Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”. [1]  [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’


media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers

Banning child performers could be successful for professional child performers in regulated industries but it would be much more difficult to prevent child performers on a small scale. It will also be very difficult to get a balance between allowing children to develop in their chosen profession or sport while preventing them from actually engaging in any performance that displays that talent.


The added risk for most child athletes and performers is very low, and there is professional help in place for them to manage it.  Children who compete professionally in sporting events are only exposed to real risk in very rare, extreme situations. Some elements of risk exist in all aspects of life: children who are allowed to play on rollerblades are slightly more at risk of injury than those who are not; children who live in cities are at more risk of traffic accidents than those who live in the countryside, who are at more risk of falling out of trees, etc. Adults and children alike make decisions in which they take risks in the name of the greater benefits. For children who play a sport professionally, the physical training they receive can build strength and muscle and increase fitness levels, which provide the child with improved health and protection from injury in future. If child performers were banned, there would be no way of making sure that any children who still ended up in the business (i.e., illegally) had access to the support staff (e.g., physiotherapists, nutritionists) currently available. [1]  When it comes to the possibility of eating disorders in child performers, professionals also exist for the prevention thereof. For example, in New York the Child Performer Advisory Board to Prevent Eating Disorders (Labor Law Section 154) exists to educate and provide information for child performers and their guardians. [2]  [1] Canadian Athletic Therapists Association, ‘Athletic Therapy’  [2] New York Department of Labor, ‘Child Performer Advisory Board’


It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing  Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others. [1]  There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction  [1] Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’


Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable  Children involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition. [1]  Even in careers like acting and dancing there are risks for child performers. Actors and dancers are usually encouraged to stay thin, often to an unhealthy degree. Because children are particularly vulnerable, they are more susceptible to the perils of over-exercising for athletes and eating disorders for performers. It has been found, for example, that girls who dance in their childhood are more likely than their peers to develop anorexia nervosa in later life. [2] Lena Zavaroni, the childhood winner of ‘opportunity knocks’ in the 1970’s, struggled with eating disorders for all of her life and died aged 34.  With the damage eating disorders can do to a person’s body, it should be illegal to expose children to such risks.  [1] Hoffman, ‘Obituaries’  [2] BBC News, ‘Anorexia linked to child dancers’


Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer.  [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’  [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’


In a lot of films, television shows, and stage productions, it is possible to have young adult actors playing child roles. For example, in the popular American television show The O.C., the main characters were played by young adults ranging from 18 to 29 years of age but all portraying teenagers. [1] Sports needn’t suffer either: the minimum age of competition for gymnastics has already been raised, [2] [3] and others can surely follow their example without suffering from it. If professional leagues are not allowed to roster athletes below the age of 18, for example, children will compete in amateur and educational leagues where the pressure and commitment is lower, but where they can still train for the professional arena.  [1] IMDB, ‘The O.C.’  [2] Hanley, ‘Gymnastics – Minimum age will soon rise to 16.’  [3] The Telegraph, London 2012 Olympics: artistic gymnastics guide


If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.  While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”  [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.”  [3] Helfgott, “The international game.”


The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at  Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best.  Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom.  [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0


Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports  In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age. [1]  [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’


If child performers were banned, it would be the duty of the government to ensure children were not illegally performing, just as it is currently their duty to protect current child performers. In the United States, for example, Major League Baseball has begun to institute DNA testing for international players, in order to ensure that they are being truthful about their age when they come to America. [1] Banning child performers is possible, and it is the only way to truly protect children’s rights and to prevent them from the inherent physical and emotional risks.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”


culture general education education general house would make english official

Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind.  On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially, [1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend.  Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,


Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization  One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this.  This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials. [1]  These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce.  As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system.  [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009,


English-only policies are not about encouraging acceptance of diversity, and to the extent they are about bringing people together it is by forcing immigrants to abandon their culture.  From the very beginning of the English-only movement during the First World War, when anti-German sentiment led to attacks on German-speaking immigrants, the idea of English as a an official language has been brought up to stigmatize immigrants . [1] The very debate over the implementation of the policy would do more to stigmatize immigrants than could be made up for by any benefits it could provide.  It may well be that forcing Immigrants to speak English and work in it would help them to assimilate but so would deporting them across the country where they would be forced to sink or swim. We don’t do that because it would be wrong.  Secondly, all of the government’s benefits are based on the assumption that individuals can learn English quickly if they are forced to do so. But learning languages is a long process, and the government’s policies would leave large numbers of people worse off before they managed to pick up the language, assuming they ever did.  [1] Opposing views, ‘English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity’, 2010,


The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language  From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1]  Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views.  Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson.  [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010,


English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence.  As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration.  Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen.  [1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’,


The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes. [1]  If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,


Avoids self-segregation  In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation.  Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with.  This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available.  This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority.


Bilingual education hurts students  Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction.  This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language.  Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box.  Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital.


All of those accents are varieties of English. The meaning of English as a unifying force is that across Americans’ differences of religion, politics, history, and yes dialect, at the end of the day they are all brought together by a common language and a common ability to communicate within it.


It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results.  Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States.  For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased.


It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language  Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane.  Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do.  In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult.  In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.


The US has a long tradition of multiple languages  There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish. [1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana. [2]  The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored.  The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history.  [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch,   [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS,


Even within the United States people speak English differently  Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language.  It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated.


In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants  Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics.  This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1]  Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets.  The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made.  Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it.  [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus,


England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages.  The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans.


This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful.  Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English.


traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their

If it is something like a name that can already be considered intellectual property then this broadening is unnecessary, compensation will be made through the courts anyway.  Culture as a whole is something that evolves overtime, it is not something that can be comparable to intellectual property. Culture is not as clear cut and rigid as the cases of intellectual property as it consists of things such as shared values and common knowledge which often has overlaps between different cultures and no true owner. Therefore, cultural appropriation cannot be parallel to stolen intellectual property and they should be handled in different ways.  Reparations for something as arbitrary and subjective as culture is a system very open to exploitation. It may encourage exploitative behaviour with minorities encourages to pursue cases through the courts to gain reparations even when the case is slim. In some instances, designs or ideas may really have been made independently but be pursued due to similarity with a cultural idea.


Cultural appropriation is parallel to stolen intellectual property and should be treated in the same way.  There are high standards of global intellectual property laws such as copyright and patenting for things such as medicines, and creative designs. However, these laws only apply to a few areas so this proposal would effectively widen its remit by taking intellectual property as a template for what might be considered ‘cultural property’. Many minority communities, including the Native American Navajo tribe have had their names, designs, and culture stolen or misused and have not received compensation. This highlights the embedded systematic inequalities where justice may not be brought to those of minority cultures. Reparations, monetary or otherwise, should be paid in these cases as other case studies [1].  The closest this has actually come to happening is with the Native American Navajo community. They had their name printed and used on products such as underwear, dresses and hipflasks at the popular retail store Urban Outfitters [2]. There was outrage in the community and a 'cease and desist' notice was filed in court for the products to be recalled. In addition to this the Navajo tribe called for monetary reparations to compensate for the damage done in the name of their community however, this was not granted. As the Navajo name was copyrighted this case was made much simpler before the law – as we propose cultural property theft should be.  It is important to point out that many other communities which have been exploited previously have not copyrighted their name and so do not have this same opportunity [3]. This is important as with many cases, the outcome may have not resulted in anything further.  The practise of reparations should be used universally as it is disrespectful to misuse the names, symbols and property of other cultures without consent.  In a democracy where everybody is equal before the law, communities and individuals should be able to sue those for not giving recognition, or misusing cultural practises that have historic meaning and importance. Culture is embedded in communities with long standing traditions, theories and practises. This is evident as we do not (yet) have a single global culture, even though one might argue there is one slowly emerging.  [1] Schutte, Shane, ‘6 famous copyright cases’, realbusiness, 11th August 2014,   [2] Siek, Stephanie, ‘Navajo Nation sues Urban Outfitters for alleged trademark infringement’, CNN, 2nd March 2012,   [3] Johnson, Maisha J., ‘What is wrong with cultural appropriation; These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm’, everydayfeminism, 14th June 2015,


Firstly, communities can be given credit for designs and things of other cultural significance without the use of reparations which are arbitrary and pointless.  Secondly, reparations are also ineffective, it throws a one-off lump sum to the formerly oppressed. They do not benefit the most deprived in society (economically). They are not effective in combatting racism.


Compensation rights a wrong  Compensation is a basic principle of justice in any legal system. By definition it can be given to those who have had harm to reputation or dignity, emotional distress and loss of opportunities, including potential earnings. It is important to give compensation as it provides something for those who have suffered from disadvantages as a result of someone else’s actions, and it therefore helps to level out the playing field. Cultural appropriation causes clear harms – lost business, less awareness of that culture, and a feeling of inferiority. Theoretically, compensation is also beneficial as Rawls believes that it achieves 'some of the intent' of the principle of redress. This is in line with an egalitarian point of view [1]. While individual cases of cultural appropriation may not intend to harm they have an externality of harm by damaging the culture and identity as a while. This is in much the same way that those polluting often don’t intend harm, just to make a profit.  [1] Gaus, Gerald F., ‘Does Compensation Restore Equality’, Compensatory Justice, Vol.33, 1991, pp.45-81,


Compensation may be fundamental, but only when it is possible to quantify the harm, and decide who the harm was done to. With cultural appropriation both are often muddy. Taking a part of culture may not have a monetary benefit for the one taking that cultural item or a proportional loss for the original culture. If this is the case how is a figure put on compensation? Then who does the compensation go to; split between everyone in that culture? But who and how is it defined who is a part of that group?


The notion of compensation in the case of cultural appropriation is limited. Firstly, culture is subjective and essentially defined to individual interpretation and perception, there are limited definitive lines. As a result of this, compensation would be extremely difficult to both claim and give out every time a cultural appropriation is claimed by an individual or group.


Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve.  Compensation can be used to level out the playing field of inequality to those who have been oppressed. They help to give communities the recognition they deserve and help to reverse intuitionally reinforced negative stereotypes. The reparations can be used to benefit the community; for example, within the community and externally in order to educate people appropriately about the struggles of a repressed community. It would help fund efforts based on the model of the US Governments of Education and State Boards of Education to develop a 'robust curriculum' involving greater accuracy in black history as well as the involvement of African American figures in history on local, national and global scales [1].  This inequality is why the reform has to be state led; it is up to the state to protect minorities. Professor Matthew Rimmer from the Queensland University of Technology believes that ''At an international level, more should be done to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of Indigenous intellectual property''. This was said after Chanel made a A$2,000 boomerang [2] which would seem to be in opposition to the declaration which Australia has endorsed.  [1] Humphries, Arielle, and Stahly-Butts, Marbre, ‘A Vision for Black Lives’, Centre for Popular Democracy, July 2016,   [2] ‘Chanel’s $2,000 boomerang sparks complaints and confusion from Indigenous Australians’, ABC News, 17th May 2017,


Compensation has the potential to reverse damaged caused by Cultural Appropriation.  Compensation is necessary in the case of cultural appropriation as it helps to provide victims with the resources they need or deserve as compensation for exploitative behaviour. Often it can be easily quantified as would be the case with the Navajo Urban Outfitters case. With stronger legislation and rulings on the provision for compensation for cultural appropriation, minority communities would be significantly better off. This would be a major step towards reversing the damage of said appropriation as it would allow the community to develop and gain recognition for traditional designs and ideas.  Compensation can bring back some justice to small, minority communities as they can gain the appropriate recognition they deserve as well as the benefits that come along with it. It was estimated in 2005 that nearly half of the US $1billion market from native American Arts and Crafts come from the sale of counterfeit goods [1]. Compensation would help protect sales from native American businesses as well as their culture.  [1] Padilla, Helen B., ‘Padilla: Combating fake Indian Arts and Crafts: a proposal for action’, Indian Country Today, 14 October 2008,


Who gets compensated would have to be clearly defined and yes there would be losers and some perverse outcomes. But what matters is that the system as a whole would be beneficial. While culture is complex any case would only be looking at one isolated aspect of culture; one custom. Defining this one aspect and who it belongs to would not be difficult. Compensation would not usually go to all individuals of a community but to help that community; to their community centres, NGOs etc., or to those individuals who have directly lost income as it would be with intellectual property.


Whilst globalisation is occurring and creating multibillion dollar industries all over the world, cultures are not fully immersed in each other. Nor should we want them to be as we don’t want a global monoculture. Far from sparking divisions compensation can create harmony as it forces cultures to understand and tolerate each other by learning what is acceptable and what is not. Preventing stealing of culture will encourage greater attribution of where ideas come from preventing smaller cultures from becoming marginalised in a globalised world.


