The new censorship laws
Labor politics, Rights, Values - - Posted on January, 3 at 10:40 am by Tim
Problems in democratic governance don’t always arise from the clash between a good idea and a bad idea, a desirable and a undesirable outcome. Those ones are generally pretty easy to negotiate. What makes life tricky is when two good ideas/outcomes/ends clash. Thus, for instance, a right to privacy clashes with a right to free speech. The freedom of the individual to do something he or she personally wants to do and that is legal can clash with the notion of the “greater good”, as with smoking in restaurants, or whatever. It’s political theory 101, or maybe 102. And how a government handles such a clash of goods is an important indicator of their democratic bona fides.
Senator Stephen Conroy has set off a clash-of-goods argument with his announcement that the new government intends to make it compulsory for internet providers to filter content such as pornography and what he calls, worryingly, other “inappropriate material”.
They call this method “clean filtering” and it it works on the idea that to get access to unfiltered content — that is, to use the internet in the way that you currently use it — you have opt out of the system. That is, you have to tell your IP that you want to by-pass the filter. Thus you would be listed as someone who didn’t want to filter your internet use and this raises all sorts of questions about government monitoring of such lists.
So we have two good outcomes/goals that are clashing: the perfectly understandable and desirable idea of protecting kids from pornography or other inappropriate (for them) material, and the equally perfectly understandable and desirable idea of being able to access the internet without government mandated interference via a filter used by your internet provider.
Unfortunately, Senator Conroy has already gone the path of demonisation with his odious comments implying that the only people who would object to such censorship are those who want to watch child porn:
Online civil libertarians have warned the freedom of the internet is at stake, but Senator Conroy says that is nonsense. He says the scheme will better protect children from pornography and violent websites.
“Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road,” he said. “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”
Of course, that is not the argument at all and Senator Conroy should be ashamed of himself for his vile implication. People are not objecting because they want access to child porn; they are objecting because this is a clash-of-goods situation, where the desire to protect kids clashes with the freedom to be able to access legal material without government interference.
Once such filtering is in place — and we are told it is to be mandatory — all sorts of other problems arise not least of which is who decides and on what basis “appropriate material” is to be understood. In fact, we know that the body in charge will be Australian Communications and Media Authority. We don’t know what criteria they will use to decide what we should and shouldn’t access. And the further problem that arises here is that a general law enacted allegedly to deal with a specific problem (children/porn) is easily extended to other areas; the very vagueness of the term “appropriate material” itself raises those concerns.
You don’t have to anti-government conspiracy theorist to be concerned about governments giving themselves such open-ended powers to interfere in what citizens do.
So far, the government has provided very little detail on how the new censorship will work. This story has a long way to run.
PS: I haven’t dealt with all the obvious problems about whether it is even possible to come up with such a filter that works (most experts think that it isn’t) or the issues to do with what such filtering will do to internet speeds (every time you click a link the IP filter will checked that site against the “blacklist” before letting you open it). I just wanted to deal with the democratic principle of the matter in this post.
FURTHER THOUGHT: It’s worth noting that Stephen Conroy is Labor’s numbers man in the Senate and the government is ultimately going to have to deal with a Senate that includes the likes of Family First. That party’s Senator Fielding has already commented upon the filtering proposal saying, “Australian families want more [internet protection] and deserve more than they are currently getting, and this is a real test for the Rudd Government.” It is not beyond the realms of possibility that this is all a sop to Family First in order to garner their support in other matters. Real politik, in other words.
ELSEWHERE: Some other sites talking about this issue are Barista (always worth a read); Man with no blog; TechCrunch; Jeremy Sears; GrodsCorp; and Phil at LP.
Posted in Labor politics, Rights, Values |
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
This is why I gritted my teeth and voted for the Liberty and Democracy Party. As much as we needed Howard and co out, this was always going to happen (see also: the requirement for CSIRO, etc to clear press releases with Rudd’s office). Flip sides of the same coin - they’re all bastards.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Evidently Australian parents are too dumb to work out this high-falutin’ filtering stuff for themselves.
