Internet Not To Blame,
But Human Nature Is
by


This first appeared in the
North Hills News Record

In the aftermath of the Littleton, Colorado massacre, the Internet has taken a large share of the blame for the Rambo-like behavior of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Last week, Time magazine was only one of dozens of media sources offering full-blown coverage to this Luddite leap from reason. The magazine's cover story, headlined "Raising Kids Online," begins ominously:

"On the morning of Tuesday, April 20, as the sun rose over Littleton, Colo., more than 14 million American teenagers punched off their alarm clocks, scarfed their breakfasts, brushed their teeth, rushed off to school...and did not kill their classmates. On that day, like other days, 40% of those teenagers--a number that has doubled in the past two years alone--logged on to the Internet."

We're warned that the same kids who while away their online hours chatting to friends and looking up Pokemon game strategies are just a few mouse clicks away "from the appalling filth, unspeakable hatred and frightening prescriptions for homicidal mayhem that the Littleton massacre evoked."

To add emphasis to this type of so-called unbiased news journalism, the story included pictures that could have been clipped from the X-Files. One picture showed a family illuminated in a green glow radiating from the home PC. The two boys stared blankly, apparently mesmerized by the screen of their evil computer monitor.

I understand why people can depart from logic when they try to make sense out of otherwise senseless happenings. But cooler heads must prevail. The Internet doesn't make anyone do anything.

There's no question that the Internet contains a vast wasteland of every conceivable and inconceivable type of debauchery. It's simply a networked electronic compilation of the millions of ideas and viewpoints that make up the human race. To be shocked at some of its content is to be shocked at the nature of mankind.

It's disturbing then that so many people--usually not regular users of the Internet--have become fixated with its dark side. For every site that spews hatred, there are thousands that make our lives better.

The Internet grants a lot of freedom to individuals. It's given ordinary citizens the power to avoid taxes, tariffs and stifling regulations but also to express unpopular viewpoints.

That may make a lot of people nervous, but there is no middle ground in the First Amendment. Either you support someone's right to free speech or you don't.

Internet commentator Paul Gilster notes in his book Digital Literacy, "If this technology is intimidating, it's because we think in terms of models that are based on older forms of media," he writes. "We're used to television and radio, two ways of communicating that work from the center out. Both call for a passive approach from their audience; we put ourselves in front of a receiver and absorb the content offered by networks and local stations. Where the Internet model diverges is that it places greater responsibility in the hands of the individual ."

Maybe events like Littleton will be the two-by-four that's needed to motivate people to take responsibility for their family's Internet use.

Inexpensive software will block access to most offensive online material, but nothing takes the place of active parental oversight.

Cyberspace may be our last bastion of liberty so let's not deceive ourselves into believing that restricting the Internet will prevent another Littleton. Anger, hatred, prejudice and lust are hardly unique to the late twentieth century.

Companies that provide software to block access to Internet sites: