Political Science on the Internet

Lecture Notes 

• virtual community
• politics of cyberspace 

Community suggest the following:  1) psychological attachment, 2) sense of belonging, 3) shared feeling on the part of a group, 4) sense that "these are my people".  It is demonstrated by 1) shared experiences, 
2) thinking alike, 3) shared interest in something, 4) participating in activities together.  It has also always meant direct human interaction, face-to-face contact and sharing among people who know and trust each other. 

Can community exist in cyberspace?  Rheingold thinks it can.  He defines virtual community as any group of people who may never meet one another face to face, but who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks.  In cyberspace, people can chat and argue, engage in intellectual exchanges, participate in buying and selling, distribute information, give emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends, play games, and engage in idle talk.  In short, engage in the same things they do in traditional social communities. 

Most people are not as optimistic as Rheingold.  The feeling is that the remoteness and impersonal nature of technology cannot be overcome.  Putting words on a computer screen cannot replace face-to-face contact, body language, and verbal expression.  It merely creates a delusion of  community, resulting in more isolation and creating a society were people don't learn how to participate in civil discourse. 
Is the idea of virtual  community an illusion or a reality?  That is what we have to consider. 

Some thoughts on Virtual Community: 

 In some ways virtual community is hard for us to grasp because we live in a world without community. Few of us experience social community in the face-to-face world. For the most part neighbors are strangers. The over-the-fence conversations, gatherings at the church, bar or town square don't exist any more. So, finding community in cyberspace is hard to imagine. And, I would add it is more than people with a common interest getting together. It is a psychological attachment, a feeling of belonging, a sense of identity that develops over time as people relate to each other. 

 Virtual community is not only possible it already exist. We have examples you gave from your own lives and that of your children. The Internet is a vehicle with the potential for all kinds of communities based
on common interests without regard for geographical boundaries. 

Politics on the Internet 

   Politics and the Internet are a new combination. The Internet doesn't work like TV or
   other mass media because the Internet is more exclusive. The people candidates reach
   on the Internet are more intelligent, issue orientated, and politically interested than the
   average voter. These are the voters least likely to be influenced by the candidates'
   messages. In most campaigns the focus is on the undecided voters who make up their
   minds toward the end of the campaign. They are not sure who to vote for; confused
   about the voting decision and the issues. These are people who are not very much
   interested or informed. They can be reached with TV ads. 

   If the Internet is composed mostly of those who make up their own mind, what good is
   offering the candidates' messages on the Internet? Answer: Activate the voters
   committed to the candidate. Make sure they vote. More importantly, candidates want a
   presence on the internet to show they are technologically savvy, keeping up with the
   times. They need to get the image out to the voters that they are forward thinking and
   ahead of most of the rest. The best example I can think of this was Bob Dole mentioning
   his web page during the debate with President Clinton. He said if you really want to
   learn anything about the candidates go to my web page. Then, he stumbled over the URL
   address letting people know just how familiar with it he actually was.
Politics of Cyberspace 
1. The Internet is changing the face of  American politics.  Political actors use the Internet to influence politics off-line.  Candidates, public officials, political parties, interest groups, and individual citizens use the Internet as a tool for promoting their political goals.  They use the Internet to distribute 
information, communicate about politics, campaign, 
lobby, organize, and advocate policy positions. 
2. There are a number of political issues raised by the use of the Internet.  There are legal, ethical and cultural problems resulting from the growth of the Internet.   Among the problems are these:  libel, copyright, privacy, the right of every citizen to participate in cyberpolitics, free speech, pornography, and censorship.  While there isn't time to study all of these we will look at major aspects of some of these issues in this class. 

David Resnick in "Politics of Cyberspace" identifies the impact of the Internet on politics as falling into three categories: 
He says that politics in contemporary cyberspace constitutes three distinct types: 1) politics within the Net, concerning the internal operation of the Net and involving those online 2) politics which impacts the
Net, dealing with the policies and regulation of governments affecting cyberspace and 3) political uses of the Net, concerning how cyberspace is 
used to affect political life off line. Virtual reality has come to resemble the real world; ordinary everyday politics has captured cyberspace. 

