E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, June 29, 2015

A more nefarious motive

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I think we can all agree that "revenge porn" - a subset of non-consensual pornography - is a bad thing that should be stopped. I think we can all agree that the state has a legitimate interest in penalizing those who distribute "revenge porn." But it is just bad policy to make interactive content providers criminally liable for user generated content, as one proposal to criminalize "revenge porn" federally would do.

Think about this for a minute. A massive portion of the web is user-generated content. That is all Facebook and Twitter is - user-generated content. This does not even include comments on news websites and blogs - many of which use Facebook for comments. Congress recognized it was a bad idea to hold interactive content providers responsible for user-generated content in 1996, well before user generated content was as big as it is today. Why can they not see that now? Have they somehow become less informed about the Internet than they were two decades ago?

Might I suggest a more nefarious motive? Congress does not like the "little people" being able to broadcast criticism of them. If you greatly restrict user-generated content and make interactive content providers afraid of the long arm of the federal government, the "Wild West" of the Internet becomes easier to control and manage. Let there be no doubt about it: That is the endgame here.

Could it be that you have knuckleheads who do not understand what they are regulating, or what their regulations would do to the product they want to regulate? I would have believed that twenty years ago. Today? I find that highly implausible. Virtually every elected official from the state level on up has some sort of internet presence - not just a campaign website but a Facebook and Twitter account too. Many are also on Instagram.

So let's strip away the excuses and see this proposal for what it really is. This is not about "revenge porn" at all. This is about nothing more than censoring political speech and criminalizing dissent. Do not be distracted by the low hanging fruit. Always look at the motives and how things like this expand government power.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.