During the discussion of cyberbullying we discussed certain cases in which younger children were led to committing suicide through the use of cyberbullying. The main point that I noticed in discussing the regulation of cyberbullying and the protection of individual rights is that it is nearly impossible to come to a solution in which cyberbullying is regulated properly without violating someone's right to free speech. For example, we discussed the story of Megan Meier, a young girl who committed suicide following a negative online interaction with a boy she had been talking to. Following the loss of their daughter, Megan's parents attempted to create the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. This act proposed that it would be a federal crime to send any communications online with intent to cause "substantial emotional distress." This act was introduced in 2009 and has still yet to be passed. I think that laws such as this, trying to regulate people's online behaviors are very difficult to define. For example, with Megan Meier's law it is hard to specify what qualifies as "substantial emotional distress." I think part of what makes cyberbullying so dangerous is that there are different levels of extremity in cyberbullying that can effect people in ways that are not necessarily accounted for. Someone could easily excuse their cyberbullying as an expression of their opinion or thoughts. The most common counterargument to regulation of cyberbullying is that these limitations in our online speech violate our first amendment rights to free speech. People feel that by having their speech regulated online (even if it is with the intention of preventing harm) that they are experiencing a violation of their first amendment rights. I think this is what makes it so difficult to regulate and prevent online cyberbullying.
In lab we recently watched a video called "Click, Print, Gun." The video was about new 3D printing technology which allows people to print parts of guns in order to construct their own guns at home. As you could probably guess, there are a wide variety of different opinions on this new technology. Many people believe that it is only perpetuating the issue that we already have with gun control in our country and that by making guns so readily available we are asking for more tragedy such as school shootings. While this is a valid argument, there are also people that think they should have the right under the second amendment to have access to these gun printing technologies for their own reasons, whether that be safety, protection, or recreational use. After our lab discussion regarding this video and the technology behind it I was left wondering how they regulate who is allowed to print these 3D guns. To me, it seemed that if you had the means to purchase a 3D printer, then you were more than able to own a gun. I found this to be confusing because in our country you are supposed to be licensed to own a gun. I was wondering what legislation would be passed regarding 3D printing that could help identify who was using this printing technology for gun purposes, without being in possession of a proper license. I am confused as to who is going around and checking that every person who has printed a 3D gun, is legally allowed to own that gun. I feel that there is a huge place for error in this 3D gun printing business because as 3D printing technology becomes more common, it will grow increasingly easier to print guns while bypassing the necessary gun licensing regulations.
I was doing some research to attempt to find possible legislations that have been passed in regard to new 3D gun printing technology. I found an article in which they discuss how they are attempting to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act for another 10 years in order to continue the ban on any firearms that are not detectable by metal detectors or X-ray machines. This applies to the printed guns because they are printed using a type of plastic that would go undetected in these type of machines. This would require that some type of a metal strip is applied to each of the 3D printed guns in order to avoid violating this legislation. Also in this article they discuss how completely banning this new technology is most likely not an option and further regulations are in the works. While looking up the legislation for 3D gun printing I also came across an article discussing how someone has developed a round specifically designed for 3D printed guns. The difference with these rounds is that they use a thicker steel shell with the bullet inserted deep enough that the shell can keep the explosion contained. This makes it easier for the 3D plastic guns, to be used as deadly weapons. Prior to this type of round it was difficult to for the guns being printed to contain an explosive blast because of their cheap, plastic material.
I think that there is way too much uncertainty that goes along with the business of printing guns. Personally, I believe that opening up technology to this extent will only allow for further negative outcomes. People that have the desire to hurt others or create substantial distress will seemingly have no issues in getting their hands on the technology needed to print their own deadly weapon. I think there is too much that cannot be regulated when it comes to printing guns, such as who has access to 3D printers, who has access to the specific gun codes, and so on. I hope that if this technology becomes increasingly more common in people's daily lives, that they will use this with great caution.
Articles:
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/despite-plastic-gun-ban-3-d-printed-firearms-still-have-f2D11718212
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/
No comments:
Post a Comment