Reparations and the use of the term 'cultural appropriation' is a mask for more deep-rooted issues of racism in society.  The use of compensation as a means of redress for cultural appropriation doesn’t tackle the root problems that are expressed. The problems given as examples of cultural appropriation, like a Caucasian person wearing their hair in dreadlocks- a style that has meaning and historic prejudice to the afro-Caribbean community is redirecting attention and division. The individuals wearing their hair in this fashion however are not the problem. Demanding compensation from them 'does not challenge racism in any meaningful way' [1]. Instead targeting and punishing those who actively discriminate against those with the dreadlock style of hair is more effective and encourages equality.  [1] Malik, Kenan, ‘The Bane of Cultural Appropriation’, AlJazeera, 14th April 2016,


No feasible system of which grounds of compensation can occur because of the fluidity of culture and cultural identity  How a person identifies themselves aligns with the culture they are a part of. Szewczak and Snodgrass argue this is as the values of an individual “are influenced and modified by membership of other professional, organisational, ethnic, religious, and various other social groups, each of which has its own specialized culture and value set. Thus, individuals vary greatly in the degree in which they espouse, if at all, values by a single cultural group, such as their national culture” [1]. As a result, people can identify with several different cultures often at one time. This creates difficulties in allowing one person to seek compensation from another purely on the basis of identity politics – individuals at least partially define their own culture and it may only be one among multiple cultures they identify with.  Culture itself has a complex nature; it adapts, borrows and evolves. It also influences lives in different ways and to different extents. No culture is fully homogenous. Because of this, any model for the extent of compensation would almost be impossible. Somebody with a long distant relative of which they haven't met, could potentially gain compensation for something that doesn’t directly affect them. They may even identify with the majority culture that is doing the compensating. Conversely some who identify with the culture being compensated may not be eligible for compensation even if they are directly affected.  [1] Snodgrass, Coral R., & Szweczak, Edward J. "The Substitutability of Strategic Control Choices: An Empirical Study". The Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 25. 1990.


globalisation and multiculturalism.  Cultural appropriation prevents assimilation between members of society and creates further divisions based on arbitrary features of one’s ancestry or appearance. If reparations (through the use of compensation) were to occur in addition to this, it would create a more polarised and divided society as an 'us and them' culture is created.  A consequence of globalisation is the movement of people and the diffusion of knowledge [1]. This happens on a mass scale where it is possible for a person from India to travel across the globe to the United Kingdom (UK) and get there within 24 hours of booking their flight. With this, the spread of technology and knowledge it is inevitable that culture and identity does not remain fixed either. It also means that an increasing amount of people have more than one culture. A direct consequence of increased migration is that migrants are likely to bring with them their cultural customs. An example of this can be seen in the UK. As the UK faced more migrants from the Sub-continent of India, the popularity of different curries increased, and not just among those of Indian decent. In such circumstances cultures begin to merge as the traditional 'Chicken Tikka' recipe was adapted into a localised version called 'Chicken Tikka Masala' and was, in 2001, declared the UK's national dish.  Without globalisation, Britain's £3.6bn Indian restaurant industry would not exist and it would fail to employ approximately 100,000 people [2]. Any reparations would be paltry compared to the jobs that this industry has created over decades.  This is a positive thing; it brings cultures together, encourages understanding, innovation and cooperation. Forcing people to compensate for the appropriation of a culture may mean that there is less social harmony as divisions are forced between cultures. For the following generations of migrants will be forced to choose a culture as cultural appropriation encourages division between the two.  [1] Stief, Colin, ‘Globalization’, ThoughtCo., 3rd March 2017,   [2] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Chicken tikka Britain is new Cook recipe’, The Guardian, 19 April 2001,


The use of compensation is effective in combating more 'deep-rooted' issues of racism in society. This is because compensation gives the minority communities the recognition, credit and any financial benefit that comes with this, of which they deserve. Highlighting other cultures and their achievements by preventing cultural appropriation will change attitudes so encouraging equality of treatment.


privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their

It is simply not true that people are bothered by their personal information getting out, or at least they are unwilling to do anything about it. In a recent survey 85% of respondents said they were aware that they were being profiled by advertisers as they browse the Internet. [1] They know that this data is what companies use to enable sophisticated advertising directed at them and to determine what the market wants. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, as in the case with targeted advertising based on personal search data, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. Also, a policy of disclosure such as that mandated in the EU might be employed in which services inform users that their data will be collated and give them the option to leave the site before this occurs so as to ensure that individuals really are aware.  [1] Ives, D., “Anonymizer, Inc. Survey Finds Most Consumers Confused About Online Safety Measures”, Anonymizer, 19 October 2010,


Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit  People experiencing the use of their personal details by companies have largely been found to see the process as extremely invasive and unsettling. Many have felt violated by the exploitation of their personal lives to market them products, often from people to whom they never consented to hand over information. This feeling has been demonstrated through significant public outcry and backlash, as well as empirical results showing these attitudes becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the case of online targeted advertising, which is the most well-known use of personal information. The best example of such backlash is the result of Amazon.com’s “dynamic pricing” system, in which the company varied its offerings and pricings to customers based on information gathered about them from prior uses. The result was a severe backlash that cost Amazon business until it ended the policy. [1] This has led to a blunting of the desired outcome of such marketers who experience declines in uptake rather than increased and more efficient reach of marketing. Furthermore, the targeted marketing that arises from these forms of information storage and sale can tend toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent race and gender. When this happens it is all the more alienating.  [1] Taylor, C., “Private Demands and Demands For Privacy: Dynamic Pricing and the Market for Customer Information”, Duke University, September 2002,  p.1


Companies have been making great strides in the realm of data protection and will no doubt continue to do so as it is in their interest to keep any information they have to themselves. They have far more resources and much more sophisticated equipment than the hackers, and while there are resourceful individuals out there, the power of the corporate structure allows them to fend off attacks with greater and greater effectiveness. As these security technologies become more advanced people should feel more and more comfortable with companies holding their data.


Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy  The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy.  When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012. [2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores. [3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012,


Much of the “personal” data that is kept, collated, and sold is freely available online already and can be protected in many ways. The programmes that are used to collect information online, where most of this collation takes place, often do not ever gain real access to individuals’ identities, but rather only have access to search details. It is highly unlikely that any of this information could be used to identify actual individuals, and where it can it is safeguarded by laws regarding privacy. Furthermore, the information in question is put into the public sphere by individuals availing of services and may well not be guaranteed any form of special protection. They exist and are revealed in the public sphere, and belong there.


Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands  The data collected and sold by companies is not safe. Servers with even the most sophisticated security systems are susceptible to hackers and other miscreants seeking to exploit the personal data of unsuspecting customers. Identity theft is a ubiquitous threat in the Information Age, one that increases every year as the arms race between data protection designers and invaders rages on. Data breaches have been rapidly increasing [1] and although the total number declined from 412 million exposed records in 2011 to 267 million in 2012 this has increasingly been due to hacking rather than simple negligence. [2] The result of these breaches is huge costs to individuals who have their identities and also to firms that appear to be unsafe. As individuals see companies as being uncaring of their information they tend to punish them in the market. [3] There is no opt-in because the individual has no means of seeing to whom the data is sold, and how secure their servers might be, putting them doubly at risk. Firms are better off not playing with fire and keeping data that could have huge potential costs to them if it is lost, and individuals are better off not having their information disseminated across cyberspace without any guarantee of its safety.  [1] Federal Trade Commission. “Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. Technical report, Federal Trade Commission”. May 2000.   [2] Risk Based Security, “Historically, Over 1.2 Billion Records Exposed According to Risk Based Security, Inc.” Risk Based Security, 22 February 2012,   Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,


It is not particularly reassuring that it is large organisations and in particular big business that keeps these immense datasets. They have their own agendas for how they use this information and if this is simply for pushing products then many people would want no part of it. Analysis are wary about how big businesses will use big data as there is the concern that it will be manipulated, misread or even just plain wrong. [1] While the information may benefit small businesses it is not these companies that have control of the data; they are reliant on it being shared with them by the already dominant much bigger firms who are likely to choose to do business with other big businesses.  [1] PewInternet, “The Future of Big Data”, Pew Research Center, 20 July 2012,


It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others’ personal lives.


The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion  Personal information given to companies is dispersed into the public sphere in a limited fashion. Once placed into the hands of a firm it ceases to be any sort of absolutely protected private right (if it ever was), and is instead now within the sphere of the company with which the individual has opted to interact. It is the natural evolution of how people’s information informs the economic sphere. [1] With regard to selling that information on, it is clearly information the individual is willing to disclose in the realm of commerce so it should make little difference what commercial entity is in possession of the data, especially considering that the information is then only utilized to make their experience online more efficient and valuable. It is also important to consider the exact kinds of information conventionally revealed through the personal data mining efforts of firms. They rarely even access the true identity of the user, but rather make use of second-hand information gathered from search histories, cookies, etc. to generate a consumer profile the firm hopes reflects the preference map of the user. The individual's identity is not revealed in these most frequent cases and the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy, if such is a concern. [2] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. All of these data-gathering efforts of companies reflect the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients in order to best cater to their desires.  [1] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,   [2] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 3 September 2008,


The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive  Businesses have been able to use consumers’ personal information to produce far better, more efficient, and more targeted advertising. Traditionally advertisement has been used to reach mass markets and has thus been used mostly as a blunt instrument, targeting the largest and wealthiest demographics in order to get the most efficient use of scarce advertising budgets. The focus on large markets has often left smaller, more niche, markets by the wayside. [1] Yet with the advent of the internet, targeted marketing, and data collection services, firms have been able to create whole new markets that cater to less homogenous needs and wants. The result has been a Renaissance of specialty manufacturers and service providers that could never arise if it were not for the collection of personal consumer data. By targeting their advertising, firms have been able to scale back on the broader advertising, making the whole endeavour less costly and more efficient. On the broader level, companies are able to utilize the vast amounts of individual data compiled to allow them to determine broader changes in society’s consumer desires, to establish aggregate trends. [2] E-commerce accounts for more than $300 billion in the US. This information gathering makes all businesses more responsive to consumer demands and to cause them to change their offered services and products far more swiftly, to the benefit of all consumers. Businesses have thus been able to flourish that might once have languished without access to a means of accessing their market or been unable to change with changing tastes. Because of the proliferation of personal information aggregation we can enjoy a far more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream on a more even footing, and a mainstream that is more able to meet the ever-changing demand structure of consumers.  [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012.


The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers  By targeting demographics and personal profiles by way of acquiring and utilizing personal data, businesses are able to put forward their services in a more targeted fashion in order to reach their target markets and to more effectively understand the broader market more generally. The limited budgets that constrain all companies has traditionally forced producers in the mass market to advertise to broad demographics and majority markets, resulting in a relative dearth of niche markets and breadth of services available in the mass market. Utilizing personal data effectively allows firms to enrich the lives of all consumers by expanding the range of marketable products and the furnishing of services to more eclectic tastes. [1] The vast numbers of websites and services proliferating online makes it much harder for people to find what they are looking for, but more importantly what they are not looking for but would want if they knew it existed. Data-mining allows for the channels of information to flow more effectively to consumers (Columbus, 2012). On the individual level companies are able to create individual profiles from information, so they can target them directly with things that might interest them. This strategy is used on Facebook, for example, users are shown ads that most fit their profiles giving them access to services they might not have ever found without the service.  [1] Deighton, J. and J. Quelch, “Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem”. IAB Report. 2009,


Firms’ data collection serves as a very real threat to individuals’ privacy and identity on the internet. Anonymity is certainly not wholly guaranteed through these tactics, and the information is not entirely safe. When individuals use the internet they often do not pay close attention to what is happening with their personal data. When they do not even know what information they are giving out they cannot meaningfully keep track of their privacy. Many hackers have made use of companies’ data collection efforts to gain access to peoples’ personal information, thus revealing information that individuals clearly never consented to. There must be some boundaries in the physical and digital world that marketers should not cross. Keeping and selling potentially sensitive information of clients certainly falls in this category.


digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should

The first firm to shift to the open source approach was Netscape with its Navigator web browser, because it was being outperformed by the closed source Microsoft Internet Explorer; Netscape made the shift out of desperation. This is exactly the same reason why Sun and Real have made their programs open source - Solaris was being squeezed by Windows based server software and RealPlayer by iTunes and Spotify. Similarly, the patents which IBM is sharing and the narrow range of source code that Microsoft is now opening up relate to sectors and product markets where neither firm is dominant and where they hope they can leverage the programming community to boost the quality of the software they are offering. Since Microsoft launched the Open Source Initiative, it has not expanded it in response to other governments threatening to shift to open source software. Therefore, we should not view this initiative as the beginning of a trend.


