@Ghodeous
Very interesting points you raise. I usually don't read long-winded posts. But I read yours in its entirety. What are your thoughts on the following, and anyone else can give their feedback too. (And sorry it is long.)
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. You just have to walk off a cliff to know that's true. We are all bound by laws placed there for our benefit by our creator. Natural laws, such as gravity and oxygen. But also laws surrounding conduct and our relationships and codependency on others.
When it comes to natural laws, human lawmakers don't need to create legal statutes on specific application of or punishment for breaking such laws (except maybe for speeding). Everyone knows that if we jump off a tall building, or an airplane without a parachute, or go deep-sea diving without proper gear, we will die.
Other laws surrounding the unalienable rights of every human, unfortunately human authorities had to step in and clarify some things. Things such as love of neighbor (i.e. the Good Samaritan law), killing or injuring of fellowman, what constitutes accessory to murder, levels of murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd degrees, etc). I am not a lawyer so I write as a layman.
And it seems from history, that new laws are created as a reaction rather than prevention. And in democratic societies it is a painfully slow process for obvious reasons.
But the more people try to push laws to their limits, try to test what the red line is, more new laws are created as a reaction. The problem, IMO, with human lawmakers is the danger of overreaching. The more laws that overreach, the more oppressive it becomes for businesses and entrepreneurs. This is where the topic of online freedom of speech comes in and general laws affecting online business and conduct.
When a CEO of an online company (whether it is Rob of Epik or someone else) says that he's ok with free (actually hate) speech, as long as no US law is broken, this, to me, is a scary position to take given the climate we are in today. When social networks and search engines are under a microscope. When lawmakers are rolling up their sleeves to see what new Internet laws to enact.
By encouraging lawmakers to create more laws along the lines of free speech is a dangerous road to go down. Do we really want more laws to control online conduct. Laws that could impact even businesses, that can be misused to sue an entrepreneur or small business for a misconstrued attack, or simply to get some easy money?
In the US, like Canada and the UK, there are many laws never applied until someone decides to sue. Do we really want to be under that cloud?
Rob says that he has a legal team ready to respond in such situations. Thanks Rob, but what about the rest of us?
@TCK
I’d like to convince you of the need for regulations by making an argument herein.
In the symbolic narrative of how the world began, there is a story of man from the beginning. We are told that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–31 and Genesis 2:7-15,).
Untested, he was given dominion over all living things. No sooner than man multiplied to variety, had he broken the first and only rule. The rule, we are told, was “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2-16-17) But he did eat from the tree anyway. (Genesis 3:6).
The point I am going to make, from a primitive point of view, is that, if the story of creation is somehow historically true, then I am inclined to think, that original man (I use man to include woman), the one who disobeyed his creator, the creator that gave him all the sustenance to prosper, was fallible in the beginning.
His creator’s naive belief in “the goodness of all that he had created” (
Genesis 1:31) afforded man undeserved power and influence that it didn’t take him long to offend.
Today’s man is even worse.
Today’s man’s needs are beyond just feeding and flourishing. Even with plenty, he steals, pillages species to extension in the name of trade and sport, amasses weapons of mass destruction and builds walls. But that same man, is capable of doing good. We see everyday acts of evil and everyday acts of kindness. I am using the Judaic Christian argument because of your mention of such and we can all agree that "natural law" eminates from such traditons.
I think, in our daily interactions, it is of utmost importance to have rules, agreed upon; such as in the case of agreements or codified, such as is case for laws for the purpose of perfecting the exercise of living alongside one another harmoniously.
I think too, that the exaggerated dominion of man over EVERYthing must be demarcated by rules. Rules insure that arbitrary interpretations of what is wrong and right is avoided. Rules define absolute standards expected of all reasonable people.
Without rules, we risk falling into lawlessness, victimization, impunity, anarchy and chaos.
As we evolve new technologies and new methods of doing things, too often, sources of discord appear. The laws themselves being slow fail us. We end up needing new ones.
It is the reason why we expect our legislators (the people we gave the power to enact rules) and those in position of trust and of power to act. The only way they can act, in a democracy is to have new rules for the purpose, again to prevent an environment of lawlessness, victimization, impunity, anarchy and chaos.
As long as the rules are vigorously debated, agreed upon, accepted by reasonable persons, enacted and enforced with zeal and blindness, they make for Just (justice) regulations.
Trusting man to do the right thing as was in the beginning is an invitation for him to do what is right, only for himself. We see this come true when we “deregulate” and water bodies end up polluted. We also see this when financial institutions come up with creative ways to screw us. You can see this too in the unregulated or minimally regulated economy of gTLD’s. Protracted, predatory price changes are common with ZERO protection for end users.
We also see this in societies where strong men (dictators) and enforce arbitrary rules.
I think that society must be organized in order and its in only under a democratic and regulated environment that we can achieve just order. The kind of order that applies to kings, legends, presidents and everyday man.
So no there is no such a thing as “too much regulations” as long as the regulations where informed by necessity and where vigorously debated, agreed upon, enacted and enforced with zeal and blindness.
Think about it