A Slightly More Devious Side to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory

From the National Post, "University Prof Defends Facebook Penalty:"

Chris Avenir, 18, is set to appear before an appeal hearing at the university next Tuesday on 147 charges of academic misconduct for his role as an administrator for a [Facebook] study group that allowed chemistry and engineering students to share test tips and answers on the popular social networking website.

The computer engineering student denies that he contributed to any of the posts that contained test answers.

If any of the other members of this "study group" had any scruples (or, ahem, balls), they'd come forward and admit that they were the ones who had posted the answers, perhaps in a last-ditch attempt to save their fearless leader. But that's not what they were taught - they were taught that the anonymity of the group would provide them with protection, and that ethics are determined not by individual conscience, but by whatever the tribe allows them to get away with. As long as Ryerson University remains content to "make an example" of someone other than the perpetrators (not that I'm excusing the the group moderator - it was his group, and he should have had been aware of the "tactics" that were being discussed, and acted on them himself), the little weasels will sit comfortably, knowing that "society" has once again been allowed to take the fall for their own evil.

Regarding Bill C-10: The Facebook Response

In the previous post, I talked about the difference between censorship and refusing to fund pornography, or other productions that one might find objectionable. I concluded that the government's job is not to provide enjoyment or entertainment, because, necessarily, people discriminate against that which they find repulsive: for example, I would never buy my neighborhood library 10 copies of "The Communist Manifesto," "Mein Kampf," or "Confessions of a Shopaholic;" but a government that was providing funding for such a library would face the Catch-22 of being accused of "censoring" the library if it did not provide funding, and supporting such vile ideologies as Fascism, Communism, and terrible-literary-tastes-ism if it did cough up the dough.

A Facebook group created to protest Bill C-10 complains:

* It is undemocratic: This controversial new provision to screen the content of productions in awarding tax credits was never debated in the House of Commons, because it was hidden away in a long, technical piece of legislation.

You know, John Milton said "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation." And I'm distressed to learn that that has happened to the word "democracy." Democracy describes a system of government in which majority rules - no more than that, and no less than that. There is no requirement that the participants in a democracy must know what they're doing, or even be capable of functioning at a low-level of intelligence. If our duly-elected representatives can't be bothered to read something, then they shouldn't be agreeing to pass it. There is no refuge in the excuse of ignorance: when I am handed a contract, I read the thing front-and-back, using a magnifying glass and that fluorescent spray that they use on CSI, just to be sure that there aren't any hidden clauses or fine-print restrictions that would have me inadvertently turning over my power of attorney. If I don't feel like doing that, then I don't sign the contract. So it should also be, I would hope, when you have been given the power to represent the wishes of thousands of people.

You aren't in high school anymore - you can't just eschew the reading of "Brave New World" and hope that the Coles Notes will get you through the exam.