Be my baby?

One of the great things about the internet (besides the mind-numbing array of pixelated pornography) is the way it has advanced the democratisation of media. Now, everybody is able to have their say on pretty much anything.

We've seen the exponential growth of the blogging community (great news for me, not so much for Rihanna), the rapid expansion of Facebook and even a resurgence of interest in political debate. All good things, I'm sure you'll agree.

However, that pesky little 'like' button has also inspired the rise of digital voting on issues which don't require mass public engagement. One such example is currently causing a political firestorm in the US, as a married couple of IT technicians are asking the world's web-users whether 30 year-old Alisha Arnold should abort her 17 week-old foetus.

It's hard not to be disgusted by the laissez-faire way in which this life-altering decision has been turned over to the whim of thousands of anonymous mouse clicks. Irrespective of whether or not you condone terminating pregnancies, it's a pretty distasteful use of interactive technology. Making this an even more grim spectacle is the fact that the couple are regularly posting scans of the foetus (provisionally named 'Wiggles' - how cute) to facilitate the decision-making process.

Predictably, the anti-abortion voices have been quick to lend their yells of distaste to the growing cacophony, with Mary Spaulding Balch of organisation National Right to Life commenting "This is shocking. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard of this was the Roman Colosseum when the mob picked who lived and who died."

Whatever the reasons for the Arnold's online poll, it's a shame that the debate they've inspired is so one-sided. What's missing from the discussion is a clear voice condemning the couple for their thoughtless and offensive act. You don't have to be a pro-lifer to argue against what they're doing, nor would it make you a hypocrite if you did.

At its heart, the concept of abortion is about a woman's right to choose. What's best for her body, her life and her family. Furthermore, even the staunchest advocates of abortion stress that it's not a decision to be taken lightly, since it can have psychological repercussions that last a lifetime.

Throwing it open to the public for a mass vote (like asking the Ready Steady Cook audience to choose red tomatoes or green peppers) invalidates the woman's right to decide, and therefore the fundamental logic of the pro-choice movement.

Then again, I have a sneaking suspicion that all is not what it seems with this tawdry and unpleasant story. Alisha claims: "Voting is such an integral part of the American identity. We vote on everything from the best singer on American Idol to who the next leader of the free world will be. Wouldn't it be nice to voice your opinion and have it actually make a difference in the real world? Why not vote on whether to continue or abort an actual pregnancy?"

There's something offensively glib about that rhetorical question, that implies the press are being lazily complicit in running the story without digging a little deeper. The Mail's coverage, for instance, suggests that "some are questioning whether the site has been set up deliberately to upset anti-abortionists." Of course, the couple themselves deny this, with Alisha an avowed fan of borderline psychotic right-wing agitator Glenn Beck, and her husband a George W Bush supporter.

But there's more to those details than a simple defence against the accusations that they're out to upset the pro-lifers. Quite the opposite in fact. Far more likely is that this is actually a well-planned, and deeply underhanded way of attacking the pro-choice movement, by debasing the decision an expectant mother faces through those throwaway associations with TV audience votes.

And what better way to throw the media off the scent, than by setting up the pro-life lobby (of which this couple are no doubt a part) as the real victims of this cruel and heartless stunt? With votes currently standing at 53.73 percent in favour of the termination, it'll be interesting to see whether the Arnold's honour the public's decision. Given their right-wing heritage, I'm willing to put money on the fact that they won't.

Should you be looking at that?

The internet is a vast Aladdin's cave, full of information, wonderment and film clips of young women doing unspeakable things with kitchen appliances. With IT departments and firewalls monitoring our every mouse click, browsing the web at work has become a little like Russian roulette - you take your life in your hands with each new page you open.

It doesn't help matters if you happen to be doing your surfing when camera crews are in the office, as David Kiely found last week. He was hard at work (possibly in both senses) at the Maquarie Bank in Sydney when the Channel 7 News team turned up to interview one of his colleagues. Unfortunately for David, his internetular activities could clearly be seen over the shoulder of the man being interviewed, and David wasn't looking at investment portfolios.

Instead, the cheeky banker was ogling pictures of Victoria's Secret supermodel Miranda Kerr in various states of undress. Partway through the interview David must have experienced that strange feeling of being watched, not realising that there was actually a whole TV audience at home peering over his shoulder.

He finally turned around and glanced guiltily at the camera, acknowledging the epic nature of his fail. According to reports, he was then escorted out of the office by security staff - hopefully they at least allowed him a 'cooling off' period before making him stand up.

Hours later he was the newest YouTube sensation, scoring 1.3 million hits and, rather helpfully, doubling the number of Google searches for Miranda herself. When it appeared as though David might actually lose his job over the debacle, Kerr spoke out to say "I am told there is a petition to save his job, and of course I would sign it."

Here in the UK, other web users have also found themselves viewing the wrong sort of material, through no fault of their own. The Department for Children, Schools and Families recently launched a children's website to introduce young people to government policies and services.


'Buster's World' features a friendly cartoon dog wearing a Sheriff's badge, who guides visitors around the site. Unfortunately for DCSF, the domain name 'Buster's World' already existed, but the site it represents features decidedly different content. The host of that site is quite happy showing off his 'sheriff's badge' too, but his is most definitely NSFW.


'Buster' (as he's known to his friends) is a hairy, middle-aged 'balloon enthusiast' - but not in the way that children might get excited by brightly coloured inflatables. To put it mildly, Buster's World is a strange place to visit: "I like to blow balloons up until they are full and tight and hard and about to burst. At the point a balloon gets so big that it is overinflated and pear shaped, my heart begins to race, and I find the fear of the balloon exploding an exhillerating rush. Being a bit of an exhibitionist, I find it a turn on to show just how big I can blow a balloon myself..."

Still, it's all good, clean, consensual stuff, and there are some very pretty colours on display. But I imagine parents who accidentally clicked on the wrong link might have been dismayed to find a beefy gay man lying spread-eagled across a giant spacehopper.

Unsurprisingly, DCSF were quick to take down the link and issued a prompt apology, "The naming of this webpage was clearly a mistake and we regret that the supplier’s usual thorough checking procedures when creating web content seem to have failed. When this was brought to our attention we urgently took the site down, pending a rename, to avoid any further issues."

To paraphrase a certain bench-dwelling buffoon, the internet's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. And you might want to think twice before you put anything in your mouth.