The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions

I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.

But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?

The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.

Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.

I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.

In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.

It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.