The precedent will be, to me, a dangerous one, akin to government censorship of opinion. But I can understand the motivation behind wanting bloggers in Florida to register. * Blogging can get a bit out of hand when the subject is political; it can even directly or indirectly inspire hate and hateful acts. But given that each is ultimately responsible for his own actions, anyone so moved to violence by another as to act on words, bears the responsibility of his actions.
We saw in the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich the detrimental effects on humanity in acts of horror perpetrated by “ordinary citizens” who “simply went along” with the government’s propaganda. We see those effects in eastern Ukraine today. Proclaiming someone as evil makes in others’ minds that person evil regardless of the veracity of the proclamation. Do today’s bloggers have the same power to motivate as the German and Russian propaganda machines? One might argue that they do.
A blog written in a basement can via the web travel the world in seconds. It can reach many minds both sympathetic and antithetic to the “cause du jour.” Bloggers can reach millions—though this one seems to reach less by several orders of magnitude. Yet, even the relatively short reach of “thisisnotyourpracticelife.com" might be classified as a “threat” under a Florida bill introduced by Senator Brodeur.
As in all our intentions, the idea always seems good at the outset, maybe even noble. I don’t really know the whole story behind the senator’s motivation. He might have suggested the bill to protect those in government from the “crazies out there,” people who like those German citizens simply went along with the holocaust, not even noting the immorality of their actions. As every year demonstrates across almost every society, such among us still exist: Think gang youth who do what they’re told or act in a manner consistent with the leadership. Maybe some bloggers have rabid followers. I think the possibility is a probability. There are, even from my perspective “crazies out there,” and I hope I have never unintentionally inspired any of them to act against others.
So, I do understand that blogging can have consequences—especially in the context of the rise of artificial intelligence (see previous blog https://thisisnotyourpracticelife.com/blog/heres-your-guarantee ). Given that any unscrupulous person with lots of money can fund a wide-reaching blog and given that such money can make use of AI, I, too, fear the effect of opinion on the “crazies out there.” But I also know the dangers of good intentions gone bad like some spring breaker falling off a balcony in Tijuana, a smile on his face turned into a frown on the way down: “This wasn’t such a good idea, but it seemed so at the moment.” Just a little imbalance can be dangerous. And political blogs are typically imbalanced. Senator Brodeur is probably right to be concerned, but the consequence of the bill has ramifications that might not be foreseeable.
The geographic spread, for example. Start in Florida, move to all southern states, creep into the Norttheast, and, walla!: “Professor Conte, register your blog in Pennsylvania, or pay a heavy fine (all proceeds, of course, to aid PA’s senior citizens like the lottery).”Then it becomes a national thing run by the Feds and controlled by deep-state agenda-driven people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who did their best to destroy the Trump presidency. “Look out, Professor, you’ve written against socialism and Bernie Sanders is President. Pay to blog. If’s for the good of the country.”
And that’s why I entitled this blog as I did. I can’t respect censorship of those who merely want to express an alternative, but I do understand censoring those who have an agenda to manipulate the minds of the very young by exploiting their confusion and naiveté. Of course, the comeback is “Who are you to decide?” Should we therefore censor those who want to address gender by posting cute cartoons about body transitions?
Actually, long ago and before I taught earth sciences, I started my university career as a member of the English Department, teaching, among the usual courses, one I entitled “Censorship, Pornography, and the Law.” I saw a need in the context of then current censorship law to address a contemporary problem during the late sixties and early seventies to provide my students with an understanding of the controversy. Mind you, I did not propose a resolution, but rather an understanding, particularly in regard to the humanities and the First Amendment.
One reality seems to be the almost universal acceptance of some kind of censorship, and I’m just not referring to the “Don’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Foisting on young children attention they don’t have about adult notions of sexuality is, I believe, “crossing the line,” particularly when it’s done by people whose motives a reasonable person might suspect lie more in proving a point than in “educating.” Should an educator in an elementary school classroom also be allowed to praise the glories of the state and the virtue of subsuming all individuality to the will of the few, the chosen, and the elite? The answer is “yes” if one wants Communism, socialism, and a “nation of sheep.” In a state-run society, difference dies. Individuality perishes.
I see two current attacks on freedoms that might be motivating Florida politicians to propose restrictions on bloggers and on entertainers in schools. First is the perceived attack on the freedom to mature under ethical supervision and second is the freedom to provide children protection against adult agendas that serve adult egos while confusing young minds. And this kind of censorship has nothing to do with elevating one lifestyle over another. Call my past self naive, but I remember not knowing or caring much about either politics or sex when I was six. Was I unusual, some weird kid too involved in play to not think of sex when I was trying to learn how to catch a ball or stay on a swing without falling off? Why wasn’t I concerned about transgenderism or cross-dressing? No doubt I found Some Like It Hot an entertaining movie when I was older than six but still quite naive.
“But in that movie, men dress like women,” you say. Yes, but I don’t believe, even in reflection, that the intent of the movie was to persuade me that that in itself is a goal. And I don’t remember the pundits during the Johnson Administration trying to shut down Walter Cronkite after he spoke out (meekly) about the Vietnam War. Of course, at the time individuals outside the mainstream media had no avenue to blog their dissent. They were silenced by default: Their only verbal avenue was “letters to the editor” if they were not public TV commentators.
Thus, the evolution of the Internet has brought us to the point of both complete freedom of expression and freedom to threaten subtly or overtly. And once again we’re faced with the problem of “How far is too far?” I’ll return to those Florida representatives who see blogging as something that needs to be controlled or at least threatened with control. Are we on that slippery slope, the slope that leads to an FBI, a CDC, or an IRS to withhold information or censor “on pain of punishment?
