The Linux Extremist

Everything one needs to know about politics can be found in the scripts of “Yes, Minister”, a British comedy programme which detailed the fictional career of the Right Honourable James Hacker, MP. One of the more pertinent lessons doled out by the show is that politicians will seize upon half-baked initiatives in order to prove to the public they’re doing something. This faulty logic was encapsulated by what one of the characters called “The Politicians Syllogism”. A syllogism, for those who haven’t come across one before, is a form of deductive reasoning, comprised of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. The Politicians Syllogism goes as follows -

We must do something
This is something.
Therefore we must do this.

Of course this is about as good, the character notes, as saying the following -

My dog has four legs.
My cat has four legs.
Therefore, my dog is a cat.

The Politicians Syllogism is applicable to the latest initiative out of the American Congress, the so-called “Deleting Online Predators Act”, or DOPA for short. The act, passed by a margin of 410 votes to 15 in the House of Representatives, intends to forbid schools and libraries access to “social networking” sites. The FCC is obliged to define these sites as any that allow users to chat to another, maintain a profile, and post personal data. Some commentators have already noted that this description would apply to sites like Ebay and Amazon.

The politicians are doing this, quite frankly, because it’s easy. The latest scare created by the media is that MySpace has become nothing more than a recruitment ground for paedophiles. This act is a very simple way to show that both Democrats and Republicans “care”. Doing “something” also prevents questions about why rank and file members of the US Congress are paid $165,200 per year, plus benefits and expenses.

Of course, sending paedophiles for a ride on Old Sparky set to “Extra Crispy” or castrating them with a rusty butter knife would be certainly more effective (it would definitely cut the recidivism rate). However, such measures would not command a bipartisan consensus, and therefore be less likely to pass; “something” would not be achieved.

However, something in this instance is the worst sort of nothing. If we apply Lenin’s old query, “Whom does this benefit?” to the act, we can quickly ascertain that it certainly does not benefit the children the measure is intended to protect.

According to the Pew Internet & Life project, only 23% percent of adult Americans have gone online from somewhere other than home or at work. Even if we assume that children’s proportion is marginally higher, this does not account for the vast majority of internet users. These figures also do not account for people using MySpace at these alternative locations; given the filters already placed on salacious content, the library or school environment was already not conducive for accessing questionable material.

Just as the act is unlikely to benefit users, it is just as likely to hit sites like MySpace and any site that offers an element of social networking. It also hits policy makers in schools and libraries; their independence in deciding what is appropriate material has been taken away and put into the hands of the Federal government. Power has been shifted to the centre, bureaucracy empowered, and there is no solid reasoning behind it.

It also does not benefit good governance. A solid objection to this act is the supposition that it makes about human nature; it seems Congress has read their Jean Jacques Rousseau. Without the acoutrements of civilisation, Rousseau suggested, men automatically behave better. Similiarly, Congress suggests that without the tools to make man bad, he will not become bad. Considering that paedophiles are motivated by unnatural lust, it seems that even if a fraction of their prey were made unavailable, they would not stop in their activities. Only the aforementioned ride in Old Sparky (or the rusty butter knife) would stop them completely; the fear of being stopped in that manner would make some, not all, realise that life is more important than gratifying themselves.

So whom does this benefit? The bureaucracy is the biggest winner, given the additional powers they will receive. Also, Congress will get a few days of a few positive headlines for doing something. Individual representatives, in a tough election year, will be able to tell the folks back home that they tackled the scourge of internet paedophiles, and with a bit of luck, (but not too much luck as the incumbency rate in the House is around 90 percent) they’ll continue to collect their large salaries for a job which demands the occasional loud bit of nothing. One can only hope that the nothing produced in the next session will be of better quality.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS