The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it’s like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can’t eat steak. – Robert A. Heinlein
In my column of January 9th I pointed out that
…modern culture encourages people…to surrender personal responsibility for their actions. It’s not the fault of the human for misbehaving; it’s the fault of the drugs/tobacco/video games/porn/ guns/gambling/television/movies or whatever. Even sex is called an “addiction”…The prostitute who offers a service is no more responsible for clients who come to her when they shouldn’t than an auto manufacturer is responsible for someone who is harmed by driving his car off of the highway, and neither can a client be held responsible for the free choice of a whore. It’s time for people to stop allowing governments to treat them like children, and the way to accomplish this is to stop acting like children by running to Big Brother every time someone hurts our feelings, or expecting Nanny to remedy every consequence resulting from our own ill-considered actions. It’s time for modern people to leave their state-run, police-guarded nurseries and grow the hell up.
One of the most potent weapons collectivists use to shoot down personal-responsibility-based arguments against the Nanny State is the “for the children” strategy; since everyone agrees that children lack adult capacity for judgment, clearly they can’t be held accountable to the same level of personal responsibility as adults and must therefore be protected. That’s the foot in the door; it is quickly followed by the leg (all legal minors are “children”, exactly equivalent to four-year-olds) and then the body (in order to be sure “children” aren’t affected by whatever-it-is we have to prohibit it to adults as well). Those who would defend an adult woman’s right to whatever sexual arrangements suit her are attacked by the “child sex trafficking” fetishists, who claim that it’s just and ethical to endlessly harass tens of thousands of adult whores in order to make it more difficult for a few hundred teenagers (characterized as “trafficked children”, of course) to ply their trade; furthermore, they believe it’s perfectly legal and sound to file nuisance lawsuits against advertising venues in the hopes of A) becoming wealthy without working for it, and B) establishing the precedent that websites are responsible for user-generated content. Either they don’t recognize the damage such a precedent would cause to the American economy (as internet companies relocated to countries without such burdensome restrictions and users switched to international ISPs) and the chilling effect it would have on free expression, or they simply don’t care; fortunately, not every court is hell-bent on gutting the First Amendment, so a federal judge recently nipped an attempt at establishing such a terrifying precedent in the proverbial bud:
A federal judge in St. Louis has thrown out a lawsuit accusing Village Voice Media of knowingly allowing a pimp to advertise a teenage prostitute’s sexual services on one of its websites. The suit filed last year on behalf of the teen sought at least $150,000 in damages. It claimed that Backpage.com, a website similar to Craigslist, knew prostitution was being facilitated on the site but did nothing to stop it. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Mummert dismissed the suit Monday, [writing that] the allegations “do not distinguish the complained-of actions of Backpage from any other website that posted content that led to an innocent person’s injury…Congress has declared such websites to be immune from suits arising from such injuries. It is for Congress to change the policy that gave rise to such immunity.” Those comments were in reference to the Communications Decency Act.
The girl’s attorney, Bob Pedroli Jr., was critical of the act and said he would appeal. “We plan to continue our fight in the courts and we ask everyone who cares about sexual trafficking of children on the Internet to write to their senators and…representatives and tell them to change this law now,” Pedroli said. Phone messages left with an attorney for Village Voice Media were not returned.
The lawsuit did not list the name of the girl who said she became a prostitute at age 14. The girl’s pimp, Latasha Jewell McFarland, 28, of St. Louis, was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty in 2010 to federal prostitution charges. Prosecutors in the criminal case said the girl ran away from home and met McFarland in 2009. They said McFarland persuaded her to work as a prostitute by telling her she could earn $100 for each sex act, and that McFarland took half the proceeds. McFarland admitted she posted nude photos of the girl online, bought condoms, arranged meetings and drove the teen to hotels…In her lawsuit, the girl contended that items advertising sex with her were posted on Backpage.com…
Unless Pedroli is wholly incompetent, he knows that the CDA as initially enacted would’ve done exactly what he wanted it to, but the portion of the Act allowing such censorship was struck down by the U. S. Supreme Court practically as soon as it was passed. And rightfully so; holding companies like Backpage (and by extension WordPress, Facebook, message boards, etc, etc…) legally responsible for the content of posts created by their users would utterly destroy the usefulness of the internet as a venue for individual voices (such as this blog), reducing it to control by monopolies large and complex enough to cope with onerous and intrusive government regulations and slowing its growth to a crawl as each and every new item had to be individually checked to ensure compliance with government standards. Furthermore, the costs resulting from this level of micromanagement would mean an end to the virtually-free internet as we know it.
