's like dropping your child off at a pornography shop while you go run your errands. Of course children do need access to the Internet these days, to do their homework or talk to their friends, however the computer should be in an open family area. Depending on the age of your child you should not allow them to have email accounts (unless you want them to receive endless offers for penis enlargement and viagra). You should monitor their activities and who they are talking to.
You worry about your child being accosted by strangers when they leave your house but don't worry about the strangers accosting them inside their own bedroom??
It is the parent's responsibility to monitor their access to the Internet and to talk to them about what they are doing online.
It's not that I would necessarily be against legislation designed specifically to protect children and to guard them against willful or malicious attacks but can we really trust the Government to target a bill so finely? And, how does anyone know who is, or is not, a 'child' online? Everyone communicates anonymously and until this basic problem is addressed I don't see this Wild West getting cleaned up any time soon.
Comments
Except that part about "forcing" everyone to identify themselves. Who's gonna do the forcing? I mean, the government can't even figure out true ID's of people in airports — who's gonna keep up with the zillions of onliners?
Widow's Son
BurningTaper.com
Then when people make web posts, etc. it would either be verified or not. Again, this would be voluntary, but people would quickly learn that they could ignore as 'spam' any posts by unverified members.
Hopefully, over time, peer pressure, common sense, and good manners would lead more and more people to communicate non-anonymously and we could steadily ignore the flamers and spammers of the online world.
John
How far should the government go to protect people from misleading or abusive behavior and communication? Should people who are unwitting participants be protected from abusive or fraudulant behavior? How far should free speech go?
Should the law allow me to target you, call you on the phone every few minutes and say you'll die a slow and painful death -- even assuming I let you have the caller ID? Should the law limit my right to send you an email every few minutes with the same content? Post on your blog every few minutes with the same content?
If such laws already protect people for non-internet behavior, why should it not be extended to cover internet behavior?
You did not provide any clear examples of what you were concerned with... which statements have been made that you disagree with specifically, and how do you propose to stop people from expressing their desire to limit free speech in such a manner? By bully pulpit? ;-)