roundtable: Re: Telecom Post #11 (fwd)

roundtable: Re: Telecom Post #11 (fwd)

Re: Telecom Post #11 (fwd)

LECLERC YVES (c1615@er.uqam.ca)
Sun, 6 Aug 1995 22:22:39 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 22:22:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: LECLERC YVES <c1615@er.uqam.ca>
Subject: Re: Telecom Post #11 (fwd)
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9508062239.A16983-0100000@nobel.si.uqam.ca>


I mailed to Coralee this reaction about the adoption of HR 1555, earlier 
today. She suggested that I post it to the lists, so here goes:

Yves Leclerc -- <c1615@er.uqam.ca>
Montreal, Quebec

________________________________
Coralee,

Not being American -- and my comment being kind of "philosophical" -- 
I'm mailing this to you personally, but you can post it publicly if you 
think it relevant.

You express surprise that Congress passed HR 1555, which is a major 
stumbling block to better citizens' access to information and 
communications, since "information is power", you say. I submit this 
is precisely why the bill was adopted. To quote you:

"The concentration of information production and delivery into the hands
"of an ever-shrinking population of information providers accomplishes the
"same thing ("the cleanest method of disabling the enemy is to destroy its
"ability to produce and deliver information").  And as goes control of
"information so goes the locus of power. 

"It would appear that our government officials know this.  The
"Internet community rose to the challenge in a new and organized
"fashion - yet was largely ignored.  The mere fact that there is
"a truly effective and low cost method of information delivery
"and public expression seems to have been disregarded by its very
"nature, as evidenced by the low regard for email messages."

In fact, whether we like it or not, the Internet immediately threatens
representative democracy, by providing citizens with direct access to
information and an untrammelled forum to discuss the issues. Given an
educated public, there is no good reason to elect "representatives" to
govern us anymore: we know as much as they do, and we can make our own
minds about it, probably more effectively than they can -- certainly more
legitimately. 

This is similar to John Stuart Mill's fear (in the 1830s) that the newly 
enfranchised working class voters would use their numbers to eliminate 
social and economic inequalities -- Parliament in England, Congress in 
the U.S., promptly reacted to prevent this, and the party structure 
eventually provided a longer-lasting and less blatant solution. 

I wonder if the current reaction of elected leaders to the surge of
Internet "direct democracy" is not of the same order. After all, efforts
at curbing the 'Net freedoms didn't first occur in Iraq, Zaire or
Salvador, but in the EC and the United States. Where the threat to
established political power was greatest... and where elected officials,
because of their "democratic legitimacy", were less timid about protecting
their turf against the very citizens who elect them. 

We should start questioning our basic premise that our democratic leaders 
*must* be our allies in this battle. Their personal interest would rather 
tend to make them our adversaries.

[CNI Home Page]