[Chapter-delegates] Narelle Clark - Is the Internet different?

[Fred Baker]

On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:

> Narelle's point, written in the context of clumsy moves by Governments to control Internet behavior, is that statutes should not discriminate between online and offline activity. That networking is becoming so integral a part of society that there essentially is no need for difference in laws. For example, why introduce broad online censorship in an otherwise free society?

Her point, stated as "The Australian chapter of the Internet Society has argued strongly that our system of law needs to be robust enough to be applied and be enforceable independently of the medium", echos the position that ISOC in general and the IETF have pushed regarding internet-based legislation and regulation for a good 20 years. In short, we have no shortage of laws regulating behavior; use existing law in the new medium of communication rather than specially regulating it, or if one is going to write new regulation, make it apply in all media.

I had an interesting conversation along this line with a lawyer from the Family Research Council, a US christian lobbying organization, a number of years ago. She wanted an obscenity law tailored to the Internet, and I as a contributor was concerned. So I called and asked. When I pointed out the plethora of obscenity laws, she said "yes, but those have all been gutted by the courts; due to precedent, they have no teeth." I wondered aloud why this law would be different, and she replied "of course it will be gutted. But it gives me another opportunity to argue the case."

I stopped supporting FRC. If a law cannot be effective in its intended effect, it should not exist.