In this class are focus is primarily on the 2nd and 3rd topics raised by Resnick.  In addition, we will examine the broader picture of how the Internet impacts democracy. The Internet offers the potential for improving democracy in a number of ways.  It can increase citizen levels of information, reduce the cost of acquiring information and provide an opportunity to engage in direct democracy through electronic technology.  At the same time the Internet has the potential to impact the political system negatively.  It offers an opportunity to distribute false information, help to organize lunatic fringe groups, invade privacy and restrict political participation to a technological elite. We will examine both sides of this debate. 

More politics of cyberspace
In some ways the political institutions are ahead of most Internet users.  Most governments and government agencies have had some presence on the Net for several year.  Especially at the national level, the government has been a part of the Net since its inception.  The National government is a promoter of the Internet.  Particularly President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been talking about it as the future and pressuring national agencies and departments to go on line, have web pages and provide consumers with information.  Since many government documents have only been accessible in libraries this has proven to be a great vehicle for mass consumption of government information.  Look at the government resources on the Reference Shelf page.  For example, the Official Federal Government Web Sites.  It is impressive to see how much government information is available to us.  And, it is easily accessible.  Before the Internet none of this was remotely possible. 

Another major presence of politics and the Internet is political candidates using the Web to campaign.  It is evident that candidates running for office, at least in the high visibility offices--president, senator, governor, and mayor of a large city are using web pages to reach potential voters.  Most of what they offer on these web pages is traditional campaign rhetoric with some interactive potential.  A person can contact the campaign, volunteer, or give money. 

A third use of the Internet and politics is its use by interest groups.  Almost every group has a web page.  They use the Web to communicate with each other and their members, recruit new members and contact public officials. 

We will be looking at all of these uses of the Net in some detail. 

Week 2
Campaigning on the Internet 
Campaigning on the Internet is a lot like a direct mail campaign. It offers the candidate an opportunity to interact with the voters. In some ways it is better than direct mail because it is much faster, more versatile, and cheaper.  It is characterized by: 

• personalized messages
• interaction between the campaign and the voter
• use of email communications

1. Provide detailed information about issues and personalities.  Enable citizens to become informed better than any previous media.
2. Encourage interaction by asking the citizens to become campaign volunteers, give money and let the candidates know what citizens think about the candidates and the issues.
3. Enable citizens to download buttons and posters and other forms of campaign material.
4. Create a new vehicle for citizen participation.
5. Open access to candidates by average citizens.
6. Provide a new way to measure public opinion.

Much has changed in the last ten years. Now that we have completed three presidential campaigns on the Internet, 1996 and 2000 we are able to judge how useful the Internet can be to candidates.  An examination of these two elections reveals that candidates made varied use of the Internet.  Campaign Websites typically were used to the following ends: 

• encourage voters to become a volunteer
• try to get people to send the candidate money 
• get voter feedback by providing a means to tell us what people think about the candidates and issues
• a way to acquire campaign material in the form of printed materials and by emailing the staff to ask specific questions

1. Show the candidate is keeping up with technology.  He or she is computer savvy.
2. Have an Internet presence so as not to be left out.
3. A way to seek the support of the high-tech voters
4. Build a mailing list from emails they receive

How can the Websites be improved.  That is, what can we expect in the future. 

1. an integration of the Net campaign with the rest of the campaign strategy.
2. provide search feature for issue positions were a long list of speeches and position papers can be found
3. ways for people to get involved in politics, such as signing petitions , joining groups, participating in bulletin boards and chat rooms.
4. links to other sites of importance--issue groups, public interest groups, even the opposition.
5. multi media presentations
6. frequent updating

Like candidates interest groups are learning how to make good use of the Net.  The most obvious use is to spread their message.  It is a way to advertise and explain the issue positions of the group.  It is also a way to communicate with members, attract new members, and raise money.

