The year 2001. The Twenty-First Century. In today's America, that's easier to forget than ever.
We feel, not that we stand on the cusp of a great moment in history, but that life is as good as it is ever going to get, and can only become worse. It is the fin-de-sicle vision of society which has hold of us, as we approach the year 2000 : dead-ended and ripe for destruction. Our media and popular culture display healthy doses of fatalism, often striving to outdo each other in the most negative portrayal of the world we live in.
These conditions create an environment ripe for the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Our public insecurities, reflected in the unblinking eye of a thousand opinion polls, op-ed pieces, citizen interviews, and popular music, reflect widespread private turmoil. Our "culture of victimhood" encourages the displacement of responsibility and the assumption of vulnerability. Increasingly, there is a perception that society needs 'protection', not only from hostile outside forces, but from itself.
The result has been a in measures which can only be termed disturbing. These measures reflect a desire for control in order to 'protect' society from everything from nuclear-armed terrorists to evil pedophiles to such nebulous terms as 'indecent material'. In each case, the State gains power at the expense of the liberties of the individual. What is so disturbing is not that these measures have been proposed; from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1795 to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, American politics has shown a curious radical undercurrent. It is that they are, bit by bit, gaining acceptance in our minds and the minds of our leaders.
To take an example, consider the infamous Communications Decency Act of 1995. This unassuming little piece of legislation, sponsored by Senator James Exon of Nebraska, was attached to the Telecom Reform Bill passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton on February 8, 1996. Put simply, the bill establishes penalties for anyone who sends "indecent", "patently offensive", or "obscene" material over a computer network of a $100,000 fine and/or two years in prison. The problem is that, by outlawing such speech, it tramples on the First Amendment. Obscene speech, as defined by the Supreme Court, is already illegal, in whatever form, so the bill is superfluous. The other two categories, "indecent" and "patently offensive", may only be restricted by the State if no other recourse is available. Except, on a computer network, no content is forced on anyone; there is always the choice to pick up and go someplace else.
However, this is not a polemic on the subject of the CDA. That has been done before and done better. It will suffice to note that this trampling of the Constitution received the approval of the Senate of these great United States by at vote of 84-16. In the House, a similar majority attached it to the Telecom Reform Bill. By billing it as a 'measure to preserve family values', and painting its opponents as 'supporters of pornography', its proponents all but assured its passage. For what self-respecting Congressman can afford, in this day and uncertain age, to be called a 'supporter of pedophiles' even as parents fret over the latest study showing the skyrocketing sexual content of children's programming? It is the current climate of values which has produced this travesty of lawmaking. Our politicians simply follow the prevailing wind.
Yet how can it be that, simply be harping on "family values" and "evil Internet-based snuff film makers and pedophiles", we have allowed ourselves to forget our most cherished freedom? It would be simple to blame the politicians in Washington for their part in the mess. However, it would also behoove us to examine our own attitudes towards liberty, safety, and security. When did we start to abandon individual involvement in the laws which control our lives? Where did promises and slogans begin to replace principle? There are certain values, enshrined in our Constitution, which we have venerated for over two centuries. Thus far, we have resisted most attempts to dilute them. However, attach the label of 'law enforcement', or 'child safety', and instantly the unpalatable becomes necessary, the formerly tyrannical reborn in sheep's clothing.
Those who dare to voice their dissent are cast as deviants or social outcasts. In the April issue of Wired, Senator Exon himself released a statement deriding those opposed to the bill as part of a "hands-off elite" who care nothing for 'family values'. If you are not for decency and censorship these days, you must be against the American Family, a member of the elite, godless, and amoral to boot. What a relief. In the old days, one would simply have said 'communist' and left it at that.
Such is the fertile soil upon which totalitarianism spreads. The creeping powers of the State go unnoticed, or even welcomed by a populace tired of the 'failure' of the current system. A little freedom seems a small price to pay for a bit of stability in an increasingly murky and chaotic world. Objections in the name of 'freedom and liberty' seem quaint when confronted with cold statistics : X people murdered every day, Y people "stalked" over the Internet, Z cattle molested in the conclusion of terrorist activities over Southeastern Dakota. Bit by bit, we will gladly hand over our freedom, until it is completely gone. Only then will we realize the consequences of these actions.
The FBI, under the generalship of Director Louis Freeh, wishes to have the ability to tap each and every phone in America. To this end, the recently enacted Digital Telephony legislation requires that the phone companies develop all new technologies with an eye to making them 'wiretap-friendly'...not too tough for the FBI to get around, if need be. What is more, the ability to enact 'point-and-click' wiretaps will be built into each and every exchange in the country, giving law enforcement the ability to tap calls without ever leaving a designated central point. No longer will the FBI have to worry about incompatible digital technologies or attaching alligator clips in the dead of night. These new advances will make possible the monitoring of unprecedented numbers of calls; some estimates say as many as 1 in 10,000 could be listened to simultaneously.
This is no doubt an unprecedented advance for law enforcement. No doubt many criminals will be caught and brought to justice by means of this system. As its proponents like to remind us, perhaps such prophylactic action might have stopped the Oklahoma City bomb before it happened, or led to the quick apprehension of the World Trade Center conspirators. Lost in the shuffle is the fact that wiretaps are difficult to legally get, and relatively rare. Lost is the fact that the system would make tapping painless and easy. Such a system would no doubt be a great temptation to use; we have seen before how men of all caliber may succumb. An advance for security, but at the near-certain expense of liberty. In today's world, we should still care.
The ultimate loser will be ourselves. While we continue to embrace the 'protection' offered by the State, while we abandon personal sovereignty and freedom, while we blindly follow any plan with even half a hope for stability, we are cheating ourselves of the future which is rightfully ours. For we are at a turning point. This is the point in our history where we must decide anew who we are, and what kind of lives we which to lead. Our attitudes will shape the lives and the liberties of our posterity, for generations to come. Let them not remember us as cowards, forever chasing illusory and transient goals.
David Molnar (dmolnar@exeter.edu)