The Government’s report on cyberbullying, published at the end of last week, was a welcome bit of common sense.

Despite a fear that Oireachtas hearings on this important and poorly understood subject could lead to a knee-jerk vigilantism aimed at the context (the internet and mobile phones) rather than the actual problem (unacceptable human behaviour and poor awareness), the report generally takes an informed and balanced approach.

There will be quibbles about the details, but I was glad to see that those advocating tracking IP addresses and individual internet users (why, hello, Prism!), and
other dire suggestions for heavy handed surveillance and site-blocking, didn't
find a welcome for their proposals.

The Government could have been rash and panicky. Instead it opted for a progressive approach: better training for those working with children, awareness workshops for kids so they better understand the online environment and how to negotiate it and deal more confidently with unsavoury and cruel behaviour,
partnerships between industry, law enforcement, and education.

To target the internet, social media sites and mobile handsets is as ludicrous as taking heavy-handed surveillance and policing to the individual classroom - where, after all, routine real world bullying continues as a problem, too.

One of the more ludicrous sideshows in the online bullying debate surrounding the Oireachtas hearings and submissions and the consequent report, however, was the regularity with which politicians made the story all about them.

They too, were the victims of online bullying, these people stated. People out there were not nice to them - and could be downright rude and nasty - on various social media forums, blogs, Twitter and via direct emails.

Many were clearly still licking wounds after being bombarded by emails during the so-called SOPA Ireland campaign. This was an Irish internet campaign that achieved wide national and even international reach, arguing against having the Government here permit certain types of surveillance against internet users, by forcing their internet service providers to take a policing role.

SOPA Ireland
A huge net campaign had recently helped halt the US government bringing in a much broader, but ideologically similar measure nicknamed SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), and the Irish version was quickly nicknamed SOPA Ireland.

That bit of sharp naming was undoubtedly the single biggest factor in the consequent high profile of this silly and industry-kowtowing piece of legislation (subsequently brought in by statutory instrument) and it piggybacked onto widespread anger and frustration with US SOPA.

Politicians suddenly found they were flooded with, in some cases, thousands of email messages on the issue, many spitting fury.

But it wasn’t just the Irish SOPA that got up politician’s noses -- it was people contacting them generally through social media and email.

Complaints ensued across the airwaves about how many felt abused, especially by anonymous correspondents. Some were dismissive of the views of such people because they did’t like their tone and/or they didn’t know who they were.

Please, people: come into the 21st century. Or the 20th. Or indeed, the 18th or 19th. Because the period in which politicians have enjoyed the pleasures of only being available to people in limited, controlled ways – a letter, a phonecall or visit to a constituency office, an encounter with a journalist or TV presenter - is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Anonymous hecklers
Go back beyond the age of television and you'd have been making stump speeches to an audience regularly loaded with anonymous hecklers and angry citizens. A shout from a crowd is as anonymous as an unsigned email or tweet.

And individuals should surely have chosen some less front-facing profession than politics if they are thin-skinned or overly concerned with constituency politeness. I mean, deriding politicians (and for that matter, journalists) is an age-old affair.

Frankly I'd opt for some absurd ranting in an anonymous email over being eviscerated by the likes of say, Mark Twain, who penned such comments as, "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." And: "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

Or, Ambrose Bierce: "You cannot adopt politics as a profession and remain honest." Or HL Mencken: "Looking for an honest politician is like looking for an ethical burglar." Or GK Chesterton: "It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."

I’ll bet any abusive email a politician gets is simply a more crude reworking of these basic 19th and 20th century sentiments.

The point here is that mails and tweets are as real and meaningful and valid a communication medium as the (once newfangled) fax and letter. The people writing care about issues and most often, are the citizens you represent.

Now, you have to hear from them and engage with them more directly and frequently than before. That’s called democracy. A more real one than the land of letters and faxes.