A Duke University study examined interest groups use of the Internet and drew the following conclusions:

In terms of what interest groups are doing online, it was found that most activity was related to facilitating member-to-group and group-to-member communication. Less emphasis was placed on facilitating member-to-member or member-to-government communication. The latter finding is particularly interesting because the Internet is often touted as being able to revolutionize direct contact between individuals and government; nevertheless, interest groups, for the most part, are not taking advantage of this new capability. Rather, the function of interest group web sites is primarily to efficiently disseminate and collect information relevant to the group. In this respect it seems, all interest groups have acknowledged the Internet's potential to significantly improve their operations. 

My own experience offers some information that contradicts this last statement in the study.  I am an active member of an animal rights organization, SPEAK and we regularly use listservs to generate member-to-government communications.  Other organizations who have become skilled in the use of listservs are also doing the same thing.  I would estimate that I receive about three request a week to contact the government on some animal issue.

Congress and the Net 
Members of Congress seem to be using the Net much like the average citizens.  It is true that they all have web pages and email addresses but that's part of the "look of things" in Washington.  Members of Congress have to show that they are keeping up with technology.  How active they are with computers on a day-to-day basis is questionable. 

Email campaigns directed at them haven't had much of an effect.  There was a campaign on both sides of the Clinton Impeachment issue that didn't effect the outcome.  If these campaigns were in the form of regular mail instead of email it would have been different. 

Maybe, it's just that this is a new media and it will take time for members of Congress to become more computer active. 

Hate Groups 
Hate groups are all over the Net.  I listed a website that makes a long list of sites http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm. There is even a course at Lewis in the Sociology department that teaches about these sites.  I gave you a Klan site to look at.  I hope it isn't too offensive to anyone.  I can't look at this stuff very often.  It is too depressing. 

In some ways hate is like porn on the Internet.  It seems to be there in overwhelming numbers.  But it doesn't take much to have a web site.  One person can be behind a site that looks like an organization. 

There are four types of hate groups on the Net:  1) White Supremacists, 2) Neo-Nazis, 3) the Klan, and 4) Christian Identity.
They are very similar in nature and agree with most of what each other is saying.  The common themes are a hatred for Jews and most religions except of far right Christian Identity, people of color, ethinic groups, and immigrants.

There are several reasons why there is a growing presence of hate groups on the Net: 

1. Cost--this is a cheap form of mass media.
2. People can be anonymous.
3. Political alienation, isolation, and scapgoating are common in the culture.  All these breed  hate.
4. This is a period of rapid change.
5. Society is without roots, values and myths.
6. This is a society where many are lost and left behind even though this is a time of prosperity.
7. Some things, like prejudice, never seem to change much.

Libel 

 Libel can be defined as any written or published statement tending to expose a person to public ridicule or contempt or to injure his or her reputation in any way.  In other words, defaming a person's character in print.

Anytime someone writes and publishes a false statement about a person that does damage to that person it is potentially libelous.  However, the Supreme Court has to balance the right of the individual with the right of freedom of the press.  In New York Times vs. Sullivan the court established a strict standard for libel of a public person.  There are three conditions that must be met before libel can actually be proven in a court of law.  1) The statement must be false.  2) The writer must have known that the statement was false.  3) The writer goes ahead with the story because he or she has the intent of defaming the person in question.  It is necessary to prove that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.  That is, the author acted with malice.

This third point is the basis for deciding most libel cases brought against the media.  According to the law, it must be a malicious defamation expressed either in print or writing or by signs or pictures, with the intent to lie about the memory of one who is dead or the reputation of one who is alive and to expose him or her to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. 

Malicious defamation can be defined as an intention to do an injury.  The important thing to remember is that it is not enough to merely print something that isn’t true.  The author has to know it isn’t true and does it for the expressed purpose of doing damage to the reputation or memory of the particular person in question.
 

It is much easier to prove libel if the case involves a private person.  The plaintiff usually needs to show that the defendant was "at fault" in publishing the false defamatory statement.

