That's a classic straw man right there. We could apply that to any speech, and conclude that because of our imperfect world, it's ok to restrict it.
In the marketplace of ideas, there will be bad ideas, or offensive ideas. And they will live or die under such spontaneous conditions, not because the government passes a law about it.
Well who are you or I to decide what this "proper place" should be? (it's a fair question) I think the Internet has effectively done a very good job at self organization. Why do you think the government would "organize" it better? And better for whom?
Maybe political websites should be in another special "appropriate" place, or religious sites, or how about sites that promulgate cigarette smoking? We could suggest that talking about cigarette smoking hurts those impressionable kids too... and who could possibly be against the children?
To me, this is exactly along the lines of the weirdly intentioned "Net Neutrality" law. Everyone here seethes over how terrible the federal government is in regulating communications and the media. So why the hell should the same government be deemed better at organizing the Internet and portioning out its use? In both cases, it hopelessly politicizes the Internet, ultimately making it a less of a place for new ideas, innovation and business.
I just don't get it.... but then I'm an old libertarian at heart.
Steve





Reply With Quote
Bookmarks