Thanks God Conroy is around to save us from our own stupidity!
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Australian families want more [internet protection] and deserve more than they are currently getting”
Puke.
If this was truly the aim, then it would be an “opt in” system, whereby “Australian families” could nominate to have their internet access filtered if they know they have children at home that they keep an eye on every hour of the day. And then, fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.
Bogus, disingenuous, hypocritical.
Puke.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
We use filtering software at home. I’ve got teenage kids.
I know for a fact that the parents of many of their friends are a lot more - shall we say ‘relaxed’? - about monitoring their kid’s internet use. I’m concerned about those kids. I’m even more concerned about what happens when my kids visit them.
Ryan, Sjk and Gollum - You gonna tell me I’m wrong to want the government to assist me in managing this?
This is not a straightforward issue by any means.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Pedro, when you want the Government to assist you in managing your life, and the ‘net is now a part of life for all, be very cautious.
This is not covering table legs or fledgling ASIO ’60s keystone antics, sure I agree that younger ( and some older) people should be “protected” from some ‘net content however, blanket control of a media by a Government is a very dangerous thing.
And, if you are an alert parent to risk by an information source to younger folk, taking it further, should Government pay for half of pool fences, check on your home library, censor JJJ, make sure your booze is locked up at home,vet your kids friends and their parents. That’s your job, has been since Adam and Eve, and the ‘net is in most ways less dangerous than the farm dam.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I agree w/ your suspicion Tim that decisions are being made in order to garner support from Family First & Joyce further into the term. Compromises will happen…but as you rightly point out, some of the approach taken by Conroy is insulting to adults & potrays the character of a Labor Party that has been infected by the “fear & sneer” bug. I imagine the emphasis on “YOU opting out” is preparing us for extra fees related to the ISPs…and potential Govt/Police surveillance by way of data mining etc. A slippery slope…even giving people the perception of such.
But then, there are those who worry about certain Laborites connection to Big Business.
Probably find each ISP will offer us a defined package one day that won’t be disimilar to the Cable/Pay TV packages. Ensuring that the internet becomes unaffordable for small, independent blogs is a means to that end. And the less blogs means less to patrol & survey. It’s about diminishing cost to the government whilst protecting the needs of the phantom majority in the defined Nation-State.
But regardless of these worries I’m going to give Labor the benefit of the doubt for now…there may be more than meets the eye…or less disruption to the natural internet flow than we think.
Besides, lotta kooky types out there. I imagine Cyber-Space can be a vicious playground for some kids & other vulnerable, highly impressionable individuals.
Just a shame the rest of us have to be herded into pens in order to appease the “control freaks”, “short-cutters”, “monopolisers” and professional “wedgers”…and keep out “the Freaks”…real and imagined.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
First they “protect” us from child porn. Next they protect us from “homegrown terrorists” because terrorists use the internet to plan atrocties like 9/11 and Bali, so political censorship and massive surveillace is required. Then we twig that we’re living in Stasiland Oz but it will be too late.
Ponder this people; we’re being had.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself”. ~Thomas Paine
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin
Smart people knew how rubes are finessed even before “Al Gore invented the internet”
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Pedro of Canberra, I think that’s a crunch issue for most in the community.
To try and fail is not good but acceptable. To not try, to throw up one’s hands and say it’s all too hard is unacceptable (even if true).
January 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Lang Mack
Thanks for the advice. I’ll be cautious.
‘Blanket control of a media’, as you put it, is certainly to be resisted. But is that what we’re dealing with here?
Consider free-to-air and pay TV. They both have some degree of government regulation. Transmission of porn, for example, is illegal on free-to-air. If you want to opt in, you presumably go to cable TV. (Conceivably, porn could also be offered free on cable on an opt in basis. In fact, given the advertising revenues potentially available, I’m not sure why it isn’t).
With the Internet, as with TV, it’s a question of the legal basis for regulation, and the limits placed on it in legislation. In addition, it’s about technology. It seems clear that there won’t be a perfect solution i.e. it seems there will always be work arounds. But as ABBA said - “To try and fail is not good but acceptable. To not try, to throw up one’s hands and say it’s all too hard is unacceptable.”
As an alert parent, I can tell you that I am far more concerned about what’s on the internet that what’s on JJJ. (I also know other parents who are far less relaxed on that point, but I don’t hang out with them if I can help it.) I can directly monitor what’s in my liquor cabinet and my home library and I don’t really care whether the government subsidises pool fences as long as they are there.
I don’t know whether you have kids, but my parenting philosophy doesn’t fit with a highly intrusive approach to vetting my kids every move. That would be highly damaging in it’s own way. How are my kids going to learn to grow up to be independent minded, emotionally balanced and critical thinking citizens of a liberal democracy if their dad totally regulates their social lives when they are young? Appropriate boundaries have to be set - it’s just a question of where and how best to set them.
Same with the Internet. As a democratic society, we have to work out how to balance the ‘competing goods’ that Tim mentioned, ensuring appropriate safeguards and controls on all sides.
I didn’t say it was easy. But a blanket rejection of internet regulation (’censorship’, if you prefer) is not a solution.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ryan, Sjk and Gollum - You gonna tell me I’m wrong to want the government to assist me in managing this?
Pedro, putting all of the enormously problematic questions of free speech, censorship, and the right to privacy aside for the moment, you’re gonna tell me I have to pay even more for even slower internet cuz you’re concerned about what YOUR kids MIGHT want to look at??? How is that fair, exactly?
But this is beside the point, what I was saying was that I agree with you: families should indeed have assistence in blocking objectionable material if they are worried about their children looking at it, if they choose to do so (hence why “opt-in” is infintitely preferable to “opt-out”). But why should EVERYONE have their material filtered “just in case my kids go next door”? The whole “won’t somebody please think of the children” whilst restricting adults’ freedoms just rings false. What I object to is the paranoid overkill of “it’s not enough that we have filtered internet in our house, EVERYONE else has to have it too, just in case my kid goes to someone else’s house”. My feeling is, if that’s what a parent is worried about, that’s their problem, it’s their responsibility to engage with their kids. If the filtering system is designed for families and people with children, then it’s grossly unfair for those of us without children to have to bear the cost of this system (cost, and the rest). That’s what I’m saying. Cheers.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Well, that didn’t take long.
Six weeks out from the election and we already have the new Government coming the heavy on civil liberties.
Has Conroy been taking lessons from Tony Abbott or what?
And if he is merely sucking-up to Fielding, it’s a hell of a way to do it. One that will piss-off many in Labor’s civil libetarian base.
Maybe that’s another lesson he’s learned from the Libs: Schmoose the religious nutters and lose your own core supporters in doing so.
Protect us from ourselves. Nice one, Steve. Glad you thought of it.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Gollum
I realise you have focused on the opt-in/opt out issue.
My previous Post (in reponse to Lang Mack) makes the point that TV (either free to air or pay) is regulated. In effect (though I didn’t express it as such) you currently have to ‘opt out’ of the free-to-air restrictions if you want access to a broader (e.g.less restricted) range of viewing choices. In my view the issues are the same for the internet. There is a basic social standard that is applied to universally available content. This standard can vary over time with changes in social attitudes, but it’s still there.
The same reasoning applies with respect to this point:
“If the filtering system is designed for families and people with children, then it’s grossly unfair for those of us without children to have to bear the cost of this system (cost, and the rest).”
Your dollars (tax or otherwise) already pay for all sorts of government regulations on social behaviour. Booze, for example, would be a lot cheaper if it were available anywhere, anytime to anybody without restriction.
I agree that the primary responsibility for regulation should lie with parents. At the moment, however - and I make this point from personal experience - too few parents are taking this responsibility seriously with regard to the internet. I suspect - as with alcohol, with which we have had centuries of social experience - that in the long run many will never do it adequately.
The issue for me is that, as with TV and booze, the potential long run social harm of unrestricted content is greater than the social cost of regulation. Hence I support ‘opt out’.