Ashton Kutcher has his answer now; during his Twitter tirade of June 29th he posted, “hey @villagevoice hows [sic] that lawsuit from the 15 year old victim who alleges you helped enslave them [sic] going?” Of course, Ashton’s not bright enough to understand that he should be glad the suit failed, but most reasonable people are and for the moment, at least, that’s still enough.
One Year Ago Today
“Advice for Clients” is a short tutorial on what to do (and what not to do) when making or keeping an appointment with an escort.
“For the children” … we have to ban transfats and McDonalds – because there is an “obesity epidemic” (which is completely false, by the way). “For the children” … we have to mandate locks on firearms in the home. “For the children” … we need warning labels on Twisted Sister CD’s.
The “busy bodyness” of it all is just crazy. But – I’ll tell you … it is so engrained into our society it will only stop through some traumatic (apocalyptic) event. It’s sad … but I think true.
And that event just may be coming soon – which is why I don’t fear it. It’s time we revisited the basics of what we’re about – and what the founders of this nation intended.
By the way – I visited Kelly J’s site yesterday after reading your column … that girl is a die-hard revolutionary. I like the hell out of her. But she needs to write more! LOL
Yet you don’t hear as much about pool safety — even though a pool in the yard is statistically about 100 times more dangerous than a gun in the house.
I don’t understand why kds are too dumb to not Darwinist themselves. I lived my whole childhood in homes filled with loaded guns, sharp knives and all manner of dangerous (if improperly used) tools and other objects. I never got hurt because I was taught not to touch other people’s belongings.
The fact that you’re telling us this demonstrates that, by horse sense, dumb luck, divine intervention, hawk-watching parents, or some combination, you managed to survive your childhood. Had you not, you wouldn’t be able to tell us why.
Actually, I think it’s none of the above. Horse sense, maybe; but if that’s what it was, then it’s because my mama horse put that sense there. My parents were definitely not hawk-watching; I was a latchkey kid from about age 7.
The real difference I think is that my parents explained, sometimes in graphic detail, the “whys” and consequences of actions/behaviors. For example, we lived off a two-lane country highway when I was a kid – people always sped down that road. I was taught to look both ways and to be careful when crossing. Every time there was a dead critter in the road, my mother would drag me over to show me what I would look like should I carelessly step onto that highway like Mr. Squirrel, Mr. Possum or Miss Feral Kitty. It was made clear that the few rules my parents did have were not arbitrary “because we said so” regulations and otherwise I had great personal freedom.
Sounds like horse sense to me. Them equines gotta learn it from somebody. Your ‘rents did a good thing, letting you know what the rules were for.
Well, there is an obesity epidemic, but it aint from trans fats
I’m consistently astonished by the way that Americans consistently (since at least the days of Dr. Kellogg) search for dietary explanations to every health issue, ignoring things like exercise. Letting your kids sit around all day in schools that have banned recess, then coming home to sit in front of the TV, computer and Nintendo and never walking anywhere, couldn’t have anything to do with childhood obesity, nope. It must be HFCS and Happy Meals.
No recess, the TV, the video games, the texting, and the fact that parents won’t let their kids go outside and play because they’ve been convinced that a child molester is hiding behind every tree.
I do think that school lunches could be healthier. What the kids eat away from school is none of the school’s business, but what the school itself provides is.
