BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current legislation is out of date for a digital age

There are two pieces of legislation in British law that are applicable the 1988 Malicious Communications Act and the 1986 Public Order Act.[1] [2] The problem is that both these documents are grossly broad, completely subjective, and open to interpretation. The intention is to protect individuals form being harmed, but these two Acts are so broad that if the recipient finds what you said offensive, indecent, threatening, or causes them stress or anxiety then you can be prosecuted. For example the Malicious Communications act makes it an offence to send “a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; a threat; or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature”.[3] So basically anything that causes any offence. With regards to Tom Daley the police arrested a teenager who had made several tweets about him, including the well publicised: “You let your dad down I hope you know that” and “I’m going to find you and drown you in a pool.”  While both these comments are inappropriate, and may have caused offence, this teenager did not genuinely pose a realistic threat to Tom Daley’s life. The communication alone should not enough for grounds of prosecution, there must be some intention to be enough for a prosecution. Simply saying something horrible does not mean that person will do those horrible things- in a society that truly believes in free speech, one should be able to say what they like, irrespective of whether or not it was tasteful. [1] Malicious Communications Act 1988. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27 [2] Public Order Act 1986. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 [3] Malicious Communications Act 1988. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
Social media communication is inherently different than traditional means of communication

Our ability to communicate is what makes us human, and the means in which we do may change over time, but essentially it is the same thing. Posting in blogs, YouTube, and Twitter is just like being in a crowd- it is just in a virtual reality. You are anonymous, and have the right to say as you please. If you can say it out loud than you should be able to say it online.  Digital or in real life, it should make no difference. Free speech is the right to have the ability to say that you think someone is a horrible swimmer. What makes the British democracy any different than Chinese communism if we are not able to say what we want without fear of punishment? A month ago (July 2012), the UN declared the Internet a basic human right, including (inter alia) "freedom of expression".  This creates an expectation that the same freedoms extended to other media would also apply to online media, including social media.1  1 Ralph, Talia, 'UN deems Internet access a basic human right', globalpost, 6 July 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/diplomacy/120706/un-deems-internet-access-basic-human-right-0
Social media communication is inherently different than traditional means of communication

Sending messages on Facebook, Twitter and in blogs is strikingly different than writing a letter or speaking to someone on the phone. Communicating on the internet enables you to be anonymous. This is not enjoyed by more traditional means of technology. As a result, people say things online that they would not say to someone in person. The internet and sites like YouTube and Twitter allowed every person to become a journalist, publisher and a broadcaster. However, there is a limit to what is appropriate to say in a public forum, and trolling is not one of them. The media understands where the invisible line is, many members of the public do not. The incident with Tom Daley demonstrates that people online are willing to cross this line, as a teenager was the one responsible for all the knowingly harassing, malicious messages.[1]   [1] The Telegraph, 'Hunt for Tom Daley Twitter troll: seaside police raid nets suspect, 17', 31 July 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/diving/9442445/Hunt-for-Tom-Daley-Twitter-troll-seaside-police-raid-nets-suspect-17.html
The scale of digital communication means it can cause greater emotional harm

With the Twitter incident, he dealt with it online, by exposing the troll to his 600,000 followers. The digital embarrassment caused for the troll, Riley, forced him to apologise profusely, eventually asking Daley to “stop getting me hate.” [1] Daley was not the only one who was emotional harmed by this incident, but nobody was charged for what they said to Riley. Free speech needs to be for everyone, irrespective of what they are saying, or through what medium they are saying it. [1] The Telegraph, 'London Olympics 2012: Tom, Daley exposes Twitter troll', 31 July 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/diving/9439551/London-Olympics-2012-Tom-Daley-exposes-Twitter-troll.html
The scale of digital communication means it can cause greater emotional harm

In the age of social media and Twitter thousands of people can see and comment on a post every minute. The viewership is huge, and the effect can multiply out of control instantaneously. This means for public figures like Tom Daley it means that thousands if not millions see, and often respond to or comment on, any horrible things that are said about them. The messages were upsetting to Tom Daley and they caused emotional distress, which is exactly what the 1988 Malicious Communications Act is for. Online harassment is happening to many more people than we realize. Nearly 1 in 5 young people are victims of cyber bullying in the UK.[1] For young boys and girls who are in their formative years, this can have a massive impact on their self-confidence and their personality.  The emotional damage is the same as if they were physically beaten- the only difference, it is a great deal easier to bully someone online than in person. It is therefore right that the police treat such actions as the crime it is. [1] Press Association, 'Almost one fifth of youngsters cyberbullied', guardian.co.uk, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/01/cyber-bullying-victims
EU elections would put young people off voting

Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues "the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place".[1] To make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs.[2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections. [1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04954.pdf, ‎p.9 [2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf
An opportunity for civic studies

While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.
There should not be different voting ages for different elections

Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting.[1] [1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/the-council-adopts-new-eu-youth-policy-framework_en.htm, accessed 3 May 2013
It would help distinguish between levels of elections

The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.
An opportunity for civic studies

There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality.[1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school. Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters.[2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board. [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf  p.13
There should not be different voting ages for different elections

There can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections.[1] [1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age, accessed 3 May 2013
Would complicate elections

Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made.  Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3
Youth are not represented in politics

This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament.  Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?
Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes

This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.
A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes

While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.
EU elections would put young people off voting

This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections
The voting age should be the same across the Union

It is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen.[1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others. [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html, accessed 3 May 2013
Youth are not represented in politics

Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50[1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole.[2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms  are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment.[3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65.[4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance. [1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf [2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics, accessed 3 May 2013 [3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/why-europe-really-must-pursue-structural-reform-clive-crook.html [4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing
Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes

Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes;[1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters. Yet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means. [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf, p.506
A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes

The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules.[1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last. [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html, accessed 3 May 2013
The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output

Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy.[1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf