TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- State Rep. Steve Hartgen, a former newspaper publisher, says he might introduce a bill to force people to use their real names when posting comments on the Internet.... "A modest proposal that simply required the posting of a true name with respect to comments and blogs would go a long way," Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, told the Times-News, adding that the absence of such a provision "discourages people from participating in civil life. To me, it reflects a coarsening and cheapening of public debate, which I think is not healthy for Idaho."
There are still a few things in life that have been demonstrated to be well-nigh impossible. Being slightly pregnant, the Chicago Cubs winning a World Series, and military intelligence come immediately to mind, f'rinstance. To this list I suppose we now need to add regulating discourse on the Internet. Most intellectually coherent sorts already understand the futility of this; it would be easier trying to nail Jello to a wall. Then again, nothing illustrates the disconnect between government and the Internet tubes than this sort of madness.
First of all, how does Hartgen propose to enforce this silliness? If I register on a website on Mortimer Q. Bluballs III, how is anyone to verify this? ("Uh, OK, sir...now if you'd take your driver's license out and hold it up to the monitor for a moment....") I could register as my mother, an ex-girlfriend, or my parole officer (if I had one)...and there would really be no way for anyone to vet this information.
Then again, we all know how well the "honor system" works on the Internet, right? I mean, without flame wars, da Interweb would be little more than a porn downloading machine. Taken to it's worst, most egregious extreme, though, you could always end up with something like the Australian government building what they're calling an "Internet Maginot Line"...or, as we like to call it here in Dummfukistan, "CENSORSHIP".
Man, sometimes I really DO miss handing out the old DUMB@$$ AWARD, knowhutimean??
If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times, but it's still true: free speech can be, and quite often is, objectionable speech. What you find objectionable may just be the mother's milk of online conversation to someone else. When you begin inserting government into online public discourse, nothing good can come of it. The inevitable result will be censorship in some shape, manner, or form, impeding the free flow of ideas and clogging the Internet tubes. Decisions concerning "appropriate" content will be made by bureaucrats with their own agendas, and the one free medium available to anyone with an Internet connection will be lost. All you have to do is look at places like China to see what can happen when government tries to control da Interweb.
Memo to Rep. Hartgen: ideas are not the enemy, and while the Internet may be always be inhabited by the devotees of Emily Post, your idea sucks. How about you stick to trying to do something about things you might actually understand? Like trying to insert Christian doctrine into all facets of public life? Or requiring all public business be conducted in English? Or requiring all Brown People to prove their citizenship every minute of every day? Isn't that what the good Christian White People of Idaho elected you to do?