Just wait until they pass the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act”. Ugh. There was a fantastic quote from an online gambler when Congress banned online gambling. She said that the purpose of the act was not to protect children; it was turn adults into children. Kutcher accidentally reveals that “protecting the children” is just the wedge. What they really want to do is ban all ads for escorts (actually, just push them to more dangerous and less trustworthy websites).
Incidentally, someone sent me this article (http://tinyurl.com/3t8no33) on the idea of an ethical sex industry (although I would argue the current sex industry isn’t any less ethical than, say, investment banking; it wasn’t whores who wrecked the economy). I think the anti-whoring brigades are so vocal because they are so scared that the general public will realize what decriminalization would mean — a sex industry that can’t be falsely demonized; that may even become — gasp! — respectable. If you can imagine.
That’s a very interesting article, Mike … but I don’t think the sex industry really needs any regulation.
I’ve found most of the sex workers are really into providing a good service. I laughed at one article Maggie wrote where she talked about picking up the client’s dirty clothes and putting them away before tip-toeing out the door while he was sleeping.
I saw a nice young lady about two months ago and spent five hours with her. I had my “envelope” on the desk of my hotel suite when she entered – and I watched that envelope – she didn’t pick it up until the end of our date – and she didn’t look at the contents when she placed it in her purse on the way out the door. Amazing … I’m glad I put more money in it than was required. That girl was wonderful.
And … I keep in touch with her – she lives a great life – just spent two weeks on the beach in Sardinia (she’s actually Russian). She has all kinds of freedom.
I also like the “counter economic” quality of an un-regulated sex industry. If I were female – it’s the one single reason I’d be a sex worker! It just tickles the living hell out of me to think of all that money changing hands and the women only paying taxes on the amount THEY WANT TO!!
Agreed. I don’t want a regulated industry. But the general point — that there’s no reason the sex industry can’t be as accepted as others — is a good one.
An interesting little article. It’s also hard to read: it has text that floats on top of other text, and too many ads and whatever else that was jammed in. I copied the whole thing to a Word document and read it that way.
The content is fine. I’d recommend it, just be prepared to fight the layout.
Either they don’t recognize the damage such a precedent would cause to the American economy (as internet companies relocated to countries without such burdensome restrictions and users switched to international ISPs) and the chilling effect it would have on free expression, or they simply don’t care
Probably a little bit of both. But for those who propose and write that legislation, I assign more malicious intent and believe that they don’t care. They won’t start caring until their own legislation bites them in the ass and even then would be loathe to admit their mistakes (McKinnon, Dworkin, I’m looking at you two). Those who don’t recognize the potential damage of certain bills, in my mind, are the ones who sign on in good faith. They truly believe that this is a good thing and that it will only negatively affect the “bad ones”. The same mentality can be seen in those who support our Surveillance State and say things like, “If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t object to ‘them’ looking.”
Yeah these kinds of laws are simply killing us. And … the thing is … if there is one thing the government can’t do … it’s “outsmarting” Capitalists.
Pass a law – and then things get really interesting …
Ban steroids … and then companies start engineering some very creative “designer steroids” which skirt around the technical language of the law. At one time … “injectable” steroids were the order of the day … stuff like Testosterone, which would shut your own HPTA system down … but at least didn’t damage your liver. Now, orally ingested designer steroids are “methylated” so that they survive more than one passage through the liver – which causes some pretty serious stress on the liver.
But hey … it’s legal right?
Same thing with Marijuana. We’ve got all this drug testing (which I have always thought was a violation of the forth amendment) … and so now, enterprising capitalists are designing custom “cannabis like” incense and bath salts … which people are smoking now and getting high on – but who’s health affects have yet to be determined.
But hey … it’s legal right?
Neurosoup is there.
I’ve had 2C-E recommended to me. Nice and legal, but unregulated. It isn’t like buying booze.
As I recall, the relevant portion of the CDA was struck down by the first judge who heard it, then by two three-judge appellate panels (both unanimously) at different levels, and finally by the unanimous Supreme Court. Sixteen straight judges declared it unconstitutional.