If the plaintiff is a public figure or public official, he or she will have to meet a much higher burden of proof on the fault issue -- that is, the public figure will have to show that the writer acted with reckless disregard for the truth.  He or she knew it was false and wrote or printed it anyway. 

This higher burden of proof of fault imposed on public figures and public officials is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court under the First Amendment because public figures are often a part of public discussion concerning public issues and are part of the definition of freedom of speech and the press. 

The argument for a higher standard for a public person is a result of the concern to protect the freedom of the press.  The media is responsible for providing information that enables citizens to make informed choices in a democracy.  If public officials are able to sue every time the media makes a mistake then there will be a chilling effect on journalist attempts to do investigative reports or write about corruption in office.

It is also recognized that public figures will have access to the media and will have an opportunity to set the record straight.

In the 1980s there were several famous cases involving libel of public figures.  General William Westmoreland sued CBS News for a documentary that stated that during the Vietnam War, when he was military commander, he lied to President Johnson about the body counts in an effort to show that the US was winning the war.  Westmoreland’s lawyers were able to show that there was bias, unfairness, and information left out of the report but the Supreme Court said it did not constitute malice.

In another case, General Ariel Sharon of Israel sued Time Magazine for a story that claimed he was responsible for the massacre of Arabs in Lebanon.  The Court found that the story was false but Sharon was unable to prove “reckless disregard” for the truth, so he lost.

The only exception to the unsuccessful pattern of public figures trying to sue the press was Carol Burnett who sued The National Enquirer for a story that said she was drunk and caused a scene in a restaurant.   There was also a local case in Chicago of Walter Jacobson who was sued by a cigarette company for reporting in a commentary that cigarette ads were aimed at children.  I don’t know if that case was appealed, so I am not sure it should count.  Most of the other cases mentioned above were won by the plaintiff and reversed by the Supreme Court.
 

Copyright
Information of the Internet is easy to steal.  All it takes is a click or two and you can steal images, text, Web designs, music, or just about anything.  This makes it difficult to protect copyrighted materials.  In addition, it is almost impossible to police the Internet for violation of copyright laws.  There are millions of Web sites and millions of people viewing them.  So, there doesn’t appear to be any way to stop people from taking what they want, copyright law notwithstanding. 

Some people may not know that copyright law exists on the Net.  Others may not care.  Maybe, people figure they won’t get caught.  I know when I was asked, if I was worried about my web pages being stolen, my response was, “Who would want to steal class material?  All I could think of was other teachers.  And, as far as I am concerned, they are welcome to it.”

The example we have in the reading is stealing the logo from USA Today.  A right wing Christian group copied the newspaper’s logo and changed the words.  I am not sure how they got caught.  But stealing something that obvious from someone as big as USA Today seems to me to be even too much for the Internet.

Getting sued over stolen material is likely to be based on the following:
1. Who you steal from.  The more high profile they are the more likely they are to be interested in going after the thief. 
2. Taking  something famous, such as, a logo or other symbol associated with a company
3. A theft that involves loss of money.  If a person regards the theft as resulting in a loss of money then they are likely to prosecute the case.
4. If the thief results in damage to one’s reputation or potential impact on a person’s career.
5. Theft of intellectual property considered unique or the result of long hours of work.
6. A situation where someone is trying to establish a legal principle.

At the present time violation of copyright is ramped on the Internet and little is being done about stopping it.  To keep it in perspective, remember that copyright violations go on everyday in the print world.  It is just that the Internet is getting the attention right now.

For what it is worth, a person can copyright the material they put on the Web. The Library of Congress has a Webster with all the available forms and it doesn’t cost much. 
 

Taxing the Internet

There is a lot of talk about taxing the Internet.  There are three levels of government, national, state, and local all anxious to get their hands on a potential source of new revenue. 

There are two types of taxes being considered.  1) tax on Internet use and 2) tax on Internet commerce. 

Taxes on Internet use would include possible taxes on: service providers, web pages, and email.  Taxes on commerce would be a tax on sales and services.  For example, whenever a book is sold on the Internet the person buying the book would pay a sales tax.