Sorry, Senator, with little due respect, I disagree.
* You can read the bill online at: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Filed/PDF
We saw in the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich the detrimental effects on humanity in acts of horror perpetrated by “ordinary citizens” who “simply went along” with the government’s propaganda. We see those effects in eastern Ukraine today. Proclaiming someone as evil makes in others’ minds that person evil regardless of the veracity of the proclamation. Do today’s bloggers have the same power to motivate as the German and Russian propaganda machines? One might argue that they do.
A blog written in a basement can via the web travel the world in seconds. It can reach many minds both sympathetic and antithetic to the “cause du jour.” Bloggers can reach millions—though this one seems to reach less by several orders of magnitude. Yet, even the relatively short reach of “thisisnotyourpracticelife.com" might be classified as a “threat” under a Florida bill introduced by Senator Brodeur.
As in all our intentions, the idea always seems good at the outset, maybe even noble. I don’t really know the whole story behind the senator’s motivation. He might have suggested the bill to protect those in government from the “crazies out there,” people who like those German citizens simply went along with the holocaust, not even noting the immorality of their actions. As every year demonstrates across almost every society, such among us still exist: Think gang youth who do what they’re told or act in a manner consistent with the leadership. Maybe some bloggers have rabid followers. I think the possibility is a probability. There are, even from my perspective “crazies out there,” and I hope I have never unintentionally inspired any of them to act against others.
So, I do understand that blogging can have consequences—especially in the context of the rise of artificial intelligence (see previous blog https://thisisnotyourpracticelife.com/blog/heres-your-guarantee ). Given that any unscrupulous person with lots of money can fund a wide-reaching blog and given that such money can make use of AI, I, too, fear the effect of opinion on the “crazies out there.” But I also know the dangers of good intentions gone bad like some spring breaker falling off a balcony in Tijuana, a smile on his face turned into a frown on the way down: “This wasn’t such a good idea, but it seemed so at the moment.” Just a little imbalance can be dangerous. And political blogs are typically imbalanced. Senator Brodeur is probably right to be concerned, but the consequence of the bill has ramifications that might not be foreseeable.
The geographic spread, for example. Start in Florida, move to all southern states, creep into the Norttheast, and, walla!: “Professor Conte, register your blog in Pennsylvania, or pay a heavy fine (all proceeds, of course, to aid PA’s senior citizens like the lottery).”Then it becomes a national thing run by the Feds and controlled by deep-state agenda-driven people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who did their best to destroy the Trump presidency. “Look out, Professor, you’ve written against socialism and Bernie Sanders is President. Pay to blog. If’s for the good of the country.”
And that’s why I entitled this blog as I did. I can’t respect censorship of those who merely want to express an alternative, but I do understand censoring those who have an agenda to manipulate the minds of the very young by exploiting their confusion and naiveté. Of course, the comeback is “Who are you to decide?” Should we therefore censor those who want to address gender by posting cute cartoons about body transitions?
Actually, long ago and before I taught earth sciences, I started my university career as a member of the English Department, teaching, among the usual courses, one I entitled “Censorship, Pornography, and the Law.” I saw a need in the context of then current censorship law to address a contemporary problem during the late sixties and early seventies to provide my students with an understanding of the controversy. Mind you, I did not propose a resolution, but rather an understanding, particularly in regard to the humanities and the First Amendment.
One reality seems to be the almost universal acceptance of some kind of censorship, and I’m just not referring to the “Don’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Foisting on young children attention they don’t have about adult notions of sexuality is, I believe, “crossing the line,” particularly when it’s done by people whose motives a reasonable person might suspect lie more in proving a point than in “educating.” Should an educator in an elementary school classroom also be allowed to praise the glories of the state and the virtue of subsuming all individuality to the will of the few, the chosen, and the elite? The answer is “yes” if one wants Communism, socialism, and a “nation of sheep.” In a state-run society, difference dies. Individuality perishes.
I see two current attacks on freedoms that might be motivating Florida politicians to propose restrictions on bloggers and on entertainers in schools. First is the perceived attack on the freedom to mature under ethical supervision and second is the freedom to provide children protection against adult agendas that serve adult egos while confusing young minds. And this kind of censorship has nothing to do with elevating one lifestyle over another. Call my past self naive, but I remember not knowing or caring much about either politics or sex when I was six. Was I unusual, some weird kid too involved in play to not think of sex when I was trying to learn how to catch a ball or stay on a swing without falling off? Why wasn’t I concerned about transgenderism or cross-dressing? No doubt I found Some Like It Hot an entertaining movie when I was older than six but still quite naive.
“But in that movie, men dress like women,” you say. Yes, but I don’t believe, even in reflection, that the intent of the movie was to persuade me that that in itself is a goal. And I don’t remember the pundits during the Johnson Administration trying to shut down Walter Cronkite after he spoke out (meekly) about the Vietnam War. Of course, at the time individuals outside the mainstream media had no avenue to blog their dissent. They were silenced by default: Their only verbal avenue was “letters to the editor” if they were not public TV commentators.
Thus, the evolution of the Internet has brought us to the point of both complete freedom of expression and freedom to threaten subtly or overtly. And once again we’re faced with the problem of “How far is too far?” I’ll return to those Florida representatives who see blogging as something that needs to be controlled or at least threatened with control. Are we on that slippery slope, the slope that leads to an FBI, a CDC, or an IRS to withhold information or censor “on pain of punishment?
Sorry, Senator, with little due respect, I disagree.
* You can read the bill online at: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Filed/PDF
RSS Feed