Civil Liberties 2.0?

While listening to National Public Radio this morning, I heard a story about a group in Sweden that calls themselves the Pirate party. What caught my attention was that they used the term Civil Liberties 2.0. Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Pirate party used this term to refer to how he is concerned about the Swedish government interfering with internet communication. One recent law allows e-mail sent across the borders to be monitored. He, and his mainly youth-based party object to what they consider to be invasions of their privacy.

Privacy is a sacred thing to many of us. In the Web 2.0 age, when sharing is the norm, privacy is a matter of two considerations. First, each person chooses what to share. If, like the teacher who recently was fired for objectionable language on his blog, someone chooses to write in a public forum things that they do not intend for everyone to read, they will possibly face unfavorable circumstances.

Can anyone truly expect that there are never consequences? Today there was a nasty comment on one of my YouTube videos. It was an unnecessary use of vocabulary. Apparently this person was not looking for an educational video. I exercised my rights by deleting this person's vulgar words, because I want the video to be available for students. The commenter had the right to say it. I have the right to choose not to see it again, or to subject young viewers to it either.

I risk reading rude comments by posting videos, maintaining a webpage, and writing a blog that allows comments. I risk many types of feedback by putting myself into a public forum. I believe it is worth the risk, the possibility of negative reactions, because I am convinced there is also a greater potential for positive growth.

However, I also object strongly to any governmental law that allows my e-mails and private communications to be monitored. Sadly, there are those who do plan evil things through the internet, but it is difficult for me to agree that access to the common person's private messages would prevent that from happening. I've read 1984 by George Orwell and don't care to have Big Brother watching my every move, not to mention that they would probably be bored to death doing so!

Second, privacy and freedom of expression should not include theft. Perhaps I state that strongly. The Swedish Pirate party wants to be rid of patents, and change copyright laws. Patents give an inventor protection over the use of something s/he created. A copyright is a similar protection of a person's original work. Creative Commons copyrights are about sharing, but some ownership by the creator is maintained.

There must be some way for writers, musicians, movie and video makers, and other creative professionals to actually make money, employ people, and contribute to the economy. Should we all have the right to share whatever we want? Should our right to share interfere with a creative person's right to create and be paid? What if it means that the creative minds that brought the music, videos, or other media and technology to life for our enjoyment, are unable to continue doing so?

I applaud the boldness of the Pirate party. I agree that laws that allow the government to invade personal communications, like e-mail, are problematic. However, I disagree with the assertion that all songs and creative contributions are public property to be shared.

There is a new generation of youth that is working out the implications of living in a Web 2.0 world. Am I too old school? Or is this still a case of, shall I coin a new phrase or two, online ethics 2.0, or media integrity 2.0?