Confusing Carly's Law
The proposed introduction of a law to make lying to a child on the internet about ones age illegal has aroused much discussion. One point that has been raised in objection to such a law is that it inhibits our freedom, specifically the freedom of speech on the internet; a place undeniably a haven for free expression. Anyone suggesting this is the result of enacting the such a law is not wrong, where they fall down is in thinking that this is an unusual or undesirable state of affairs.
All laws inhibit freedom, every single one of them. From the obvious injuctions against murder, theft, rape and the like all the way through to how much of your dollar is taxed. Every law a governing body enacts restricts what one can do. Even the laws that protect the freedom and rights of some or all must do so at the cost of the freedom of those who would ignore those rights and freedoms. Anti-discrimination laws, for example, restrict the freedom of employers to hire based on unfairly biased criteria. Laws are about sacrificing a freedom for some benefit to the society living under those laws. This is a very basic point but one that is easily overlooked due to it's fundamental nature.
Which leads us to the central error of those making this argument against Carly's law; that freedom and good are somehow synonymous. They are not. I'm not arguing that many freedoms are in fact good, I am simply pointing out that there are many freedoms which most definitely are not. I've already alluded to several in the last paragraph; it is not good to have the freedom to steal, rape or murder. It is also not good to have the freedom to lie about what your product can do, it is also a crime. It is also not good to lie about investments, it is also a crime. It is very easy to think of many freedoms that we live without every day that we benefit from not having, every day.
It's worth mentioning at this point, in the interest of being as clear as possible, is that technically very few acts of government actually prevent any actions taken by those that fall under it remit, truthfully I can think of none myself. Instead laws define what we as a group consider acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and lay down the negative consequences of acting against those laws. Thus the freedom to act in whichever way you chose is maintained but is, ideally, balanced with the foreknowledge of the repercussions of ones actions. Which is a long-winded way of saying that the punishments the law prescribes aim to be preventative rather than punitive.
Let us get specific. What freedom are we swapping for what benefit if we enact Carly's law? What we lose is the freedom, not ability, to lie to children about our age on the internet. A freedom that cannot be used for a wholesome purpose. Perhaps one might argue that an adult can have a closer relationship with a child by pretending to also be one. Our hypothetical friend to children has absolutely no desire to make real world contact with them in any way or to convince them to do things they should not. Where then is the harm to society that Carly's law is trying to prevent? This hypothetical man has had a freedom removed with no apparent gain to our civilisation.
As I stated earlier, laws define what we consider appropriate behaviour and few would argue that basing a relationship on lies is appropriate. It's natural at this point to ask, why then do we not have a slew of laws about lying in relationships? With the obvious answer being that enforcing this would be untenable. Which is why Carly's law is so specific. It targets those who lie to children about their age and we define children as those who do not yet have the wisdom, maturity and life skills to take on the responsibilities of an adult. As such they are not allowed to do many things; drive, drink, give consent to a number of things etc. and they get special protection under the law that adults do not require as adults are deemed capable of looking after themselves to a greater extent.
It is not right to base any relationship on a lie and even more so when the person being lied to has not had enough time to learn how to identify or deal with the repercussions of such betrayal. It is appropriate to protect those individuals with a law. Bearing also in mind that we have unchallenged laws about lying to adults on and off the internet that I mentioned earlier, false advertising and confidence trickery are illegal regardless of the medium. So the freedom our society would be giving up is one not worth protecting.
What do we gain in recompense for this loss of an unwanted freedom? A tool for police and prosecutors to use in stopping those who would harm children before they actually do so. Perhaps just as importantly, we as a lawful civilisation make it abundantly clear that this behaviour is not appropriate and now carries the potential for consequence.
There are other objections to Carly's law, such as the capacity and or cost to police it, but if enacting this law saves one person, one child, at the cost of a freedom no moral person wants and money then we as a society, a civilisation and as a nation have made the correct choice.
Aaron Braegen
PS: Perhaps a little bit heavy for a first post but I might as well lead as I mean to go on.
All laws inhibit freedom, every single one of them. From the obvious injuctions against murder, theft, rape and the like all the way through to how much of your dollar is taxed. Every law a governing body enacts restricts what one can do. Even the laws that protect the freedom and rights of some or all must do so at the cost of the freedom of those who would ignore those rights and freedoms. Anti-discrimination laws, for example, restrict the freedom of employers to hire based on unfairly biased criteria. Laws are about sacrificing a freedom for some benefit to the society living under those laws. This is a very basic point but one that is easily overlooked due to it's fundamental nature.
Which leads us to the central error of those making this argument against Carly's law; that freedom and good are somehow synonymous. They are not. I'm not arguing that many freedoms are in fact good, I am simply pointing out that there are many freedoms which most definitely are not. I've already alluded to several in the last paragraph; it is not good to have the freedom to steal, rape or murder. It is also not good to have the freedom to lie about what your product can do, it is also a crime. It is also not good to lie about investments, it is also a crime. It is very easy to think of many freedoms that we live without every day that we benefit from not having, every day.
It's worth mentioning at this point, in the interest of being as clear as possible, is that technically very few acts of government actually prevent any actions taken by those that fall under it remit, truthfully I can think of none myself. Instead laws define what we as a group consider acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and lay down the negative consequences of acting against those laws. Thus the freedom to act in whichever way you chose is maintained but is, ideally, balanced with the foreknowledge of the repercussions of ones actions. Which is a long-winded way of saying that the punishments the law prescribes aim to be preventative rather than punitive.
Let us get specific. What freedom are we swapping for what benefit if we enact Carly's law? What we lose is the freedom, not ability, to lie to children about our age on the internet. A freedom that cannot be used for a wholesome purpose. Perhaps one might argue that an adult can have a closer relationship with a child by pretending to also be one. Our hypothetical friend to children has absolutely no desire to make real world contact with them in any way or to convince them to do things they should not. Where then is the harm to society that Carly's law is trying to prevent? This hypothetical man has had a freedom removed with no apparent gain to our civilisation.
As I stated earlier, laws define what we consider appropriate behaviour and few would argue that basing a relationship on lies is appropriate. It's natural at this point to ask, why then do we not have a slew of laws about lying in relationships? With the obvious answer being that enforcing this would be untenable. Which is why Carly's law is so specific. It targets those who lie to children about their age and we define children as those who do not yet have the wisdom, maturity and life skills to take on the responsibilities of an adult. As such they are not allowed to do many things; drive, drink, give consent to a number of things etc. and they get special protection under the law that adults do not require as adults are deemed capable of looking after themselves to a greater extent.
It is not right to base any relationship on a lie and even more so when the person being lied to has not had enough time to learn how to identify or deal with the repercussions of such betrayal. It is appropriate to protect those individuals with a law. Bearing also in mind that we have unchallenged laws about lying to adults on and off the internet that I mentioned earlier, false advertising and confidence trickery are illegal regardless of the medium. So the freedom our society would be giving up is one not worth protecting.
What do we gain in recompense for this loss of an unwanted freedom? A tool for police and prosecutors to use in stopping those who would harm children before they actually do so. Perhaps just as importantly, we as a lawful civilisation make it abundantly clear that this behaviour is not appropriate and now carries the potential for consequence.
There are other objections to Carly's law, such as the capacity and or cost to police it, but if enacting this law saves one person, one child, at the cost of a freedom no moral person wants and money then we as a society, a civilisation and as a nation have made the correct choice.
Aaron Braegen
PS: Perhaps a little bit heavy for a first post but I might as well lead as I mean to go on.