Ambiguity, especially in politics, often allows for the disfigurement and promulgation of ideas, concepts and values to serve a political ideology or agenda. The new language of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 — first introduced in April of this year by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va.
— is a prime example of how ambiguity is being utilized in an attempt to deceive the public and ultimately pass legislation that threatens our First Amendment rights.
With “cyber” encompassing the intersecting realms of computers, the Internet, telecommunications and computer networks, the initial version of the bill allowed for the disengagement of public and private-sector computers from the Internet (as well as the limitation of Internet traffic) upon the issuance of a “cyber-emergency” by the president.
However, the bill did not clarify or provide a definition for the term “cyber emergency” — political ambiguity at its best.
The reworded, new version of the bill dictates that the president shall reserve the authority to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” but as before, does not establish any specifics regarding the said threat.
Such ambiguous language has resulted in an outbreak of opposition to the bill, as it not only gives the president flexibility to determine what constitutes as a “cybersecurity emergency,” but the authority to shut down — for “the national defense and security” — one of our most crucial forms of democratic free speech: the Internet.
When our government can silence the citizens it serves, not only are our free speech rights being denied, but our Constitution is being suspended.
Justice Louis Brande, in the 1927 case Whitney v. California, stated, “Freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensible to the discovery and spread of political truth.”
As in a game of dominoes, if our government is able to shut down the Internet, additional forms of communication are guaranteed to be knocked down as well, such as the radio.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) already has a considerable quantity of control over our airwaves, affecting media such as talk radio, another crucial medium of free speech. Mark Lloyd, the recently appointed chief diversity officer of the FCC, publicly condones government-mandated speech, calling free speech an “exaggeration” and “distraction.” As chief diversity officer, what is to stop Lloyd from introducing further censorship into our airwaves under the guise of regulatory “diversity” policies?
If the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 becomes a reality, the president will have the authority to disconnect U.S. citizens from the Internet, the radio, and yes, even their cell phones. According to Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which has representatives of Verizon, VeriSign and others on its board, “I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness.”
To give the president the power to take control of the Internet is a cyber-security emergency in itself.
There is no language within this bill that allows for an administrative review or process — it simply grants further omnipotence to our government and silences our voices.
Jennifer hopes to get this column printed before it is too late! E-mail her at jmbollig@asu.edu.
