Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

Jimmy Wales writes in an opinion:

Keep a Civil Cybertongue
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
…
Fourth, adult targets of online hostility deserve a national support network. This should be a safe place where they can congregate online to receive emotional support, practical advice on how to deal with transgressors, and information on whom to contact for legal advice when appropriate.

Finally, it’s time to re-examine the current legal system. Online hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal input is needed.

On his first three points (you can read it on WSJ.com if you want; I mostly agree with it, as long as no coercion is involved), I don’t find anything specific to find faults with, although I might argue that silence is exactly what rude and abusive persons should be met with: Don’t feed the trolls.

It’s his last two points I find alarmingly … deletionist, shall we say. Just as, with his support, Wikipedia has deleted articles and sections some cabal decided shouldn’t exist (I don’t have particular problem with it; although this is the reason I will never donate to Wikipedia again), he now wishes to delete unwanted dialogs from Internet discourse.

Take his “national support network” for example. Is would this be a support network like Alcoholics Anonymous, a voluntary organization with no legal power of enforcement, or would it be like the disastrous 18th Amendment? Both aim at the same worthwhile goal—one does it without infringing on anyone else’s liberty or property, the other produced huge backlash. Mr. Wales does not make it clear which path this “national support network” take, but the fact that he brings up “national” at all makes me think he means the latter. Nothing prevents local state advocacy and support groups from forming and advertising their services; they can pool their resources later, if their work appears effective and valuable.

And his advocacy of legal action specific for the Internet puts him off the deep end. This is as stupid as specific legislations for hate crimes, or many other unnecessary legislations Congress manages on passing. There are enough laws already regarding criminal harassments. For individual situations, you can always get restraining orders tailored to your situation, no one-size-fits-all laws needed.

Besides, can we trust our tech-illiterate legislators (who care little about the Internet beyond the fact that it’s great for fundraising) to consider the differences between online interaction and personal interaction as they write down their wisdom into a law?

For that matter, it’s misleading to draw direct comparison between online messages and personal interactions (under which I would even include phones). Personal interactions are difficult to ignore, and when there is actual bullying or harassment, it is physically onerous on the victim. On the other hand, online interaction seldom impose itself on the “victim”. Is someone sending you harassing email? Block him. Is someone posting vicious attacks? Don’t read it. It takes an active action—i.e. click on a link and read—for you to take offense and get hurt. Grow up and take up responsibility for your own action. If someone is actually being really malicious, we already have libel laws for situations like that.

No new laws are needed to specifically cover online interactions. Since, by rules of courtesy, I am not permitted to question Mr. Wales’ motives in advocating for this government intrusion into the Internet, let me simply question his judgment—and in particular, has he exercised good judgment over which he does have authority, i.e. Wikipedia’s deletionist decisions?