Regulate the social networks? Let’s regulate common sense first…
The murder of Isabel Carrasco, a leading Spanish politician, earlier this week for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, has prompted a variety of responses in the media, and of course on the social networks, the majority of which have been expressions of sorrow. But there have, sadly, been others, ranging from justification for the act, disregard for the life of the victim, and even threats against other politicians deemed to be taking advantage of the tragedy.
Fortunately, such activities are the minority, and anybody who thinks that they in any way represent what most internet users think is either unable to count, or is being deliberately misleading, or perhaps a combination of both.
Furthermore, such views are not restricted to the social networks. Give a fool the chance to say something and they will say foolish things, whether on radio, television, or the social networks. They may think they can hide behind the supposed anonymity of the internet, but they are mistaken. The point here is that this dreadful event has prompted, by far, more expressions of shock and concern than any other type.
The other thing to remember here is that the law leaves no doubts about what can and cannot be said in public, and what constitutes defamation, justification of a crime, and when libel has been committed. And in the event of any doubt, we have judges who can decide and then take the necessary action. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you say something in the street, on the radio, the television, in a newspaper… or on the social networks; a crime is a crime. Black and white.
The idea of “regulating the social networks”, at least in the case of Spain, reflects a long-standing tradition on the part of politicians of all stripes to control the media. The role played by the social networks in the Arab Spring sparked fear among politicians around the world, who now see imminent danger in any mass protest movement supported by the internet. In the case of Spain, the recent efforts by the government to influence the editorial line of the country’s three main newspapers—and which should have set off protests among the nation’s journalists, but hasn’t—has show how clearly Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy values freedom of expression.
So it is deeply concerning that in the wake of the murder of Isabel Carrasco, Spain’s interior minister should be saying that the government is looking at “regulating” the social networks. Let’s spell this out: a crime is a crime, regardless of where it is committed. If somebody were to repeat some of the things that have been said about Isabel Carrasco in a public place, we would probably react by shunning them. But unless they had actually said something that was against the law, there would be nothing else to be done. We’re not about to start “regulating” what can and can’t be said in public, at least not yet.
We have to stop thinking about the internet as though it were somehow a different place to the rest of society, with different rules. We all use the internet now, or at least 80 percent of us do so in Spain, in the same way that we all watch television or read books, or go to the cinema. So can we put an end to this talk of regulating the internet? In fact, the people who really need regulating are those who don’t use the internet, an ever-smaller minority that has chosen to return to cave dwelling.
We have plenty of laws already, and they can, if needed, be applied to what happens online and offline. We don’t need more regulation, except perhaps of the common sense of those who want to control everything we say or do.
(En español, aquí)