But not at any price. The appropriate controls need to be in place to ensure that ‘free speech… and the right to privacy etc.’ are adequately addressed. The question is whether the Government has got this right. As Tim says, there’s still a lot of detail missing in the proposals.
But - again, as with alcohol - no solution will be perfect. Problems will always remain. But some basic regulation is necessary. The issue is properly defining and controlling it.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
This is interesting. According to Techcrunch:
(http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/australia-joins-china-in-censoring-the-internet/)
I didn’t know online porn was illegal. Makes the whole opt-in/opt-out argument take on a different character.
I would think that an opt-out system (i.e. opt out of the filter) could well enable the legalisation of online porn. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Australian ‘adult’ industry get behind the proposal. I’d support it.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Free speechers = paedos
Israeli critics = antisemites
Australia truly deserves what it gets in its parliament. Career MPs encouraging self-censorship amongst the populace by the very tactics they use to announce policy.
As this net filtering deal is an advance favour for FF, Conroy must have meant ‘STFU about it until after July 1 if you don’t mind’.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Your dollars (tax or otherwise) already pay for all sorts of government regulations on social behaviour. Booze, for example, would be a lot cheaper if it were available anywhere, anytime to anybody without restriction.
Pedro, with respect, once again, the point here is actually very different.
This would be my solution to this problem of internet porn and impressionable children, bearing in mind that I totally agree that parents should have help in filtering out such crud from what their children can access:
The government should come out and say they were investing tax dollars in research and development to come up with effective software to be installed on computers that would as effectively as is humanly possible filter out objectionable material. They would employ people on ongoing basis to make live updates (similar to anti-virus software), with lists of websites etc that are deemed offensive. They then subsidize this software 100% and make it free to anyone who requested it. They could then send it to schools, public libraries, internet cafes, universities, anywhere that a person could publicly access the internet. This to me, would be a positive, constructive and nuanced solution that actually targets the problem specifically, and best of all actually gives people a goddamn choice as to whether or not they need to install such software on their computer, at no direct cost to them.
And then they could say to parents, well, we as the government have now done our bit. Now it is up to YOU as parents to take responsibility for what your children see and do on the internet. So over to you. Talk to your kids, engage with them, do something for christ’s sake. Worried that they will access porn on a neighbour’s computer? Why not go as a parent to that neighbour and engage with them, too. Tell them your concerns. As parents, they might just agree. But do SOMETHING, don’t just leave it to the government to do everything for you.
I would never object to tax dollars being spent this way. But that’s not what Conroy et al are proposing at all. What they are saying is that the ISPs (Internet Service Provider) themselves will have to do the filtering. In other words it’s outsourcing the actual decisionmaking to a private firm (again). This will cost the ISP money, who will then quickly pass on the cost to ALL of their consumers (whether they want/need the filtering or not). And if you don’t think the ISP will find ways of banging a few extra fees/charges on top of this to skim a little more, I’d say you’re pretty naive. Not to mention, everyone gets slower, shittier internet into the bargain, whether they want/need the filtering or not. Such a simplistic, blunt and downright dumb solution.
Once again, EVERYONE has to bear the cost (financial and otherwise) of some people being paranoid about what their children are getting up to at other people’s houses. It’s just abysmal policy, and I for one don’t want a bar of it.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
last night as I wandered out to get a brew, about 8-30 or so, there was a show on SBS showing shootings and dead people, violence that I would not want to be watching, this is in daylight savings times when its right on dark and kids are still active and it’s holidays,ok, it’s not porn or whatever, but there it is, on a Government TV station.Few dead bodies and shootings,thats ok, potential of kids finding unsavory (in the eye of the beholder) bits on the ‘net, ban that. Why does the name Steve Fielding keep coming to mind?.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Gollum
I can’t see that I missed the point.
It seems obvious to me that you don’t have kids - ‘impressionable’ or not. (That’s OK, it’s not your fault
)
I do take responsibility for what my kids do on the internet. My concern is with those parents who don’t. My point is that this is a social - not simply a private - concern. Like the issue of education (of which this is a subset) responsibility lies with society collectively and not just individual parents.
