Hey, China likes to point out that the US system of debate and decision making is slow compared to a centralized system in which fewer people hold more power¹. But what if we had a form of legislation that wasn’t as serious as the law, but effective for quick solutions? Like a measure of contempt. Say the FCC is pissed at Sony for their neglect for security. They would declare, on some .gov site, that the FCC holds Sony in contempt. Underneath, there are 2 descriptors that must be filled out. First, the FCC explains the reasons for which it holds Sony in contempt, including any evidence they have. It’s assumed that if these violations were all corrected, Sony would not be in contempt. Second, they propose a solution. This may be a simple “fix everything”, or may not be. If the W3C² held Internet Explorer 6 in contempt, the solution would be for internet users and webmasters both to pretend it didn’t exist. But here’s the great part about this solution: Say the RIAA holds Mozilla in contempt for approving the MAFIAAFire plugin. On the website, citizens could vote³ to support or oppose the contempt ruling. This would then be an indicator of public support or lack thereof that could be used in news reports and statistics and all sorts of great things as an implementation of direct democracy. Of course, neither the contempt status nor the voting has any legal meaning, but they could be powerful systems for enacting quick change⁴.