So far, there has not been any taxes imposed on the Internet.  The national government has discouraged taxing the Net because it is seen as a potential force for positive change in America, and the government is trying to encourage its growth.

Many Internet taxes have been proposed.  It probably is just a matter of time before there are both user fees, or taxes on people who pay for the Internet in their home, and sales taxes on the business transactions on the Net.

Another factor in the tax debate is the interest groups that lobby Congress to prevent Internet taxes.  There is quite an impressive Internet lobby that comes together whenever tax bills are proposed.

Government, especially the national government has an elaborate agenda of issues it would seem it wants to regulate on the Net.  It isn’t just taxes.  Concern is raised about pornography, hate groups, terrorism, even chat rooms are topics of Congressional threats to regulate.  The Internet lobby is opposed to any government regulation and mobilizes whenever they see a threat. So far the lobby has won the day.
Week 4 
Privacy

The problem is this: The use of computers has created a system that can store vast amounts of data on individual citizens and transmit that information almost anywhere in the world in a short period of time.  The fact is that information is being collected on all of us.  And, there are many people in business and government who would like to get there hands on that information.  These include: employers, insurance agencies, law enforcement officers, retailers. 

The fear is that in the future this information will be organized into vast databases that will be maintained by the government, credit report agencies, the health care industry, schools, and employers. The system will contain information on virtually every aspect of our lives.  This data will be quickly and efficiently transferred to anyone who wants to know about us. 

At the present time the information being accumulated about us includes examples such as the following: 
1. When a person fills out a job application it is assumed that the employer will do a background check.  Through various means, potential employers have access to: 

                              - Driving records 
                              - Vehicle registration 
                              - Credit records 
                              - Criminal records 
                              - Social Security number 
                              - Education records 
                              - Court records 
                              - Workers' compensation 
                              - Bankruptcy 
                              - Character references 
                              - Neighbor interviews 
                              - Medical records 
                              - Property ownership- 
                              -Employment verification 
                              -Military service records 
                              -State licensing records 

2. When a person applies for a credit card he or she begins the process of developing a credit history which becomes the basis of a credit report.  A credit report contains your name and any name variations, your address, Social Security number and employment information. Your legal record may also be included in your credit report, including marriage, divorce, liens, bankruptcy and other matters of public record. 

When a standard credit report is not thorough enough, an investigative consumer report can be requested. Among those using these reports are insurance companies, employers and landlords. Investigative reports can contain information on your character, reputation, personal characteristics and life style. This information may be gathered through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, associates or acquaintances, as well as a search of public documents such as property and court records. 

3. The largest amount of recorded personal information is in the form of government records. From birth to death the government keeps track of all the major events in our lives. Records are kept for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, property ownership, criminal activities, tax information, voter registration, and much more. Some of this information is confidential but most of it is stored in the form of public records. There are few, if any, restrictions on the release of this information. To demonstrate the scope of this personal information look at what a typical Department of Motor Vehicles records about each individual. Their records contain: 

•  your name 
•  birth datehome and mailing addresses 
•  physical description
•  license number
•  Social Security number (for more see Social Security Numbers) 
• failures to appear in court
• failures to pay traffic fines 
• license status (valid, revoked, suspended, expired) 
• major traffic convictions for the past seven years
• minor traffic convictions for the past three years 
• the name of the person who owns the vehicle
• residential and mailing addresses of the registered owner  vehicle year, make and body style
• year the vehicle was bought by the current owner and previous owners' names and addresses going back three years
•  license plate number; vehicle identification number 
•  name of the lienholder if the loan for the vehicle has not yet been paid in full

The Internet makes the issue of privacy more problematical.  Visiting websites, buying merchandise, and sending email present an opportunity to invade our privacy.  Technology exists to help government and private sector companies learn about us. For example, we all have cookies in our computers.  These devices keep track of what sites on the Internet we frequent and how often we go there.  Once we give our names to a company or any website we offer them the opportunity to track our moves on their site.  For example, an advertising agency, uses cookies to track how many times an individual Internet user has seen a particular banner add. The cookie assigns each user a random identity and tells Double-click something like “User number 123456 has seen the banner for tennis shoes 4 times, it's time to show him a different ad.”  This example isn’t sinister and is what businesses tell us they want the cookies for.  However, it is not hard to imagine that other uses could be made of cookies by those who want to invade our privacy. 