So my 12 YO daughter has a classmate who’s downloading violent hard core porn at home. Let’s say he’s bringing it to school on his iPod and showing it to the 8 year olds. Don’t you think it’s a bit late to have a chat with his parents about it?
So call me paranoid…
I reiterate - this is exactly the same as TV content regulation. Are you suggesting that regulation of TV broadcasting should be abondoned? And it’s not just about porn, either. There is stuff on the intertubes that is so inappropriate for minors that It makes my hair curl (and I’m pretty liberal, mate). It would never make it onto TV or radio, or even be available for sale to adults (let alone minors) in a book shop. Why should it be available automatically and without any restriction in people’s homes simply by connecting to the internet?
My argument about opting in or out still stands. I don’t think people like me should have to worry about the potential consequences of whether other people are responsible enough to choose to switch it off. Why shouldn’t those who want to access unrestricted material choose to switch it on instead? Clean feeds won’t slow anybody down.
This is all at the level of principle. I don’t see why it should be controversial. Practicality - both technlogical and economic -is another matter. An approach like the one you suggest may in the end prove to be more cost effective. But I can’t see a reason to throw out the government’s model on the basis of any evidence I’ve seen yet.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Pedro, our posts clashed, Armidale Library has for loan, to adults I assume, In The Realm of the Senses, in fact my dear innocent Mrs. Lang took it out and it was with great interest that I watched her when she put it on.( Oh God was the response, mind you she watched half at least
) Now that item would have been loaned many times and from what I can see, it is there for adult viewing on DVD quality , uncut, and I assume in households where kids are.Parent control…….
January 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Lang Mack
I had to Google the reference, but I get the picture.
You could say the same of any adult material purchased, loaned - or home-made for that matter. I would assume that Mrs Lang didn’t leave it in the DVD player for the kids (assuming there are little Langs) to have a look at. Which is just as well, because I think allowing access by minors to said material is probably a criminal offence.
However, I’m sure that there are households around where this sort of thing occurs. How regularly I couldn’t guess. I would guess it is relatively rare. (I presume that, like Mrs Lang, the majority of Australian parents are probably unfamiliar with pornographic or sexually explicit materials in the DVD format.) However, I don’t think it’s particularly healthy. I’m sure you would agree. Unfortunately, short of banning such materials - which I wouldn’t support - the only practical recourse we have as a society is to append significant legal sanctions to such irresponsible behaviour.
Internet access, however, is very common. Ease of access by minors is far greater , I would strongly suggest, than explicit DVDs. As a consequence, most households - if they do not already use appropriate filtering software - have what is the equivalent of a permanently accessible collection of porn DVDs in their living room. Many kids have one in their bedroom.
I would simply like to require (i.e. compel) these these kids’ parents to make a conscious decision as to whether these kids should have access to that porn DVD collection. Among other things (let’s not get hung up on porn).
It’s not that hard to figure out. It would as if Armidale Library had a whole section (indeed, possibly the bulk of it’s shelf spavce) devoted to porn DVDs. And there was no one at the counter checking to see whether the kids who were using the library without parental supervision were taking them out on loan.
Can you see a difference here? Or am I being too obtuse?
January 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“It would as if Armidale library had a whole section(indeed,possibly the bulk of it’s shelf spavce (sic) ) devoted to porn DVDs.
Don’t be bloody silly, your of on a tangent that has run in all you posts, me, I, what I want,look over here.
Go to your local Library and check out what is there for all tastes and ages, or don’t you go to such places in case of getting an education.You either don’t get what is being conveyed in this thread or you don’t want to, ‘and there was no one at the counter and etc;”,
that shows lack of sagacity on your part in trying to make a perjured statement to a place you most likely have never been. So, in the kindness way, I suggest you pull your head in and temper your remarks.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Lang Mack
Apologies if what I wrote didn’t make sense. I thought it was a pretty clear response (albeit with a little dry humour and a touch of probably unnecessary sarcasm at the end) to your story about Mrs L, and your suggestion about the need for parental control in situations where materials available from public libraries is clearly unsuitable for children.
