To Block or Not to Block

This week I attended an Intelligence² debate (http://www.iq2oz.com). The topic was ‘Governments Should Not Censor The Internet’.

Of course the debate has stemmed from the Australian Federal Government’s ‘Clean Feed’ plan to force ISPs to censor the internet.

Obviously I’m not the only Australian who is against this plan. Overwhelmingly the audience voted FOR, the Government not censoring the Internet. Concern was raised that Internet censorship could change Australian society, risk giving the government too much control and that this would be the start of a downward slope leading to a repressive society. Can we really trust our government enough to make the decision of what we can and cannot view? I don’t think so, who’s to say the government won’t filter the information we read for their own political agendas and beliefs? And whose viewpoint could be excluded?

Intelligence² debates are entertaining and the caliber of the speakers excellent. Google’s, Ross LaJeunesse set the scene, giving a quick history of the internet and explained it was designed to allow for freedom of expression.

Alastair MacGibbon founder of the Internet Safety Institute, stated anonymity allows actions that would not occur in reality, which brought about the question should offline laws apply to online? Sydney Morning Herald journalist, David Marr was the strongest speaker of the night, bringing laughter to the issue but reminding the audience that one of the main reasons that censorship is required stems from the need for child protection and pornography censorship.

Disappointingly, media law specialist and academic Elizabeth Handsley strayed from the topic, voicing her issues with Internet advertising for children. Understandably, the concerns of the government clean filter plan kept invading the debate but international Beijing columnist, Kaiser Kuo tirelessly turned the panel back to the issue. Perhaps, as he was an international guest, it was easier for him to stay on topic, while the home players’ personal concerns allowed them to confuse the issue.

The debate raised interesting points but of course there are various levels of censorship. In a way the AFP (Australian Federal Police) are already acting as censors for Australia by policing child porn on the internet. Child pornography is a horror that we shouldn’t have to view but what constitutes porn? We only have to remember the Bill Henson issue to be aware of the level of debate re what constitutes porn, especially within the art community.

If the filter does go ahead anything that was rated RC (refused classification) will be blocked. Refused classification material includes child pornography and detailed instruction in crime or drug use but it also includes any material that the Classification Board judges will deem "offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults".

So who should decide what we can and can’t view online? Unlike repressive regimes such as China or Iran, Australia has not restricted access to viewing certain Internet sites, naturally we are fighting against having our rights taken away.

Allowing clean feed to become a reality risks placing us in an oppressive, Orwellian society.

Those who oppose the clean feed proposal can find further information on ways to take action here.
 http://nocleanfeed.com/action.html

Comments

[Sebastian Urban]

Institutional censorship, where the rules are not clear and the criteria not subject to public scrutiny, represents a dangerous threat to our rights as members of this community. It's the thin end of the wedge - once applied, how far does it go. And without any form of transparency, who would know?

In the offline/real world, there are laws dictating what is and isn't allowed. These laws are subject to public scrutiny; those responsible for converting them from propositions to actual laws are beholden to their constituents and can be held accountable at the next election. Similarly so for those ultimately responsible for enforcing them. Our (admittedly rather flawed) democratic system has these checks built in to provide a measure of protection from corruption, which is itself an expression of basic human nature. If we allow a system that bypasses this check, we do only one thing - and it's not "improve safety". In fact, it's the opposite - we would weaken our society, and sacrifice an important element of our personal security.

Godwin's Law (look it up) talks about how the probability of a Hitler comparison approaches 1 the longer any online debate continues. There should be, if there isn't already, a similar law that measures the probability of a "child pornography" reference in discussions about internet censorship. Godwin goes on to argue that overuse of these comparisons robs the valid comparisons of their impact. I totally agree. Unfortunately, politicians are using obvious non sequiturs to win points and confuse the debate: "Internet censorship is designed to protect children. Since you're opposed to the censor, you must be in favour of child pornography". It's like saying "Guns kill people, so if you're in favour of guns, you must also be in favour of killing people". (For the record, I'm in favour of none of the above..)

In any typical free market economy, the rules of supply and demand determine factors such as price and ease of availability for most commodities. For illegal items; firearms, drugs, etc.. law enforcement imposes controls on the supply chain, and attempts to reduce demand through a number of activities including interdiction and education. Interdiction is more difficult to apply on the internet because of national jurisdiction - but that doesn't mean it can't be done. And it certainly doesn't lessen the importance of education.

We should be focusing so much more effort on educating, and so much less on sexualising children. Everywhere you look, popular mainstream media bombards us all with images of young girls in sexually explicit clothes and postures. The younger they look, the more popular they are. If everyone is so concerned with the safety of children, maybe they would care to focus a little more on how they are being marketed to. Although it wasn't expressed with the same eloquence as Loewenstein's arguments, Handsley's point about advertising was fair. Children don't have the same defence mechanisms that adults (supposedly) do when it comes to understanding spin. And for children especially, social inclusion is so important - one of the main reasons why bullying is so effective at causing anxiety and depression. If their peers and idols are acting and dressing in a certain way, it follows that they will too. Any parent will confirm this is the case.

What impact does that have on the rest of society? Attractiveness has been proven to be a function of culture. Different cultures have different ideals of sexual attractiveness. Our culture is so heavily influenced by the media we consume, that it seems not so ridiculous to suggest that by promoting young children in a sexy light, that maybe we're not doing everything we can to protect them from predators, latent or otherwise.

So is this about the children, or is there something else they want to block?

[Dr Field]

I totally agree. I think that people should have the right to express themselves freely and also have the choice to explore the avenues they want. There will always be a deranged minority in society but the general public should not have censorhip inflicted upon them because of that.