Skip to main content

Don't "think of the children" me

Lately, I've seen a disturbing trend of increasing governmental control with a "think of the children" type justification. By "type", I mean any justification that appeals to irrational (though justified) that we may have, like fear for our children's safety.

The British government is planning a nation-wide "porn firewall" that will restrict its citizens from accessing a number of websites, all in the noble cause of protecting children from the horrors of pornography. An admirable move, but think about the consequences. A number of companies selling porn filters will benefit via huge contracts, and citizens who are granted the right to freedom will have the right subtly snatched away from them.

Now, you may think that I'm exaggerating when I say that citizens will lose freedom under such a censor-wall, after all, it's just pornography that they seek to block, right? No! If a government gets power to block websites, it can seek to suppress freedom of expression on the internet, by measures such as accidentally blocking certain blogs or websites that don't toe the government line. Because of the distributed nature of the internet, websites located in San-Serriffe advocating freedom may be blocked in the UK, and may not know about the block at all. Whereas people inside the censor-wall may be living in an Orwellian 1984esq world.

In another incident, a father who was walking on the street with his daughter was detained by the police because someone reported him as a suspected kidnapper. The officer told him that he should be thankful that someone was looking out for his daughter more than he was. I really don't mind the police responding to a call for a suspected kidnapping, but I do mind if they start detaining fathers with little kids on the street. That crosses the thin blue line between freedom and a police state. (Incidentally, we Indians have a healthy mistrust of police. I don't think people in India will call the police if they suspect a kidnapping. I think we'd me more likely to confront the person, and then determine whether the police need to be involved.)

Yet another incident has a teenager arrested and put in jail, where he is regularly beaten up; all for a retarded comment he posted on a message board (which was followed by a LOL; JK (laugh out loud; just kidding)) where he responded to someone calling him "messed up in the head". The teenager is charged with "terrorism" (I am not a lawyer, and not a legal expert. I don't think that "terrorism" is a charge, but reading blogs and news articles about the story, I gather that the charges against him are similar to charges against a terrorist), because "think of the god-damn imaginary children he would have shot up in his god-damn satirical world, all when laughing out loud and saying that he was just 'kidding' (pun?)".

A similar irrational argument is "war on terror". Honestly, I feel more terrorised by the TSA agents every time I walk through a scanner that puts me at more risk of dying of cancer than the theoretical terrorist attack it might have prevented. I don't think they've foiled any attacks yet. If they did, it would be on national news that the TSA finally did some good in the world. In Singapore's Changi airport, I instinctively removed my pen, belt, keys, wallet before the security officer told me that I just had to walk through the scanner. That was the most pleasant experience I had at airport security; possibly after Mumbai's CSIA, where an officer basically checks you with a metal detector wand. (I hope I don't get put on a no-fly list for this [:)])

To conclude, I think that "think of the children" is a terrible justification for excessive policing. What we really need is better gun control laws, better training of personnel involved in security activities, and much less paranoia. Most of all, we need to protect our freedoms for what they're worth, because, to quote Orwell:

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.

Independent thought and well reasoned debate are the ways to decide on laws, not "think of the children" or "save the software companies who are being attacked by Korean counterparts, but outsource all their production to China".

Popular posts from this blog

Progressive Snapshot: Is it worth it?

I turned 25 last year, which in the highly mathematical and calculating eyes of the US insurance industry meant that I had suddenly matured into a much more responsible driver than I was at 24 years and 364 days of age. As a result, I expected my insurance rates to go down. Imagine my surprise when my insurance renewal notice from GEICO actually quoted a $50 increase in my insurance rates. To me, this was a clear signal that it was time to switch companies.Typically, I score really high on brand loyalty. I tend to stick with a brand for as long as possible, unless they really mess up. This qualified as a major mess up. As a result, I started shopping for insurance quotes.Two companies that quoted me significantly lower rates (30%–40% lower) were Progressive and Allstate. Both had an optional programme that could give me further discounts based on my consenting to the companies tracking my driving habits. Now, I am a careful driver – I hardly ever accelerate hard. I hate using the brak…

Cornell Graduate Students United: At What Cost?

On Monday and Tuesday, we graduate students at Cornell will be voting on whether or not we want to unionise. Actually, scratch that, only graduate students who hold a TA, RA, or GRA appointment can unionise.This is a shitty arrangement, and I will be voting against it.For those of you who are not aware of how graduate school works at Cornell, you could be on one of many appointments.FellowshipA graduate student on a fellowship gets a stipend and tuition paid without associated teaching or research opportunities. Graduate students on a fellowship typically work towards their own theses, but will be excluded from the unionGraduate research assistantshipsA GRA gives a graduate student stipend and tuition without teaching responsibilities. However, this money comes out of a specific project grant, and the students typically work on their own theses. Students on GRAs magically qualify to join the union, whereas there is virtually no difference between a GRA and a fellowship for the most pa…

Reading List, April 2017

Adam Carroll, When money isn’t real: The $10,000 experiment, in TEDxLondonBusinessSchool, 9 July 2015. [Online]: Carroll presents an interesting point – we have abstracted away money through the use of a number of instruments, such as credit and debit cards, NFC payment systems on our phones, and in-app purchases, when we don’t realise how much we are actually spending. Carroll spends some time showing how his kids, aged 7–11 played monopoly differently when they were playing with real money. He goes on to lay his premise, that financial literacy must be taught to children at a young age, when they should be allowed to fail and learn from their failures at a small scale, not at the hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are in student loan debt and just out of college.Carroll’s talk hit a lot of notes with my own experiences with money, and I’m sure that it would resonate with your experiences as well.Brett Scott, If plastic replaces cash, much tha…