The point of my post was to agree completely. And then suggest the analogy that the internet is effectively one big public library stocked with stuff unsuitable for minors, with no one at the loans desk monitoring what’s being borrowed by whom. I was not describing a real public library.
If you don’t like the analogy as a description of the internet, fair enough. Tell me what’s wrong with it?
January 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Wasn’t Conroy the numbers genius who decided Labor should preference FF before the Greens in Victoria in 2004? He wouldn’t have to suck up to Fielding now if he hadn’t installed the nutter in the first place. Realpolitik should be made of smarter stuff.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Bad plan, and Conroy is a self-righteous control-freak thug, exactly the sort of person who shouldn’t be a politician. But let’s not let Rudd off the hook here either, this couldn’t happen wihtout his blessing.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Personally I’m gorging myself on salty, transfatty food and sugary drink right now
January 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Pedro,
I am happy for you to look after your kids using filtering software.
But don’t for a moment try to use the power of government to force your cultural preferences on to me and my children. I can look after my own without interference from you, thank-you very much.
BTW, if you are so concerned about the loose morals of your kid’s friends, then I suggest you get them new friends.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
sjk
The current classification regulations and libel/defamation laws for TV, radio, games, music, print and every other content medium already ‘force’ on both of us a particular set of ‘cultural preferences’ on what is socially acceptable content for public access, and what restrictions, if any, should be placed on that access. I don’t necessarily agree with any or every aspect of these particular standards any more than you do. I do however, acknowledge the necessity for some basic standards and access restrictions.
I strongly doubt that you would be advocating the removal of any sort of regulation on these current media. (Are you?) If not, then your attitude appears to me to be inconsistent. Why is the internet any different? Indeed, the fact that the proposals are allowing for an ‘opt out’ to enable a ‘clean feed’ means that those who out out will in fact be under no restrictions whatsoever (beyond what is currently illegal, or will be specified in any future laws).
So in fact, if you opt out you won’t be ‘forced’ to adopt anyone’s ‘cultural preferences’. I’m sorry, I simply can’t see the basis for your objections to my argument.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Pedro,
First of all, we need to differentiate between libel and and the sort of censorship we talking about here, which for want of a better phrase may be described as “protecting the kids”.
As it happens, I do object to censorship laws that try to address the latter. It is the responsibility of parents to regulate the viewing habits of their children, not the state.
So no, there is no inconsistancy.
As for “opting out”, why should I have to? I am not doing anything illegal, yet you’re forcing me to put my name down on a list that will be seen by who knows who for who knows what.
BTW, what is to stop the parents of your kid’s friends from opting out? If they are as perveted as you think, they’re unlikely to be deterred by the thought of being placed on a government list. In fact, it turns out that the very system you are supporting doesn’t even “protect your kids”.
If you want to opt in, be my guest. But please, don’t try to force your cultural preferences onto me and my family.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sjk
You haven’t addressed the issue of classification regulations. TV and all the other media I mentioned are already censored. Anyone can get readily stuff on the internet without restriction or censorship in a way that is completely unique.
If it were solely the responsibility of parents to ‘regulate the viewing habits’ of their kids then none of the existing classification restrictions for other media would exist. It is illegal for minors to access certain content. Hence it is not broadcast, published or transmitted in a way so as to be readily accessible by everybody. In some cases (e.g. free to air TV) , this means that it is just not broadcast at all. In other cases there are ‘point of sale’ age restrictions.
Why should the internet be treated differently?
Regarding ‘perverted parents’. SjK - they don’t need to be perverted, they just need to be careless or irresponsible. In very simple terms: not all parents are exemplary parents, or even good ones. The state is expected to take some responsibility for the welfare of all of its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable or unable to protect or make informed choices by themselves. These obviously include children. (Hence the classification regulations, for example along with a raft of other social regulations and services).
By this measure, an ‘opt out system’ would be preferable to ensure that all citizens are adequately protected to a socially acceptable minimum level. It’s usually the only way you can guarantee compliance. However, as I have said before, in this case it will be dependent on the technology. It may not be cost effective.
