Internet Filtering Debate

Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing the federal government’s legislative efforts to introduce mandatory, nationwide internet censorship.

This would require Internet Service Providers to block a blacklist of websites for all Australians. With a particular emphasis on filtering material under the refused classification (RC) like child pornography, pro-rape websites and pro-bestiality websites.

Refused classification (RC) publications cannot be legally imported, sold or displayed in Australia.

Meanwhile, the Paris-based media rights group Reporters Without Borders has put Australia on its list of countries “under surveillance” in its recent “Internet Enemies” report.

Critics say the Australian plan is a misguided measure that will harm civil liberties by blocking a broader range of content than just nasty material.

People are concerned that in the worst scenario “Refused Classification” can also include political websites, news websites, medical websites, poker websites, erotic websites and much much more!

This caused Peter Coroneos, the managing director of the Internet Industry Association to respond accordingly, “This regrettably puts Australia on notice that, despite the Rudd government’s best intentions, any mandatory filtering policy is likely to be perceived internationally in ways that will not benefit our reputation as a free and open society.”

Conroy’s spokesperson defended the internet filtering policy, saying RC content is already prohibited in physical media distributed offline.

This material is not available in news agencies, it is not on library shelves, you cannot watch it on a DVD or at the cinema and it is not shown on television.

Unfortunately, internet filtering technology is flawed and easily circumvented. Teens already commonly use free proxies in order to get around school network blocks on social network sites such as Facebook.

Pedophile networks and the criminal exploitation of security holes needs to be addressed at the source. Shoddy software had been a consistent source of security problems allowing attacks on business and home computer for the last decade or more. Bank accounts have been compromised and considerable theft has taken place. The software distributors need to be held accountable for allowing this to happen and the perpetrators need to be tracked down and stopped at the source, rather than depend on last recourse blocking. Nothing really effective seems to stop the wasted bandwidth used by illegal spam email messages. It too depends on filtering at the ISP or personal computer, rather than hammer the people who are sending it.

Filtering at the ISP level is like allowing a jail break and locking your front door to keep out the escapees.

In many ways the government’s filtering seems a reasonable option, with all else failing, yet there will be some arguments to the contrary. The main concern is abuse of power where good things get culled by the bureaucracy due to heavy handedness, stupidity or poor decision making.

Here’s a range of esoteric arguments regarding civil liberties and rights…

In a democracy, the government is supposed to represent and exercise the majority will of the people, but often there is discontent and eventually the government is toppled by popular election.

It’s not possible for a government to please all the people all the time and at best aims to please most of the people most of the time.

Some groups are more vocal than others, and there is always a possibility that the vocal minority may have more sway than the silent majority, till such time as a reaction occurs.

Not everyone shares the same desires, and some desires need to be kept private, otherwise un-approving sensitivities will shame or blame, when it comes to behaviour.

But disagreement is not always restricted to what people do, but how people think.

The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, is often cited regarding individual rights, the treatment of and a responsibility to ensure justice for others.

But then critics say that a sadist is just a masochist who follows the golden rule. Others argue that safe, sane and consensual fun will cover a lot of situations, which might otherwise be considered abusive.

Beyond the here and now there’s the many ideas and concepts people dream up, not all are acceptable when it comes to science or art. The flat earth society had considerable sway, and often heretics were tortured or burnt at the stake for their beliefs. In other cases, one person’s art may be considered another person’s pornography.

In a democracy, people need free access to information to make decisions.

Knowledge should not be restricted, otherwise people will be deprived of the opportunities that information offers.

The integrity of all information will insure that people are not being fooled by mischief or malicious intent.

Some information may be entertaining rather than informing, and the consumption of such will depend on individual tastes.

In the utopian society everything is perfect, but in the real world there are many shades of grey between black and white.

Not everyone shares the same value judgements, so censorship imposed by one may be considered the draconian filtering of information by another.

It’s important that the impressionable innocent minds be protected from the ravages of predators, who mean no good, but it is also important that other material of merit not be impeded by out of control political correctness.

Values, customs and habits have evolved a lot since the Victorian era, so we must take care that valid information is not suppressed by an over zealous hand, so that a healthy growth of ideas can flourish and be expressed.