Internet Regulation: We Must Make the Circle Square

Posted on by Josh Smith

Megan Meier’s sucide happened over two years ago, but the trial of Lori Drew drew to a close just recently, with the jury finding her guilty last Friday of three counts of accessing a computer without authorization, and not guilty of felony conspiracy.

According to an interview with the jury forewoman on STLToday.com (a shortened version of a front-page article from the Post-Dispatch‘s print version) all but four of the jurors wanted to pursue the conspiracy charge “to send a message that Internet sites should be better regulated for fraud.”

First and foremost, this is clearly not the best reason to convict someone of a felony. “To Send a Message” is the reason the mafia does horrible things; not reasoned, civilized people. An example need not be made.

Moreover, the point they were trying to make is explicitly that the Internet needs better fraud regulation. We already have laws and precedents to protect people from deception and harm. If a person is wronged by another person, the victim has civil and criminal recourse. Increasing the depth or scope of regulation only confuses the important system of justice, creating possible victimless crimes and further inundating an already overburdened legal system.

This, of course, does not begin to address the issue of the difficulty (the near impossibility) of regulating the Internet. The free flow of information from place to place has brought with it drastically improved efficiency and productivity. Communication and media freedom are so cheap now that it is easy to take it for granted. At present, and in many ways, the Internet behaves much like a perfectly competitive marketplace, with sufficiently many demanders and sellers of all kinds that those who harm others or do business in a reprehensible way can be easily punished with a simple move to a competitor.

I propose to those who would impose new legislation on the Internet the following: Let the justice system and the marketplace function in their proper roles to deliver their respective products of punishment and all other goods/services.

And Now an Answer to My Question About Voter Drop-Off

Posted on by David Stokes

At a panel, sponsored by SLU law school, that I sat on before the election, I addressed a quesion to the audience for which I did not know the answer. The basic question involved how the ending of straight-ticket voting might combine with the extremely high turnout for last month’s election to affect whether some voters skip lower races on the ballot. The conventional wisdom was that the elimination of straight-ticket voting would lead to greater voter drop-off, but I wondered whether the high turnout, and resulting long lines, would increase or decrease that effect. In other words, would somebody who just waited in a long line, and had in the past voted straight ticket, now simply punch the top item and leave? Or would the long wait make them more likely to complete the entire ballot? “I waited two hours to vote, so I might as well fill out the whole ballot,” they might reason.

Well, the numbers and analysis are in, and the former hypothesis appears to have been the case. The Associated Press has a great story in the Columbia Daily Tribune about the numbers and counts. According to the story:

More than 2.9 million people in Missouri voted for president – nearly 200,000 more than in 2004. But compared with four years ago, tens of thousands more voters trailed off, skipping races for the state Legislature and even for governor.

So, in the end, more people came out and more people just voted for the top race and skipped off. I can’t fathom doing that, myself, but what do I know? Governor? Some people could not bother to go down one space further and even vote for governor? I mean, I can at least understand skipping the judges, but governor?

FEMA Making it Rain

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

An article in the Columbia Tribune informed everyone that aid would be available to residents who were victims of the September storms. According to the article, the assistance will be available to the insured, the uninsured, and citizens that lived in the federally designated flood plains.

With this news, I would just like to revisit an summer op-ed written by Matt Simpson, which discussed the incentives of flood relief. Does subsidizing and funding reconstruction efforts REALLY ease the pain caused by floods?

For Once, Loopholes Work in Missouri Consumers’ Favor

Posted on by Jacob Voss

So, gas prices have sure gotten low lately. I’m showing my age here, because they are the lowest I’ve seen them since I started driving. And the best part about gas being so cheap is the fact that it is no longer required to include an ethanol blend.

According to Missouri’s ethanol mandate, if gasoline prices drop below those of ethanol prices, then retailers are no longer required to sell the ethanol blend. The Kansas City Star covers the story here. Well, this is good news for Missourians. No longer will our engines be clogged with this substance that drives up the costs of gasoline and food and makes our cars less efficient.

Be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s study of ethanol. Hopefully, gas prices will stay low — not only for the sake of my wallet, but also for the sake of Missouri residents who are no longer forced to purchase ethanol.

