Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve W
The difference being that if you hurt someone it would be yourself not an innocent.
|
That's essentially true (apart from crashing into a fellow rider, sending them flying off of a cliff), and addressed above. But that's not the issue at all.
It's clear that the activities that a "social networking site" (commercial or otherwise) provides are frequently enjoyable and in some respects, beneficial to their users (ChiefDelphi, for instance). It's also clear that on the Internet, as in life in general, certain risks are assumed. The trouble is, while normally we would attempt to strike a socially acceptable balance between risk and reward, this legislation deals with a miniscule risk, and imposes wide-ranging restrictions on perfectly legal, and sometimes-productive activities. And it does this in libraries, of all places—where, at least ideally, it's up to the patron to access the information that interests them, rather than the subset of that information which has been sanitized in the name of hysterical parents and vote-hungry legislators.
But most importantly, this law is not about the victims, nor the offenders, because the effect on sex crimes is bound to be next-to-zero. How many people are clueless enough to be lured into a compromising situation over the Internet, and furthermore, to do so during class hours or at the public library. Though it's disgustingly popular to sensationalize these sorts of incidents, the fact is, they're not very common at all. Restricting only one potential precursor, in two specific venues will do little to prevent the same clueless teenager from taking the same objectionable action elsewhere, be it by e-mail at home, or over their cellphone at the mall. It's ridiculous that this law is being marketed as a weapon against child exploitation, when in reality, it's just another stupid hurdle over which the schools are forced to jump (in this case, to get a certification, which, as is the way of these things, will probably affect their funding).
I'd surmise that this sort of law is as widely accepted as it is, because of the many irrational attitudes and laws concerning sex crimes that exist in the U.S.. And despite all of these "think of the children" episodes, the law doesn't serve the needs of the children particularly well, except in the minds of the multitude of lunatics who see sex criminals everywhere, and in the minds of those who exploit that perception to political advantage.