Government contracts can change the software industry for the better.  Even when governments do not ultimately select an open source program, by simply including them in the competitive bidding process, they have been able to radically change the approach that Microsoft and other closed source companies take to producing IT solutions.  Under threat from Linux, Microsoft has launched the Open Source Initiative through which it shares elements of some of its programs’ source code with key partners to enable the development of software for platforms like Windows Mobile [i] . More dramatically, in 2002, Real Networks opened up the source code for its world renowned RealPlayer media and music software package and, in 2005, IBM offered 500 key patents (out of 40,000) to the open source community. Sun Microsystems released its Solaris server operating system to the open source community under the Common Development and Distribution licence in 2005. If you accept that the open source software industry is a positive force, then simply by considering open source software, governments are doing well.  [i] Ed Hansberry. “Open Source WebOS: A Win For Windows Phone?” Information Week. 12 December 2011.


The network effect is more complex than the argument that, if a government uses a product, then its population will too. Firstly, 90% of desktop PCs use Microsoft products; the cost for companies and citizens to transition from Microsoft to an open source alternative makes it prohibitive in the short term. Secondly, open source software works on the basis of a constant flow of updates and minor changes; this may be suitable for servers (where it has already made most impact) managed by IT professionals, but the average citizen or government worker would require continual training and re-training before they could be trusted to implement and use such updates correctly. Open source software is being jumped on by some governments as a tool to attack Microsoft’s monopoly but, in the end, it will cost them time and money.


Open source software is more adaptable to government needs.  Open source software starts from a completely different viewpoint of how products should be created. Rather than resembling a traditional hierarchical organisation (such as an early twentieth century business, an army or a monastic order) where everyone has their own clearly defined role and are told how to proceed by a top-down central authority, open-source software development is more like an open market where everyone is engaged in the same activity but come at it from different directions. [i]  Out of this cacophonous market, a more fluid product emerges. The basic advantage of open source software is that, as users can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, it evolves. This means that users and programmers can improve, adapt and fix the software at a much faster pace than Microsoft or another closed source developer can match. The highly collegiate culture in which contemporary approaches to coding evolved continues to create programmers who are naturally curious about the functions and features of new software. Open source software harnesses the wide range of ideas and methodologies that different coders use to writer software to refine and improve existing programmes. Open source software solicits a wide variety of solutions to particular coding problems; the more solutions that coders generate, the more likely it is that an optimal solution will be discovered.  Not only does the approach described above result in the creation of higher quality programmes, it also allows businesses and individual coders to easily adapt existing programmes to their needs. Monopolistic producers like Microsoft have an incentive to slow the pace of change, whereas the open source community will simply choose the best solution. In this way, open source software is more robust and more responsive to governments’ changing needs than closed source alternatives.  [i] Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Cunningham & Cunningham. 18 February 2010.


Open source software is not bug-proof and requires far more updates than the closed source alternatives. In fact, the most successful open source software after the operating system Linux is Apache, an open-source web-server which holds around 65% of the global market, and MySQL, an open-source database [i] . Both pieces of software are far from innovative; they are essentially just stripped-down versions of closed source programs. Real innovation is driven by the profit motive and comes from the knowledge that a firm can capitalize on a discovery, as Google has done with its search algorithm. For this reason, the open source software movement is doomed to producing mediocrity. As governments choose IT systems for five to ten years, they should look to a reliable closed source solution which provides quality rather than buying into a nebulous idea of ‘moral software’.  [i] “Microsoft’s IIS web server market share is falling.” Webserver. 3 October 2011.


Governments can re-define industry standards by choosing open source software.  Economists use the term ‘network effect’ to describe the phenomenon whereby, as several people use the same communication platform (be it a specific device, such as a telephone, or a complicated service, such as Facebook), it becomes more valuable for others to use because they can share and collaborate on work with a wider range of individuals.  Network effects explain why Microsoft’s monopoly of around 90% of the desktop market with its Windows and Office software has been so hard to challenge [i] .  Governments are one of the few organisations which can define industry standards because citizens and businesses increasingly have to interact with governments electronically. Brazil’s Digital Inclusion Program, for example, has selected open source software for 58 government units rather than Windows or Microsoft Office [ii] . The result is that businesses and Brazilian citizens can use the same open source software at home, knowing they will be able to interact with their government. As open source software is often either free or cheaper than closed source alternatives, this approach enables local authorities, private businesses and individual citizens to interact more easily with the state, removing many of the obstacles and objections to the wider adoption of information technology.  [i] Lie, Hakon Wium. “Microsoft’s forgotten monopoly.” CNET News. 19 June 2006.  [ii] Fried, Ina. “Brazil: Digital inclusion, but how?” CNET News. 27 August 2008.


As the demands of government IT departments become more and more complex, software developers are forced to become increasingly specialized. Yet big firms like Microsoft often lack specialist depth and an understanding of niche markets (such as the market for specialist brail screen readers, which blind individuals use to interact with computers). In many instances, governments’ needs will be better met by the open source market, where innovation and flexibility are built in.  One area where is the open source community’s ability to innovate is particularly relevant to governments is language; Microsoft only supports 33 languages in Windows XP and around 20 in Office XP, as they do not have the economic incentive to provide versions for other languages and dialects. Yet governments often need to provide access to information in dozens of languages and dialects (particularly in countries like Spain with regional languages like Catalan and Basque, or India with its 18 official languages and 1000 dialects). Open source software can easily be adapted to those languages. For instance, OpenOffice has been adapted into 75 languages including Slovenian, Icelandic, Lao, Latvian, Welsh, Yiddish, Basque and Galician, and Indian languages such as Gujarati, Devanagari, Kannada and Malayalam. By using the open-source model of sharing the workload between many users, the Hungarian Foundation for Free Software was able to translate OpenOffice in three days with the help of just over a hundred programmers.  By providing software specialized for the local market, government can encourage greater IT usage by citizens, thereby increasing the skill level of the workforce and multiplying the cost savings made by shifting government services online.


While open source software is not always free, it tends to be significantly cheaper than closed source alternatives. For instance, the Brazilian government’s decision to adopt open source software for its housing department in 2005 has generated savings of $120m a year. [i]  Given that, the United States government alone spends $80 billion a year on information technology, the potential for total cost savings is enormous. [ii] The money saved could be used to fund more important government expenditure such as healthcare or education – the very activities that, it was claimed, could be delivered more efficiently and cheaply following widespread adoption of IT systems. Furthermore, simply by discussing adopting open source software, Microsoft has been forced to reduce its prices; it cut its prices by $35m to match Linux’s offering to the city of Munich and, when Brazil began discussing its future software plans, Microsoft was forced to offer to release a cheaper version of its new operating system, Windows Vista. [iii] Ultimately, this not only helps governments, but also helps Microsoft, as many developing nations currently rely on pirated copies of Microsoft software which undermines attempts to stop copyright fraud.  [i] Kingstone, Steve, ‘Brazil adopts open-source software’, BBC News, 2/05/2005.  [ii] ‘Using Technology to Drive Productivity Gains’, Performance.gov, accessed 25/07/2013  [iii] Bailey, Dave. “Microsoft faces value challenge.” Computing. 18/06/2003.


Open source software undermines national security.  Even if closed source software firms are ultimately answerable to their shareholders, their shareholders want them to produce software which meets the needs of their customers so that they can sell their products. That is why Microsoft has offered a cheap version of Windows Vista to developing nations, and has been willing to cut the price of its software in negotiations with governments around the world.  More worrying than the burden that closed source software places on a government’s coffers is the threat that open source software presents to a state’s security.  By definition, the code for open source software is freely available. However, the continual attempts to hack into government computer systems demonstrate that many of the same hackers are now moving beyond mere targets of opportunity. Hackers could well take advantage of the increasing ubiquity of open source code to attack national computer systems.  The additional security that open source software claims to benefit from is an illusion. Rather, it is the lack of ubiquitous open source platforms that has kept OSs such as Linux and BSD safe from attack. The possibility that an might yield some form of a reward is reduced when a hacker is presented with fewer viable targets.  Although open source code may give ethical and honest coders more opportunities to spot the flaws in programmes, it also incentivises hackers to invest their efforts in spotting such flaws first.


Closed source software is better at meeting consumer needs.  Closed source software companies are more than capable of segmenting their products to reach each part of the market, as Microsoft has shown by producing its new Windows 7 operating system in a record six different versions.  Microsoft’s monopoly of desktop computers ensures that if a programmer produces a niche software package or software translation for a specialized purpose, that programmer knows that potential clients will almost certainly be able to run the program if it is designed for Windows. If this monopoly is broken up and governments start to push Linux or other open source alternatives, the programmer will either have to develop for two or more platforms, thereby increasing the cost of the final product, or they will have to gamble on a single platform; both options would reduce the likelihood of the niche solution reaching the clients that need it.  While open source software does allow anyone to spot a potential market and customize software to sell to that market, that access is also its great undoing. The type of accessibility that many open source products pride themselves on providing leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning amateurs or intentional wreckers. Constant self-policing by the open source community is required, in order to guarantee the stability of the software it creates. An analogy can be drawn with Wikipedia, where the freedom of the mob led to defamatory statements being written about the former editor of USA Today [i] . Governments should be wary of relying on an anarchic, self-organising community to serve their IT needs, no matter how smart and well intentioned the members of that community may be.  [i] Seigenthaler, John. .”A false Wikipedia “biography”.” USA Today. 29 November 2005


Open source software is more expensive for governments in the long run.  Open source software is often confused with free software; in fact, it is usually provided at some cost to the user. More importantly, if a Microsoft product fails, a government IT department knows that it can rely on a patch or technical support. Whereas, with open source software, they are left waiting on a community to get round to tackling the problem. This has meant that governments which choose open source software have had to pay for expensive support packages, which makes the total cost of the IT solution similar to that of the closed source software. This has been to the advantage of major consultancy firms, which are often chosen to put together IT solutions and who can make more money from pushing expensive support contracts than on upfront costs for software.  In the rush to find the software with the cheapest sticker price, there is a risk that governments will end up paying more overall for open software that lacks the accessibility and features of the closed source alternatives.


This is a matter of national security and sovereignty, as well as one of cost effectiveness. Governments around the world are increasingly shifting their operations online, which has created a vast number of digital tax returns, criminal records, DNA databases and so on. At present, access to, and use of, this information is dependent on private companies which design software to benefit their shareholders.  Open source software hands control of the software needed to access that data to the government and the nation itself, and gives it the ability to shape the data and software based on its own interests.  Hackers have often attacked Microsoft products because of the ubiquity of its closed source software. Hack and malware attacks are ultimately speculative ventures. They target systems that have not received essential security software updates; systems that are operated by naive and inexperienced users; or delicate specialist systems that can be disrupted by a high volume of legitimate, non-aggressive commands and interactions. Such opportunistic attacks are more likely to succeed if hackers are able to direct their efforts toward uncovering the flaws in a single operating system – such as Windows.  In the past, attacks have focussed on consumers and small businesses. By moving away from closed source products, governments can decrease the likelihood that crucial government data will be compromised by a hacker or a virus attack.


access information house would block access social messaging networks

There is little evidence that cutting off the internet or mobile phone networks would be effective. Riots occurred before mobile phones and the internet were invented and spread just as worryingly. Cutting off access would be an inconvenience but little more than that. Blaming the technology is not helpful to finding the real solutions to preventing rioting which is engaging with the underlying problems. [1]  [1] Metcalf, J., and Taylor, M., “Technology has always been blamed in times of unrest”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.


Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force  When riots are on-going then the police needs to act but the safety of everyone involved should be considered to be paramount. If a riot will not disperse peacefully then the police often find they need to use batons, water cannon, or even in extremis tear gas or rubber bullets. It is the police’s duty to bring back public order by stopping riots through these methods. However this should not be at the expense of a much more preventative approach that shutting down social media networks would allow. If during instances of rioting the police are able to prevent those rioters from encouraging their friends to join them so expanding the riots then this is the right course of action to take. Rioters used social media like activists, to outmanoeuvre the police targeting areas where there was little police presence. Cutting off their means of communication would make this much harder and less effective. [1] This has been used effectively in the past; the San Francisco BART, shut down mobile phones on its network to prevent protests which it feared could lead to clashes with commuters, it may well have been the reason why there were no such protests, but it did spark outrage over violations of freedom of speech. [2]  [1] O’Rourke, Simon, “Empowering protest through social media”, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 2011,  P.51  [2] Cabanatuan, M., “BART admits halting cell service to stop protests”, SFGate,


Preventing word from getting out through social media and stopping those who inevitably try to take advantage of the rioting to ferment violence elsewhere is not something the police should be doing. In a free country anyone should be allowed to report on what they are doing and on riots that are occurring. Moreover a shutdown would be ineffective at preventing the news getting out as the traditional media would still be broadcasting. In 270 interviews done by researchers into the riots more than 100 people said they heard about the riots through TV news, more than through social media. [1]  [1] Adegoke, Y., and Ball, J., “Twitter? Facebook? Rioters saw it on TV”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.


Free speech is not useful in this context, as riot is never legitimate in a free society  Riots should not be tolerated in a free society as there are already legal and peaceful methods of dissenting such as through demonstrations, petitions, and contacting your representative in Parliament. It demonstrates a fundamental unwillingness to engage with not only the apparatus of the state, but society more generally. Rioters have no regard for the public, and the violence and damage they cause harms everyone. Riots tend to do little to actually challenge the state, but rather they tend to harm the most disadvantaged, those who happen to be in the vicinity of the mobs. The freedom of speech social media provides to its users is being fundamentally misused in the context of riots. [1] When speech is used to organize violence, it must be curtailed for the sake of society as individuals security and safety is more important that freedom of speech that is briefly curtailed. Violence damages long after the event whereas those who have their freedom of speech curtailed for a few hours can swiftly voice their opinions once the riot has ended and the block lifted.  [1] Thomson, A. and Hutton, R., “UK May Block Twitter, Blackberry Messaging Services in Future Riots”. Bloomberg. 11 August 2011.


Of course we do not want freedom of speech to be misused to incite and organise rioting and violence but that does not mean that it is always illegitimate. Riots may sometimes be the natural outgrowth of bad policy and a government that has been unwilling to listen to peaceful forms of protest. Disenfranchised groups may be forced in extremity to turn to these sorts of activities and the state should take heed when they occur instead of seeking to wield its power over the internet and mobile phones to crush dissent. This is what happened in the revolutions in the Arab world. When a riot does have a substantive cause then it is essential that social media is accessible as it is the way for the rioters to get their side of the story across.


Rioters will always find tools by which to organize. The internet is a remarkably fecund environment, one in which solutions to problems are quickly found. If the government were to block Twitter, enterprising demonstrators would quickly find an alternative. The violence will still escalate, and blocking out a website will fail to accomplish anything other than alienate Twitter users from the state and anger at its impositions.


Would stop riots from spreading  The police must try to stop riots from spreading and stop copycat rioting elsewhere. Knowledge of rioting happening elsewhere is often the Oxygen of riots; the riots in Manchester and elsewhere outside of London in 2011 were mostly as a result of media exposure. According to Greater Manchester Police chief Peter Fahy "A certain group of people saw what was happening in London and decided they seemed to be getting away with it. We knew what was absolutely critical was that there needed to be control of London. Because that was just creating more and more copycat violence up here." [1] Cutting off social media would have helped prevent the riots from spreading so ensuring that they remain small and a localised problem.  [1] Pilkington, D., “Rioting in London sparked 'copycat' behaviour”, The Independent, 14 November 2011.


Social networks serve as a powerful signalling device for the expansion of violent behaviour  By using Twitter to signal the start of riots it attracts people to join the mob. People in riots generally look to those around them in order to see what is considered acceptable behaviour. As boundaries are crossed, such as the change from indiscriminate vandalism to looting, and reported on Twitter, the same behaviour echoes elsewhere. The lens through which rioters determine acceptable behaviour is expanded, so the chance of behaviours like looting rippling across the various mob groups within a locale increases. One escalation of violence becomes multiple escalations. Twitter is thus a serious danger to society during periods of social unrest and rioting, because it acts as a catalyst for further mayhem. By blocking Twitter governments are able to manage flashpoints and prevent them from expanding violence to other locations. This makes riot situations both less likely to escalate, and easier to break up.


Private companies have no right to do business when that business is facilitating violence even if that facilitating is unintentional. Sometimes brief impositions are necessary to secure public order. In the course of a riot Twitter can be blocked temporarily to have a meaningful effect on its coordination, extent, and level of violence. This however need not cause problems with those uninvolved not receiving prior warnings as the police could do this before shutting down the network in the local area. And of course when the riot is over the service can return as normal. Ultimately the disruption is very brief, and not likely to ruffle too many feathers overmuch.


Internet users rely on high visibility for their comments to be significant. When Twitter is shut down, or its replacement, the new sites that pop up must start again in building numbers. [1] Without sufficient numbers on the network they will be able to build up momentum for riots online. The result is a significant blunting of the network’s ability to develop or act in a riot scenario; a site is not useful for directing riots if most of those who would riot or are rioting are not on that network.  [1] Berger, J.M., “#unfollow”, Foreign policy, 20 February 2013.


Blocking social networks denies people the ability to mobilize on genuine social issues  The state may not be the best placed to gauge the legitimacy of riots. Oftentimes riots are the result of massive social pressures, like poverty or limited integration of immigrant communities. When these issues are not properly addressed, or outright ignored by the ruling elites, they boil over. Positive things can come from riots. They can put the issues on the table and bring them screaming into the public consciousness. This is the difference between the Arab Spring that was considered legitimate and the London riots that were not, apart from the initial peaceful protests the riots did not have an agenda to create change. [1] The government suppressing legitimate demonstrations, whether they do it with physical force or internet repression, ultimately serves only to push away the problem, to continue to ignore it. [2] Blocking social networks therefore only seeks to muzzle the expression of outrage that is sometimes entirely justified. The media attention and organizing power of social networks serves to get people engaged, motivated, and visible. The government should not seek to stop that. They should seek to prevent protest and demonstration from spilling into violence. Blocking access to social networks will not aid in that endeavour.  [1] Stylianou, A., “Cyber Regulation and the Riots”, Legal matters, Autumn 2011.   [2] Dugan, L. “Blocking Twitter During Riots a Bad Idea, Study Proves”. Media Bistro. 2011.