Another Potential Meaningless Victory for the Nanny State: Bike Helmets

Posted on by Josh Smith

Helmet laws are a popular mechanism by which state and local governments like to insert themselves into the lives of their citizenry, and the recent news out of Saint Louis County is no exception.

Naturally, I oppose this on ideological grounds, but I am willing to consider the case for the sake of argument. A plethora of good links can be found at Wikipedia’s section on the Bicycle Helmet Debate. The conclusion? There is no consensus, but there is also a dearth of reliable data on the efficacy of helmet-wearing. A rather pithy link points out:

  • Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping and falling than by cycling. [5]

  • Helmets for motorists are much more effective than those for cyclists and more beneficial than seat belts, interior padding or air bags. Their potential for reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets. [7] [3]

At this point, I am not prepared to say unequivocally that helmets do not improve safety significantly. I think we can all agree that car accidents are a much greater risk to us all, and therefore a helmets-while-driving law would entail much more improved safety, and much more voter outrage.

This proposal is a classic case of legislators lashing out at an “easy fix” that isn’t really that easy (but is unlikely to be unpopular) to a problem that doesn’t really exist. Cost/benefit analysis is out the window, because we must protect our children.

Business Journal Article About Our Pension Study

Posted on by David Stokes

The St. Louis Business Journal has an online story about the study of Missouri’s public pensions that the Show-Me Institute released last week. (You can also find the article via the Kansas City Business Journal‘s site.)

The study was written by Richard C. Dreyfus of Pennsylvania, who has alerted us to the dangers of underfunding public pensions, and of failing to alter their provisions in a way that would move them toward an increased level of defined contributions over time. And I just know that as soon as you read the word “danger,” you thought there was going to be a Jaws reference. …

The Choice of a Lawyer Is an Important Decision and Should Not Be Based Solely Upon This Blog

Posted on by Jacob Voss

I grew up around St. Louis, so there are a few things that I not only know by heart, but are pretty much instinct at this point. I know that if I mention Buckley, I get $200 off the price of my car. I know that Dave Sinclair is thankful and wants me to know his address. But, most of all, I know that if I have a personal injury lawsuit, I call Brown & Crouppen at 421-HELP.

Brown & Crouppen was started by two gents named Ron Brown (not to be confused with Don Brown at the entrance to The Hill) and Terry Crouppen. Now, for years, personal injury lawyers and used car salesmen have had local commercials in St. Louis that play 23 hours a day on all the local channels. Watching so many Brown & Crouppen commericals during Saturday morning cartoons on channel 11 is probably what drove me to choose a career path in law.

But there is a new Missouri law threatening these media gems from reaching our TVs, radios, and mailboxes. What I don’t understand about the new law is the harm, if any, that these ads are causing.

Lawmakers claim these ads influence individuals too much in their decisions when choosing an attorney. But there should not be a law restricting what lawyers can advertise because individuals do not put enough effort into their searches for the proper attorney. When you pick a lawyer from an infomercial, what exactly are you expecting? Atticus Finch? No. You should be expecting exactly what the commerical promises: a lawyer with a firm who specializes in whatever area of law they say, whether it be personal injury or family law.

Part of the proposed law would require any disclaimer to be read at the same pace as the phone number. Why should lawyers alone be forced to expand their disclaimers? Surely, if lawyers have to read their disclaimers slowly, then every other disclaimer should be slowed down as well. Why should Terry Crouppen be barred from advertising his services in the manner he wishes? He’s a Missouri business owner just like Ted Drewes, even if he doesn’t “put a little wiggle in it.”

Hazy Reflections on a Weekend Wedding

Posted on by David Stokes

Everyone at the Show-Me Institute would like to extend their congratulations to John and Monica Combest (formerly Durrwachter) for their wonderful wedding Saturday. I, especially, would like to extend my gratitude for allowing me to participate in the open bar. As our readers know, it would be hard for us to do what we do (as if we even know what that is) without John first doing what he does every morning.

The entire day was beautiful, but I think the music stood out. Monica’s family is very talented musically, and they performed all the music for the ceremony. At the reception, her father sang to her for the traditional dance, and it was extremely moving. And, as the ACC first noted, John still compiled his headlines this weekend!

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging