The more time I spend researching various perspectives regarding appropriate use of the Internet by Christians, the more I come across conflicting points of view on how to achieve Internet Safety. I’m talking about big differences. In fact, many people question the role for schools, the role for families, the role of government, the role of the church or even the role technology can play in stopping unwanted content from crossing PC screens at home, work, libraries or churches. What’s strange is that these same Christians from both the right and the left (and north and south) of the political spectrum desire similar outcomes (such as purity in thought, word and deed, protecting children, helping families, etc), but their “how to” answers often contradict each other. In fact, seemingly irreconcilable differences often emerge. The various sides often demonize each other as well.
In this blog, I’ll discuss the Libertarian approach to the Internet, and next time I’ll discuss some of the more active (government engagement) approaches which I am seeing. But I want to start by suggesting that I see good points on both sides. My concern is that, no matter which view you take, each Christian parent must understand that ultimately it is your responsibility to protect your family and your character online. The level of government involvement and help can be debated, but each of us is ultimately responsible to God.
Many authors write about the need for more Internet freedoms. Data should be free. Keep the government out of Internet activity. Don’t tax online transactions. They discuss (even rant about) Internet censorship in countries like China and Iran. All sides agree that religious freedom and an accurate account of history are victims when inappropriate filtering and blocking the free flow of thought occurs in certain countries. Supporters of Internet freedom are everywhere, as shown by this article in which Hillary Clinton unveils U.S. policy on Internet freedom.
Here’s another video in which Hillary Clinton discusses Internet Freedoms.
And yet, groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation go further and extend these same anti-censorship principles to everyone in the US and Europe as well. They encourage web surfers to go around their company’s filtering of “inappropriate content.” To them, any blocking of content is censorship. Personal privacy is the ultimate goal.
Christian Libertarian advocates also want to keep maximum freedom. For example, read this excerpt of a piece by Lew Rockwell:
Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).
Their Libertarian motto: Fully free, Fully Responsible, Fully Accountable,
Of course, all of this seems fine until you read articles that take this even further. Is it ok to have no rules? This blog suggests that all automatic filtering should be stopped at schools. Here’s an excerpt:
“In the course of our conversation, we also clarified his central point, which is, I think, common-sensical and inarguable: People, not machines, should have authority over what students are allowed to access on the Internet. The final authority over Internet access should reside with the teachers and librarians charged with overseeing students, not software.”
Here’s another article in which most librarians think that filtering is a bad idea from a pragmatic perspective.
It might be worth taking some time and reading this article on personal freedom from a Biblical perspective. Which leads to my last two articles. In the first, the case is made for “real” Internet freedom or Cyber-Libertarianism.
In the second, the two basic pillars of libertarianism are described. I close with this excerpt so that you can gain a better understanding of where this group is coming from philosophically.
“Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).
On aggression, libertarians have long been champions against governmental coercion and unprovoked harm. Libertarians oppose unprovoked, immoral military aggression against foreign countries that are hardly waged in the name of defense. Likewise, libertarians oppose personal aggression that threatens ones life or property. Not only that, but governmental aggression against an individual’s pursuit of economic liberty is denounced rightly as aggression. This principle of non-aggression is innately tied to the concept of personal freedom and liberty. No outside governmental force has the right to compel or coerce another person’s personal behavior through the force of the State. Also, the State is immorally engaging in aggression when it sanctions murder or other forms of personal harm against its own or even foreign inhabitants for non-defensive reasons.”
So where does this leave me on Internet Safety? Of course, Libertarians believes that ALL Internet safety is a personal matter. We should be addressing this with our Internet Service Provider (ISP) and our family members. Just head to Staples or Best Buy and load up the software. Of course, they also understand the role of "heart issues" related to freedom of choice.
While I applaud this “can do” personal responsibility on the Net mentality, I seriously doubt if most families can pull this off without significant help. The government may not be our answer, but the next question is: who is truly living-out this freedom model role in Christian families today? In my opinion, very, very few people are doing well regarding moral purity online – unless they just turn off their computers.
No doubt, this vacuum creates an economic opportunity for businesses, but my friendly tech vendors are struggling badly to just keep the malware and viruses off of my laptop. They do a very poor job of helping me to protect my character and “surf my vales” in cyberspace. As I describe in my book, we need the seven habits of online integrity in each of our lives, but unfortunately, most people aren’t catching that vision yet. So yes, the government is stepping in to fill the void – for better or worse. This is both scary and fairly predictable – based on their role in just about all of society and their stances on what’s allowed in public schools. (Prayer is not allowed.)
Next time, I’ll look at government activities and upcoming Internet regulation. While I don’t support all that’s going on, and in my heart I’m for “Internet Freedom,” the wild, wild Internet is getting out of control and beyond the ability for the average Joe to protect himself. We’ll also examine the steps that Chrsitians can take while the debate rages on.
My last piece on this topic will look at some potential middle ground. I will offer some pragmatic steps for Christians who find themselves on the front lines of these Internet battles.
Any thoughts from you on this topic?