Here are some of the sources that can be used to invade individual privacy on the Internet: 
            1.Employee monitoring software. 
            2.Cookies. 
            3.Your Web browser. 
            4.Web site surveys/forms. 
            5.E-mail monitoring in the workplace. 
            6.Subscribing to Internet mailing lists. 
            7.Your Internet Provider. 

Censorship and Government Regulations
The government in Washington is constantly threatening to regulate the Internet.  It seems that every time a problem is raised in the media someone in Congress proposes legislation.  Here is a list of Congressional issues that are on the current agenda aimed at regulating the Internet: 

• Encryption 
• Internet Taxes 
• Copyright 
• Spam 
• Gambling 
• Indecent Material 
• Education 
• Digital Signatures 
• Privacy

INTERNET TAXES --Congress so far has prohibit state and local taxing authorities from imposing new taxes on Internet access or Internet sales while a special commission studies whether and how a uniform taxing system should be carried out. 

COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS—protecting  material from being stolen off the Net is an issue we covered last week. 

SPAM -- unsolicited commercial e-mail, often referred to as spam. Legislation has been proposed that would try to control the junk e-mail by requiring the senders to properly identify themselves. They also would require that all unsolicited commercial e-mail contain the actual name, postal address, email address and phone number of the sender. And they would obligate senders of bulk email to honor recipients' requests to be removed from mailing lists. 

GAMBLING --the Senate has passed a bill that would outlaw gambling on the Internet. The bill exempts horse racing, state lotteries and fantasy sports leagues, but the 
is controversial.

INDECENT MATERIAL—numerous bills have been proposed to block porn and stop the distribution of child pornography. (See the discussion below). 

SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES –government is proposing linking all public schools to the Internet and at the same time preventing porn from being a part of the process. 

DIGITAL SIGNATURES -- a national framework for authenticating people's identities when they shop or send documents on the Internet.  A proposal is in the works that would require agencies to put more government forms online and then set up systems to accept digital certificates, which verify the accuracy of a person's digital signature. 

PRIVACY --concerned about the ability of companies to amass huge databases of information collected from people online. Enough has been said about privacy above. 

Pornography

Porn is a growing problem on the Internet.  The free and open access to Internet websites makes it possible for anyone including children to access just about any form of pornography from the privacy of their computer.  The problem has come up in a number of settings including libraries, schools, and private homes where violation of the law have been involved. 

Pornography on the Internet is available in many different forms. These range from pictures and short animated movies, to sound files and live sex acts. The Internet also makes it possible to discuss sex and arrange sexual activities from computer 
screens. There are also sex  related discussions in chat rooms where users in small groups or in private chat rooms can exchange messages and files.

Child pornography is a major concern and fear of legislators and parents. 

Identifying a problem, like porn, is one thing but finding a solution is another.  The problem is that the Internet is a complex and multi-national environment where traditional concepts of regulation are not easily applied or enforced. 

Trying to regulate any behavior on the Internet raises additional important issues: 

Who decides what you see and what you don't? 
Can a filter really make the Internet experience "safe" for kids? 
Does it give you a false sense of security? 
Do you know or control what sites are "blocked"? 
Can any software adequately replace parental guidance or supervision? 

What can be done about porn on the Net?  Proposals have centered on the following: 

• Filters
• Parental Supervision
• Hot Line Numbers to Call
• Public education programs
• Crackdown on child porn
• Self regulation by online industry
• Labeling system like that used in the movies
• Harsher penalties for violators of existing laws

Terrorists are said to be expert at using the Internet.  Experts say that terrorists have made a practice of putting encrypted messages, including maps of targets, inside seemingly innocent Internet chat rooms, bulletin boards and other Web sites.  Terrorists make use of the major advantages of the Internet:  speed, security and global linkage.   