In my view, the point about you having your ‘name on a list’ is the only point you have made that I have no problems agreeing with. This is a genuine issue - which I have acknowledged from the start. It is not, however, a reason to throw out the government’s proposal until we have seen the detail of what they are saying, and ask serious questions about the safeguards that would need to be part of such a system.
There are lots of good reasons why the government’s proposals might eventually be opposed, but in my view the one about having someone else’s ‘cultural standards’ forced on you and your family is not not of them.
cheers
January 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
forty years back I frequently discussed these and similar issues with Fred May, an early and quite articulate advocate of Civil Liberties at Sydney Uni. We rarely agreed, but at least he was fully aware of the contradictions inherent in any significant discussion of our “rights”.
The same can’t be said for most of the comments discussing Tim’s original post, which specifically warned about the problem of conflicting “goods”. Basic logic was a hurdle too high for many Philos I students back then; and sadly it appears to be no less of a hurdle nowadays. Soaring self-esteems may even have exacerbated the problem?
January 6th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Why do I get the feeling that our friend Pedro has more of a vested interested in Conroys proposal than just of his family?.
“When the neighbours find religion, it’s time to brand the calves”.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Australians are always quick to laud free speech yet so readily display contempt of it when walk comes to talk.
The internet should be treated differently because it’s the only true medium where you can say anything. The comparitive lawlessness of the Internet is a GOOD thing to be preserved, not dismissed on some senselessly applied precedent.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Pedro,
For goodness sake, I did address the issue of the current “protect the kids” censorship laws: I say we should get rid of them all! Can’t be clearer than that.
Now, of course you don’t think you forcing your cultural preferences on me is a good argument. To you your preferences are clearly and unambiguously “good” and therefore must apply universally - otherwise you wouldn’t hold them!
You know what? I don’t agree. Yet, rather than trying to come to some mutually agreeable accomodation, you claim the right to use the power of the state to force your preferences onto me! If you going to do that, you’d better have a bloody good reason, and no, protecting your kids from their friend’s parents is not a good reason.
Perhaps a change in preferences might give you a difference point of view.
Let’s see. Maybe we can start with religion. It is clearly an evil that can infect the easily impressed (our children!). Its teachings are nothinng but cave-man era ethics built on top of superstition and myth. We must therefore ban access to all religous websites. Of course, the credulous or the wicked can still access these sites by “opting out”, but we’ll have their name so no worries!
Or perhaps politics. Maybe we should ban access to union websites because some unionists have been involved in thuggish behaviour? Perhaps access to the Liberals website needs to be banned because of the lies and (posssibly) criminal activity of the previous government? I mean, think of the children! Of course, only thugs and criminals would want to opt-out - but don’t worry, we’ll have their names!
Have I hit a nerve yet? If not don’t worry, I will eventually find one.
Btw, I notice you did not address the fundamental flaw I pointed out in your argument: Even if you were able to get over the civil liberty arguments, a system that has an “opt out” clause can’t and won’t even protect your kids!
January 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
For goodness sake. Let’s have a system where you can choose to have your IP filtered NOT the other way around.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Pedro of Canberra your arguments are interesting but in MHO, light.
Please guarantee that you are not from some shop in Fyshwick that is in big trouble because of widely distributed wank stuff on the internet killing local business.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Lang Mack, January 6th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
That’s really amusing. The suggestion that my argument may be motivated by some sort of religious affiliation has as much relevance to the debate as the possible counter suggestion that the the reason you don’t want an opt-out system is because you have something to hide. i.e. no relevance at all. If you don’t understand this, then you have completely missed the point.
For the record - and to demonstrate its irrelevance - I have no religious affiliations whatsoever. I am not a member of any church or religious faith group, and I subscribe to no religious creed or doctrine.
My argument, as I have made clear, is essentially consistent with and supportive of currently recognised community standards as reflected in such things as the classification codes for TV, movies, games etc.
Which gets me on to sjk.
