 |
| FEATURE STORY |
| Is Cyberspace still anti-sovereign? |
BY JOHN PERRY BARLOW
PHOTOGRAPHS BY CHRISTINE ALICINO |
TEN YEARS AGO, WHEN hyperbole was the last word, John Perry Barlow’s A Declaration
of the Independence of Cyberspace was compared by many to Thomas Paine’s The Crisis, which
signaled the beginning of the American Revolution. Writing for Wired magazine, Barlow heralded
the rise of the digerati. In turn he was trumpeted by them for delivering the seminal pronouncement
of the emergent digital age and for declaring war on any institution that would try to
control the Internet. His manifesto has since been widely distributed, widely quoted, and is linked
to more than 20,000 Internet sites. As a consequence, he has been called "the Thomas Jefferson of
Cyberspace." A decade later, as Cyberspace and Real Space have merged, California magazine asked
him to reexamine his manifesto, assessing where he was right, where he was sort of right, and where
he was overblown.
IN CYBERSPACE, 10 YEARS IS LIKE A GEOLOGICAL PERIOD. THE DECADE
since I got myself
into a state and ranted forth
A Declaration of the Independence
of Cyberspace has been
as epochal as the Cambrian Explosion. And
it’s hard to remember now how few conventionally
powerful people even knew it existed.
In 1996, many of them still believed that
it would be blown away by the Information
Superhighway, which was their current code
phrase for interactive television. They knew the
real future of bytes was not conversation but
"content," which they would own, sell, censor,
and control as surely as they had broadcast
media, commercial music and film.
They viewed the Internet as a hobbyists’
playground, no bigger deal than ham radio.
Indeed, in early 1996, I was on a panel in
Washington, D.C., with AT&T’s then CEO
Bob Allen, during which he called the Internet
"a toy." I predicted that persisting in that belief
would cost him his job. It turned out to be
worse than that. Today, AT&T barely exists, an
outcome that seemed about as likely then as the
collapse of the Soviet Union did in 1985.
But, wrong as these forces may have been,
they had the money. Like their railroad baron
predecessors, they had purchased Congress,
seduced the president, and convinced the
vice president that the whole nasty project
was his idea.
They weren’t dumb, these guys. Indeed,
they remain some of the smartest people I’ve
ever met. But you can only be as smart as
the framework of your reality permits. And
they—or, more to the point, the organizations,
institutions, habits of mind, legal systems,
and social practices of which they were
manifestations—had created a box that was
hard to think themselves out of.
To the extent that they took the Internet
seriously, they generally regarded it as a
threat—a hot zone of sexual perversion, anarchy,
terrorism, and bad manners. And yet they
assumed it was also somehow American, like,
say, the Panama Canal had been to a previous
generation of Big Americans. We built it.
It’s ours. We can run it. Our laws apply to all
those who use it.
Operating on these two assumptions, Congress
created the ironically named Telecommunications
Reform Act, which contained
within it the Communications Decency Act.
This stunningly dumb bit of legislation had
passed in the Senate with only five dissenting
votes. It aspired to make it unlawful, and
punishable by a $250,000 fine, to say "shit"
online. Or, for that matter, to say any of the
seven other dirty words prohibited in American
broadcast media. Or to discuss abortion
openly. Or to talk about bodily functions in
any but the most clinical terms.
It attempted to place more restrictive constraints
on the conversation in Cyberspace
than functionally existed in the Senate cafeteria,
where I had dined a few times and overheard
many colorful indecencies.
Nonetheless, Congress declared that the
American government had the right—not to
mention the even more improbable ability—to
penalize and erase whatever Internet-distributed
human expression some rube from Bug
Tussle, Oklahoma, thought might transgress
his cultural comfort zone. The fines were heavy.
The language was vague. The limits of jurisdiction
and procedures for enforcement were
unclear at best.
Most of the people who voted for it had
never touched a keyboard in their lives; that
being something cute li’l staffers did. Indeed,
one of the only wired solons on Capitol
Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy, had this to say at
the time:
Maybe those who are on the Internet ought
to ask their Members of the House or the Senate,
do they use it? Do they understand it? Do
they understand the computer? I do not want to
ask them if they know how to do really technical
things, like programming a VCR. Ask them if
they can turn on the Internet? Can they actually
talk with each other? And if they cannot, maybe
Internet users ought to tell their Members, "Then
leave us alone. Leave us alone."
 |
page 1 |
| |
5 |
 |
| |
|
 |