It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using  It is wrong to suggest that social networks only provide advantages to the rioters in a riot. Many of the networks that can be used are open to the public and even where they are not as with blackberry messenger the police and intelligence services can likely gain access. This means that the police can also benefit from rioters use of social networks. Allowing the rioters to communicate can help the police to track what the rioters are doing and potentially to intercept any plans before they can be put into action. The same logic is used with websites that promote extremist ideologies; it is often better to monitor them for the intelligence they provide. The police already monitor protest groups in this way during demonstrations and even use it to help police impromptu raves so will surely apply it to riots. [1] Yet the social media is useful in other ways, particularly after the rioting it can be used to work out who was involved and to provide evidence against them so making the police much more efficient at catching and charging rioters.  [1] Rawlinson, K., “Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes 'next big thing in law enforcement”, The Independent, 1 October 2012,


The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.


Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens  The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting.  [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.   [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.


Monitoring a riot does not prevent the damage, destruction, and potentially loss of human riot that the riot causes. Rather than taking a reactive passive approach the police have a duty to try and save lives by making use of every tool they have to limit the size and extent of the rioting.


Blocking social networks will not work  How are the police to block social networks when riots are ongoing? The idea that blocking an individual network like Twitter would stop online networking and reporting during riots is laughable and misunderstands the rapidity with which the internet community adapts to changed circumstances and attempts at censorship. Blocking Twitter might work once, but never again. This is why there have been suggestions that the police would go further and either cut off the internet or phone networks as they would effectively need to impose a communications blackout in order for it to be successful, much as the Chinese does in Tibet when there is unrest. [1] Even then the action may not work, rioters will likely simply post pictures and encouragement for the next night’s rioting once the internet and mobile connections are restored as governments would have to do if they did not want to affect the law abiding majority during the day.  [1] Branigan, T., “China cut off internet in area of Tibetan unrest”, The Guardian, 3 February 2012.


The state curtails all kinds of speech when it is genuinely in the public interest. Blocking Twitter and other social networks during times of riot is a very particular case of intervention, one with specific manifest benefits for society. The internet is indeed a fantastic tool for social organization and dissent, but it cannot be abused at the expense of the public.


Even if their message is worth being spread, rioting and violence is not the way to do it. Using the tactic of riot to further an aim only serves to alienate the public which is brutalized by the violence in the streets. In effect when a protest turns into a riot it delegitimises itself and tarnishes its message. Blocking social networks will not occur when those protests are seeking to spread their message relatively peacefully but will only happen when they have already turned to violence when it becomes a useful tool in the arsenal of the state to forestall the worst violence by denying its ability to be spread rapidly through the internet.


e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom

As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited  Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism.  As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4]  [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012  [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009.  [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012  [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006


Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship  Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2]  This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5]  [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005  [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010  [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012  [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights  [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003


With the government as final decision-maker, at least the citizens and consumers have some say  Regulatory capture does sometimes happen and when it does, it’s bad. But the risk of regulatory capture isn’t a sufficient argument to keep the government away from regulating the internet, because governments can also protect citizens and consumers from big companies.  An example is the net neutrality debate. Content providers could have started paying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to have their websites load faster than any other website (paid prioritization). Entertainment companies that also provide internet are currently being investigated for not allowing their competitors in the entertainment segment access to their network as internet provider. [1] This threatens the freedom of choice of the consumer, which is why governments have stepped in to ensure that companies aren’t allowed favour some websites. [2] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet, it couldn’t have stood up for consumers’ and citizens’ rights like this.  [1] DOJ Realizes That Comcast & Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu & Netflix, 2012  [2] Voskamp, ‘GOP Attempt to Overturn FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Fails in Senate’, 2011


Regulating the Internet is a means for governments to spy on their citizens  Governments around the world are tracking their citizens’ activities online. [1] They can use all sorts of techniques, like automated data-mining (i.e. via trawling your Facebook and Twitter accounts) and deep packet inspection of each electronic message sent (i.e. intercepting and reading your email). All these methods are violations of important principles.  The automated data-mining violates the principle that people shouldn’t be investigated by their governments unless there is warrant for it (so there is reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in a crime). Also, data mining creates many false positives, leading to citizens being thoroughly investigated without probable cause. [2] Deep packet inspection violates people’s fundamental right to secrecy of correspondence, which is a violation of privacy.  The problem with these government policies is that they’re hard to control – even in democracies: much of the spying is done by intelligence agencies, which are often able to evade democratic control on account of the need for secrecy rather than transparency. [3]  [1] Reporters Without Borders, Enemies of the internet, 2012 and Kingsley, Britain won’t be the only country snooping on people’s internet use, 2012  [2] US Researchers Decide Spying On Citizens Is Bad, 2008  [3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘NSA Spying’.


‘Spying on the internet’ is nothing different from a normal police investigation  Obviously, governments also use the internet and social media to investigate suspects. But when they’re doing this, they’re only using information that’s publicly available online. The technical term for this is ‘OSINT’, which stands for ‘Open Source Intelligence’, which means that it’s the kind of information that anyone with access to Google and a lot of spare time could have found. [1]  When police investigations turn up more severe suspicions, then more extreme methods can be used to obtain evidence if needed, sometimes even actively asking hackers for help. [2]  But methods like these are not necessarily bad: their disadvantages in use have to be weighed against their significant benefits. And governments are doing this, as is for example shown in Canada’s ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’: governments try to extend the principles of due process and probable cause to the internet, but at the same time they need to be able to defend their citizens from harm. [3]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Open source intelligence’, 2012.  [2] ‘NSA chief seeks help from hackers’, 2012  [3] ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’, 2012


Internet regulation is an attempt by big interest groups to regulate the internet in their favour  Large companies have an active interest in shaping the structure of the internet. One example of this is the Stop Online Piracy-Act (SOPA), [1] wherein U.S.-based music and movie companies proposed that they themselves would be able to police copyright infringements against websites that are hosted outside of the United States. [2]  The phenomenon whereby companies succeed in shaping government policies according to their own wishes is called ‘regulatory capture’. Another example from the telecommunications industry is the lobby effort by several large corporations, who have succeeded in eroding consumer protection in their favour. [3] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet in the first place, big companies wouldn’t have had any incentive to attempt regulatory capture.  [1] 112th Congress, ‘H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act’  [2] Post, ‘SOPA and the Future of Internet Governance’, 2012  [3] Kushnick, ‘ALEC, Tech and the Telecom Wars: Killing America's Telecom Utilities’, 2012