I suppose as a “collectivist” (socialist) I have to make a comment or two here.
1. There’s a huge difference between a society using it’s resources to promote a healthy and non-privation ridden life for it’s citizens, and passing bad laws. The most capitalist of societies pass bad laws. Look at most passed right here in the USA over the past twenty years.
2. As ultra-capitalist as we are here, the government still intrudes more and more into our freedoms each day. We’re closer to a totalitarian society already than we should feel comfortable with, and much of that was done under ultra-capitalist GWB. Meanwhile, there’s no socialist moves, such as national healthcare, about.
3.The government can only “protect” those deemed needing protection with a broad brush. Laws seldom have fine distinctions. People should be responsible for protecting their own children, not seeking to have the government do it for them.
4. Perhaps if we were a bit more socialist, with health care, perhaps child care, working hours set so that both parents weren’t constantly working or exhausted perhaps they could do a better job protecting their kids.
5. We’ve always had moralists, and crusaders, often driven by their superstitions, trying to prohibit the masses from doing this or that, trying to scare up panics. In the turn of the century, some of these people claimed that foreigners were setting up “sweet shops” to lure in young women and ensnare them in “White slavery.” They’d had rather had them working in the sweat shops than the sweet shops.
I grew up in the sixties and seventies, when the attitude was much different. Then, at least my parents believed it was proper that children should experience the world, often unfiltered. It made me a stronger person, and I’m damned glad of it now.
Actually, I read a very interesting article on Bleeding Heart Libertarians this morning which pointed out that when people talk about “capitalism”, they could mean any of four different things, of which the first two are mutually exclusive. The United States has been moving away from my idea of true capitalism (#1 in the article) for at least four decades now; what we have now (#2 in the article) is perilously close to fascism.
Maggie,
Free Enterprise is what classical liberals mean by capitalism. All of the other versions really are variations on theme of taking from others, with government force, what they would not voluntarily exchange with you.
I always laugh when people refer to George W. Bush as a capitalist. That’s a little bit like referring to Janet Reno as a childcare specialist for her role in the Waco atrocity. After all, we had to protect the children and everyone knows the best way to do that is to use tanks to inject cs gas into confined structures where children are living…
I’ve often thought that Janet Reno’s approach to the “for the children” meme had alot in common with that young officer in Vietnam who seriously propounded that they had to destroy the village in order to save it.
Returning to George W. Bush as arch-capitalist. Here’s a video of him channeling the gotta destroy it save it mentality.
http://boingboing.net/2008/12/17/brilliant-selfcontra.html
“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” — George Bush, at 1:40 in this CNN video. (via Slate)
Beg to differ George. You never did adhere to free-market principles. At best you personified the “Pro-Business Political Economy” (option two in Bleeding Heart Libertarians). And even that may be giving you too much credit.
I agree; free enterprise is certainly what I’ve thought of my entire life whenever anyone said “capitalism”, and honestly it’s only been in the last few years that I’ve begun to realize that many people have very different ideas.
I’ve always preferred to talk about “free markets” rather than “capitalism,” because the latter is just free market principles applied to capital allocation. It’s distinct from communism, but it’s not the whole story about free markets. The other problem with “capitalism” is that it makes people think of capitalists, who are often not very nice people, and not big supporters of free markets either — they tend love protective legislation, especially trade barriers and barriers to new competition. Many of them also seem willing to sacrifice free markets to support their social prejudices against things like recreational drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality.
I would describe that more as “captured political economy” (referring to the regulatory capture ideas of Public Choice Economics).
Yeah, I’d say the system we have right now is 45%-55% facist
Are companies governed by representatives from labor, management/ownership, and customers?
Are industries governed by groups (called corporations) made up of representatives of people who work in that industry, people who own companies in that industry, and people who buy products from that industry?
Is the country governed by representatives of labor, management/ownership, and customers from the various industrial segments (corporations)?
