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.

The post Internet Regulation: We Must Make the Circle Square appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Whom can we blame for implications of the new cyber world? The technology? The senders of messages? The recipients of messages? Clearly, most control rests with recipients. Their most effective weapon is the "off" button, but who are we as the rest of society to tell anyone he or she must use it?

Over at the Technology Liberation Front, Adam Thierer suggests that a state-mandated media literacy curriculum is the best solution. He writes:

For the most part, media literacy is not routinely integrated into the curricula at elementary school, secondary school, high school, or college. This situation must be reversed. Luckily, my home state of Virginia is helping to pave the way.

And a comment to his post even recommends including "information literacy" on state assessment exams.

I’m more inclined to side with the Tribune than with Thierer. First of all, my experience is that kids start using computers in the very early grades, and courses on word processing and online research are plentiful. If anything, schools go overboard with lessons on how to use the Internet or how to send email — skills most kids already have or could figure out in a minute.

Second, even if I’m wrong about that and kids are missing out on instruction, state standards and tests aren’t going to help. We already have state standards and MAP exams for subjects like reading and math, and they haven’t spread traditional text-based literacy. I doubt media literacy will fare better.

And finally, I don’t see any indication that media literacy would have prevented Megan Meier’s tragic death. It wouldn’t have improved Megan’s emotional health or made her less vulnerable to rejection. Unfortunately, the state can’t mandate resiliency the way it can require schools to teach computer skills or safety tips.

The post Online Bullying appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One lawmaker has suggested making it a felony for any adult to have electronic contact that "demonstrates a knowing disregard for the health, safety and welfare" of the child.

How can you tell whether the disregard is knowing or not? But at least that proposal just forbids bad behavior (albeit ambiguously) — other ideas out there would establish new programs and requirements only tangentially related to what happened to Megan Meier. One bill would require public schools to institute policies about online bullying, never mind that Megan’s alleged harasser was an adult woman outside of the control of public school administrators.

These legislators are well-intentioned, but the most effective protection against online bullies are watchful parents.

The post Bills About Internet Bullying appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A law professor quoted in the article explains why prosecuting people for using fake identities on the Internet could lead to trouble:

Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common.

"This may be a net that catches a lot of people," she said.

Levenson is right — so many people have fake identities on the internet that enforcement would have to be selective.

Most people are aware that Internet appearances can be deceiving, and they discount information from anonymous sources. If a major news website reports on social trends, you might give it some consideration. But if someone identifying himself only as "Josh" says he doesn’t like you anymore, you probably wouldn’t consider that credible. Teenagers with fragile self-esteem approach the situation in an entirely different way, and can feel devastated after whoever happens to be online expresses disapproval.

That’s a good reason for parents of teens to be careful in monitoring their online activities. It’s not a good reason to prosecute people for using fake identities on the Internet. Anonymous communication online is usually not harmful, and it can be beneficial. In other media, people publish letters to the editor, op-eds, or books anonymously. That allows anyone to safely express unpopular opinions. We should have the same freedom of speech online.

The post Regulating Fake Identities on the Internet appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I see two problems with this part of the statute. First, you have to determine whether someone’s intention was to disturb. In the case of Megan Meier, the people who talked to her online claimed they were just trying to find out what she was saying about them. Whatever their intention was, we can all agree it was childish and irresponsible. But in other cases that will come up, we may have a hard time discerning the intentions of a misunderstood email or ambiguous text message.

Second, I’m guessing that everyone who has used the Internet has employed an anonymous or false identification in some context. It’s not convenient — and probably not safe, either — to fully identify yourself in all Internet communications. In fact, when I was a kid, teachers advised us to make up random screennames or change aspects of our identities online to avoid predators. I don’t think that was the purpose of the people who harassed Megan Meier. But when so many people present false identities on the Internet, how do you decide which are legitimate precautions and which are intended to hurt others?

The post Another Internet Harassment Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This incident illustrates how difficult the broad anti-harassment law will be to enforce. Anybody can start a blog claiming to be someone else, or post malicious comments about other people anywhere on the Internet (except for Show-Me Daily, because we don’t publish comments yet!). Some of that can be tracked, but it’s easy enough to go to a public library and set up a blog without paying anything or providing any personal information. The Internet is a big place, and it’s going to be hard for Dardenne Prairie officials (or anyone else) to police it.

The post More on the Internet Harassment Law appeared first on Show-Me Institute.