Terrorism on the Internet

According to some government accounts, the Internet and e-mail provide the perfect vehicles for terrorists groups to communicate with each other, to spread their message, to raise money and to launch attacks.

A recent report from U.S. officials indicates that terrorists' use of the Web for communication and coordination through the use of encrypted messages is widespread, with numerous sites -- many of which are unaware of the use to which they are being put -- serving as conduits for terrorist conspiracies.

Terrorists also use the Web to spread their propaganda.  They have websites that attempt to inform the public about their message and to help them recruit new members. 

Terrorist are said to make use of encrypted messages in electronic files hiding pictures and maps of targets in sports chat rooms, on pornographic bulletin boards and on Web sites.

Fighting terrorism is made especially difficult by the fact that the Web offers entry from any country and from virtually anywhere, and with so many points linked together, terrorist activity is often impossible to track.
Week 5 
Democracy and the Internet is a good topic to end our discussion of politics on the Internet because it involves some of the material we have seen already and puts that in a context for the larger political system.

The Internet impacts democracy positively in three ways:
1. It provides a new vehicle for conducting election campaigns.
2. It allows for an additional method for interest groups to engage in politics.
3. It enables individual citizens to engage in several forms of  political participation.

As we have seen candidates are on the Internet.  Especially at the highest level, presidential candidates are using the Internet as a campaign vehicle.  By using this method of campaigning the candidates are able to demonstrate to the public that they are keeping up with technology.  It also offers an opportunity to campaign for the votes of the people who use the Internet as a primary source of political information.  This is a small but important group of citizens. 

For the high visibility candidates, those running for president, governor, senator and mayor of a large city, the Internet is a common feature of the modern campaign. In one campaign, Ventura for Governor, the Internet was identified by many political observers as a significant factor contributing to the outcome of the governor’s race in Minnesota.  I think it is reasonable to expect that in the future more candidates at all levels will use the Internet to reach voters and its importance in election campaigns will increase as more voters use the Net to acquire political information.

We didn’t focus much attention on interest groups in this class, although some of you did papers on the topic.  Interest groups are actively involved on the Internet.  They are using it to publicize their issue positions, recruit volunteers, raise money and engage in grassroots tactics, that is, letter writing and petition efforts where large number of citizens flood the mail boxes of the political decision-makers.

The third category is the one I wanted to focus most attention on, that is, the impact of the Internet on individual political participation.  The Net offers an opportunity for average citizens to be more actively engaged in the political process.  Citizens can use the Net to learn about candidates and issues, join interest groups, contribute money to candidates and interest groups and participate in politics by contacting public officials, the media, and interest groups through the use of email.  They can also join discussion bulletin boards and chat about politics.  The interactive quality of the Internet makes it possible for citizens to become engaged in politics without leaving their home. 

The Net is the latest technology that is considered the means of getting people involved in politics.  When television was first introduced in the 50’s it was projected as having the same kind of influence.  The fact that people could see the candidates in a direct way on live television was thought to be a way to produce interest in politics that didn’t exist before television.  Now, that same type of argument is being made about the Net.  The interactive quality of the Internet is expected to make people become more interested and involved in politics.

Some observers have even gone so far as to suggest that the Net offers the potential to have direct democracy.  A system where people do not have representatives but do the business of a legislative body, that is, propose legislation, debate the bills, and vote on which ones should be law. An electronic “Town Hall Meetings” would replace the legislatures.  Electronic democracy would also mean voting for elected officials from computers.  Elections could be conducted over the Net. 