For goodness sake, I did address the issue of the current “protect the kids” censorship laws: I say we should get rid of them all! Can’t be clearer than that
Indeed, you can’t. My apologies - I missed it in your earlier post. In my defense, all I can say is that I would have expected such a radical position to be delivered with a little more justification. If you truly believe this, then that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion. If so, however, I can’t be bothered debating you on this point. It’s wouldn’t be worth my while expending any effort on debating a view with so little chance of gaining general influence or support. But by all means continue to express it. Someone else might take you seriously. At least you are being consistent.
I’ll ignore the bit about ‘protecting my kids from other kids parents’ because I’ve already responded to that. It’s much wider than this. Re-read my last post.
Regarding ‘my cultural preferences’: what are these supposed preferences? All I’ve indicated is that, if we are to be consistent, current community standards with regard to age appropriate classifications should be applied to the internet. All that tells you is that I support this general classification system. As I’ve also previously said, I don’t necessarily agree with the precise way in which these standards are currently defined and applied. But this is always up for pubic debate.
You would like to see them abolished, so your view is clear. As I suggested, I think this is unlikely, but the good news is that under the government’s proposals for the internet you can opt out of them if you choose
Regarding your other suggestons, others could conceivably wish to see religious and political sites banned, but to date yours is the only post I’ve seen suggesting this should happen (albeit ironically), so I suggest that it’s about as likely to get community support as your proposal to abolish all current classification standards. If you are concerned about the potential for governments to abuse their regulatory powers, I certainly share this concern. But it’s a question of how those powers are framed and what accountability mechanisms are put in place to control them.
Your final view is that it won’t work. That, as I have previously said, is a valid line of argument. I suggest that this needs to be weighed against the likely effectiveness of the alternatives. So far I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to support either view. I’ll be looking for this in the broader public debate.
H&R (January 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm)
You said:
What is senseless in what I have argued? Quite apart from that, you can’t say whatever you like on the internet. Laws relating to libel, incitement, false advertising and the like all apply equally to internet content . In other words, the internet is currently subject to the same legal standards regarding freedom of speech as any other communications medium.
Joe2
Your a real comedian. Where are they light?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:03 am
When Conroy announced the net censorship scheme the deal was aleady done and documents signed-off on. Servers will be legally obliged to censor via a filter from 20 January.
Which makes his statement about consulting with interested parties a bit of a nonsense.
Want to bet the filter programs most often chosen by servers will be sourced out of the US and very restrictive of even ordinary content.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Worth reading.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23019670-7582,00.html
January 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Interesting debate re Conroy et al. Pardon my ignorance, but didn’t Howard and Co already legislate all this ‘internet filtering’ under the guise of ‘Terrorism’ and ‘in the interest of protecting kids’?
You know, the wonderful system that was hacked in about 4 hours by a 16 yo kid after its release? Re-jigged by the so-called ‘techspurts’ to be again quickly hacked by the same kid?
Weren’t all the ‘amendments’ enacted prior to the recent election and didn’t these already include the enforced “opt out” of the mandatory filtering?
January 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Pedro, you said:
But that’s precisely what you’re trying to do - to limit their independence. You just want someone else to do the dirty work so you don’t look like the bad guy. You want all the benefits of being a parent, and want to pass the hard stuff - managing kids - off to someone else.
And yes, I do have kids. Fortunately mine are in their twenties now. They discovered Internet porn about twelve years ago, and it made for interesting discussions. We dealt with it, the same way my parents dealt with the subject of the strange man on the bus who kept opening his raincoat when I was eight. We taught them that adults are basically all a bit odd, and you have to be careful with them. From the discussion on this blog I can see we were right!
From what I understand from my son, who works as a web developer, what the Government is proposing isn’t technically feasible anyway. So what are you going to do when your supposedly “protected” kids see porn? Sue the Government for failing its duty of care? Or sue your ISP? If the latter, watch broadband prices skyrocket.
Anyway - you take care of your kids. They’re yours. Don’t expect me - or the Government - to do it. Only you can do it to your satisfaction.