Perhaps because Nancy Mulhern, someone I've known for several years now, is leading the government publications discussion, the readings were a little heavy on conceptual matters. This heavy conceptual basis is the same for most of our class's readings but then again I'd've hardly appreciated an explanation of SUDOC classification and "Digital Democracy" covered the pragmatic side pretty well.
The CWD article approached information from an apparently unique perspective but, looking at them both, someone should consider the consequences of diminished government print documentation and the various information/citizen types many people willfully avoid or do not have reliable infrastructure for the computer and Internet access. My girlfriend's father lives in a cabin that's better than some proper homes I've visited but is completely off the grid. Until this year he didn't have running water and he relies on solar power to charge car batteries used for his radio, portable DVD player, and occasional amp. He'd need utilities hooked up in order to support a power sucking computer with a slow connection in order to view documents but he has no desire to do this. My suspicion that many of the types of citizens who believe the state is exaggerating the danger of CWD would object if a previously held privilege were lost. Surely they can use the computer at their local library but what if their budget is so low there's only one and its primarily for the catalog? Or, what if there's a half-hour limit and the citizens wants to write the treatise on some obscure act or law?
The Nerves of Government chapter was an interesting libertarian examination of government and communications and perhaps a uniquely American outlook. In the United States we're ambivalent to the dangers of powerful government: Democrats would prefer a government that assists political, social, and economic equality in the face of change and Republicans favor actions which spur development and growth but may leave some people out of it. We're not used to thinking about the government as a free speech agent because the first amendment is our guarantor and our history still convinces us that our government in small. We've never had, for example, pirate radio competing with the monopolistic paternalism of the BBC. Our version of this conflict is Clinton signing a law deregulating the commercial radio industry which allowed Clear Channel Communications to buy out practically any station it wanted.
Our government is actually quite large but it's federated so most of the control is local or state level but there's always a trace of "What if--" in the American psyche which usually leads to these types of discussions. What if the feds use the commerce clause to exercise total control? What if they control the means of communication? What if the Canadians invade? What if the Ruskies finally go through with it? We'd better stock up on every type of gun the liberal American weapons laws allow, and some they don't, build a bunker and stock it with dehydrated food. Down there, the Internet will just be a pleasant memory of naked women and eBay.
Any digital democracy model must find a place for Americans like my girlfriend's father and the conspiracy theorists or else they may start another Whiskey Rebellion.
No comments:
Post a Comment