Of course, we are no where near that dream that some people have concerning the potential impact of the Internet.  What then is the reality?  So far, a significant number of people are using the Internet to acquire political information during election campaigns.  The mass media, television and newspapers, are no longer the only media that is important in election outcomes.  However, electronic participation is restricted, at least at the present time, it is limited to gathering information and communicating with individuals, interest groups and government officials.  We have not allowed people to register or vote on the Net. There have been some pilot programs but nothing on a large scale.

It may be that the future will have politics on the Internet.  Voting could be conducted that way.  However there are two major problems.  So far access to the Internet is basically restricted to an elite group.  Most of the poor and uneducated are not computer literate.  They are left out of this process.  Also the incumbent politicians are opposed to technologically expanding access to voting.  They were elected the old fashion way and fear that change will not return them to office.  So, people like me, wonder if the Internet will ever reach the potential some observers think it has? 
 

The Internet also negatively affects the political system.  Negative impact includes the following:
 

1. It offers an opportunity to distribute false information
2. It helps to organize lunatic fringe groups
3. It can invade privacy 
4. It may restrict political participation to a technological elite
5. It spreads hate and pornography

Here are some statistics to demonstrate the problem:

• Households earning $75,000+ are 20 times more likely to have home Net access than those at the lowest income levels
• Only 6.6% of people with an elementary school education or less use the Internet
• In rural areas, those with college degrees are 26 times more likely to have Net access than those with an elementary school education.
• People with college degrees or higher are 10 times more likely to have Internet access at work as persons with only some high school

Blogs

Blogs, blogging, and blogisphire are all terms now in common use to explain the recent phenomenon of blogging.  This activity online has recently become important politically.  It all started out as a way for individuals, mostly adolescent girls, to keep a public diary and a way to communicate with friends.  Eventually, it became a means for individual citizens to explain their positions on political issues that they felt were not being adequately covered in the mainstream media.  Blogs also offer an opportunity for readers to communicate and dialogue with the blogger.

The practice of blogging has become extremely popular extending to mainstream journalists, politicians, academicians and just about anyone interested in any subject and wants to talk about it.  In politics the blogisphire extends to all segments of the ideological spectrum, left, right, and center. 

The political significance of blogs is that they help generate opinions and information that can eventually make its way into the mainstream media and become available to the larger public that is not a part of the blogisphire.  This has happened several times in recent memory.  Let me give you two examples.  One is the Stephen Colbert appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner.  Colbert apparently went much further than is usually the case in his satire of the president.  Keep in mind that the president is at the dinner and Colbert was relentless in his attack.  It was the talk of the blogisphere for several days and eventually made it into the mainstream media.  The previous discussion in the blogisphire forced mainstream journalist to discuss their ‘too cozy’ relationship to the president when they are suppose to be playing the role of watchdog. None of this would have appeared in the mainstream media if it were not for the blogs.

The other incident that I will mention is the case of the use of white phosphorus in Iraq.  The BBC reported in November of 2005 that the U.S. military used a chemical weapon on the Iraqi insurgents in the fight for Fallujah in 2004.  Bodies were found burnt to a crisp, but the military continued to deny the allegation contending that white phosphorus was used only to light up the night sky.  The whole story was ignored by the mainstream media.  However, a blogger found that the military actually admitted to using the chemical weapon in a military publication, which apparently few journalists bother to read.  Once the blogger was able to present the proof, the mainstream media ran the story.

Blogging has its critics and defenders.  There are a number of pros and cons to the whole enterprise.  The pros include:

1. Blogs democratize the media, i.e., make it possible for ordinary people to have a voice in the debate on issues just like the early days of the Republic.
2. They provide a counter to the mainstream media, which is becoming more conservative every day.
3. They provide a way to mobilize a movement that has only a few people and little money
4. They are a way to promulgate the truth.

The cons include:

1. Just about anyone regardless of credentials or credibility can blog.  This can lead to the possibility of misinformation.
2. Rumors can have the same impact as facts, thus extending the destruction of reputations from the water cooler to the world.
3. Blogs can become just another tool of the mainstream media.  As more and more professional journalists and celebrities become bloggers there is the potential to turn blogging into just one more commercial enterprise of the mainstream.