That’s what corporatism is and it’s the unique socio-economic-political structure of fascism.
Read The Coming Corporate State. It’s written by an actual fascist.
Sorry about the Microsoft Reader format… I can’t find any other format.
What we have in the USA today is mostly capitalism style 4 and 3.
I’ve nothing against capitalism in it’s small form. I’m all for the corner shop, the person running a business serving a need. I did that too, in my way. 🙂 What I am most opposed to are large, nation or globe spanning enterprises that grow so large and powerful that they govern- And this is what we have in the USA today. They become so powerful that they begin making the rules to suit themselves.
Someone, some entity has to speak for the good of all- Some entity has to insist that the good of society come first, before greed for profit. That’s what government, in it’s best form, does.
But now, many people have seen how difficult it is to maintain any government in a decent, let alone best, form. People who value freedom are out there living their lives, not seeking positions of power over others.
Thanks to technologies like the one we are using right now, people have the chance at something new, something our founding fathers never dreamed of- Distributed Democracy. One of the reasons any sort of large scale planned economy failed in the past was that planners were always working with information months, if not a year old. Now we have instant communications. But more and more, these wonderful new technologies are being seized for corporate and government use. Look at the efforts described in this piece about how “reformers” are seeking to keep independent sex workers from having a media to advertise in.
It should be considered vital to the national security to keep one’s people well fed, educated, and healthy.
When large corporations and the government enter into the kind of symbiosis which has developed in the US, it’s not true capitalism any more but rather fascism. When the people are not free to trade with whom they want, and when small companies are forced to obey onerous, expensive and unnecessary regulations (which big companies favor precisely because they require a whole department to comply with), free enterprise is doomed and true capitalism is no longer possible. To call that “capitalism” is like calling feudalism “capitalism” because a select few are indeed allowed to make a profit while everyone else works for them.
The only problem with your last statement is that, unfortunately, as the communists discovered it isn’t compatible with democracy because a large minority will simply scam the system. You can have socialism or democracy, but not both; the closest compromise would be a strict constitutional republic in which the right to vote was limited to those who somehow demonstrated their commitment to participation (such as by owning land, operating a business or serving for a time in the military) but were constitutionally prohibited from starving out noncitizens.
Its asy enough, just 86 the rule iving a corperation the legal rights(but not the rsponsibilities) of a human citizen
I’ve advocated for that for years; just the fact that corporations are immortal (unless killed or starved to death) gives them a huge advantage over humans.
We certainly need to get rid of corporate personhood. I’d support a Constitutional amendment to do exactly that, though it shouldn’t be necessary; the Constitution never said that corporations are people in the first place. Yet many of our courts act as if “everybody knows” that corporations are, in fact, people.
You don’t need to go that far — just removing the legal and tax preferences for corporations would make most companies over to partnership, coops, etc.
>You can have socialism or democracy, but not both;
No? Sweden, Denmark, The UK for a while before Thatcher argue against that.
A republic is not a democracy, though modern people are fond of calling them so and certainly it’s more democratic than many of the alternatives. Similarly, so-called “social democracies” which permit capitalistic endeavors are not full-on socialism. Partial socialism and partial democracy in an uneasy and temporary mix (in Sweden’s case supported by income from other countries) do not prove that the two are compatible. It usually takes about three generations of politicians robbing the haves to win the votes of the have-nots for such a system to collapse, as the Russians learned; the Chinese were smart enough to head it off before the collapse, and we’ll find out in the next few years whether Europe has succeeded in averting disaster or not.
Yes, but their nations defenses are funded wholly by US tax payers, as is their subsidised perscriptin costs from US based pharmicutical companies.
It be interesting t see how well such systems worked if they were the ones responsible for paying their two largest bills
Gosh, it’s getting a bit heavy. Joke time.
Q: “What do you call 200 Lawyers, 200 Politicians and 200 Religious Fanatics at the bottom of a deep ocean trench?”
A: “A good start”.
😀