Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Hamilton: Net p-rn goes way beyond naughty
|
What’s so special about the internet? All but the most unthinking libertarians accept censorship laws that limit s-xual content in film, television, radio, books and magazines. Yet the hysterical response from the internet industry and libertarian commentators to the Government’s proposal to require ISPs to filter heavy-duty p-rn shows how the internet has become fetishised. It’s not viewed as another useful mode of communication but as the source of ultimate freedom. Home alone in front of my computer I can travel where I like and evade my responsibilities to society. The internet has spawned a community of devotees who operate in a cowboy culture that thinks itself beyond the normal reach of social control, as if they inhabit an independent cyber-nation that applies its own laws in the form of voluntary protocols for those who choose to accept them. The individuals who live in cyberland often display a contempt for social rules and moral norms that would put post-modern academics to shame. Attacking Labor’s filtering plans, the CEO of iiNet, Michael Malone, declared: “We live in a world of multiple sets of morality, all of them equally valid”. All moral standards are equally valid. Electronic Frontiers Australia, which represents the most extreme strand of internet libertarianism, has argued that filtering will impose one set of s-xual standards on others who don’t share them and this makes all net censorship invalid. Logic without moral clarity is no logic at all. If EFA truly believed this then it would support abolition of all restrictions on films, television, books and magazines. Every perverse and sick practice that could find a market would be available, including child p-rnography. Nor do we hear the internet industry or EFA arguing for the abolition of laws that currently ban Australian ISPs hosting material rated X or refused classification. They are happy to accept these laws because they require virtually nothing of them. For them, free speech is a principle worth defending so long as it’s expedient to do so. Democratic societies debate moral standards unceasingly and they elect governments to represent a majority view; but the net libertarians believe their preferred means of communication places them beyond the will of the people. Of course, certain rights trump majority rule. Free speech is the essence of a free society and restrictions are justified only when unconstrained expression can be shown to be causing substantial social harm. We know that teenagers and younger children are getting extensive exposure to p-rn on the internet and on their mobile phones. Among the p-rn genres easily accessed are those depicting s-do-m-sochism, real or realistic scenes of r-pe, s-xual torture, b-stiality, c-prophilia and inc-st. Children are confused, shocked and disturbed by these images and it is likely that some boys and young men have developed unrealistic and perverse expectations about what a s-xual relationship involves. Many people dismiss this as a moral panic; after all inquisitive children have always sought out er-tic images. But the internet has dramatically changed what children can see. We are not talking about Playboy n-des, or even men and women having s-x. Yes, these are probably the first port of call, but a few extra clicks of a mouse will take you to a vast array of extreme and violent s-xual practices. Nowhere are these concerns more troubling than in some indigenous communities which have been flooded with p-rn as well as alcohol and drugs. The Little Children Are Sacred report found that “s-xually aberrant behaviour involving both boys and girls was becoming more common among even younger children”. Doctors report a disturbing rise in s-xual assaults on children by other children, some as young as five, in which they act out practices they have seen in p-rn videos or on the net. Opponents of ISP filters simply refuse to acknowledge or trivialise the extent of the social problem. One prominent opponent characterised the Government’s proposed restrictions as an attempt to stop people looking at “naughty pictures”. Net videos of a woman having s-x with animals are not “naughty”. Watching someone being r-ped is not “naughty”. The spectre of the Great Firewall of China is repeatedly raised, but it is no more than a phantom. Unlike China, Australia is a democratic society. Australian censorship of s-xual content in films, books and magazines has not set us on a ‘slippery slope’ to political censorship. On the other hand, if a strong case can be made to restrict other forms of content — such as how to make bombs — because it is a genuine social threat let’s have that debate without resorting to meaningless slogans about the right to free speech being always inviolable. These are the principles involved in internet filtering, and it is important to separate them from practical questions of whether mandatory ISP filtering will be effective in limiting youth access to p-rn on the net. Independent expert opinion appears to be that filters can sharply reduce the availability of material deemed offensive or unsafe at the cost of a small degree of degradation of the system. Net libertarians greet any suggested degradation with howls of protest because they refuse to acknowledge the extent of the social problem the Government is trying to address. Yet every social intervention has a cost. My guess is that most Australians — and certainly the 93% of parents of teenagers who, in a 2003 Newspoll survey, supported automatic filtering of internet p-rn — would judge that the trade-off is worthwhile. The fact that both major parties back the idea tells us something about the level of community alarm. |
|
|
50 Comments
Clive I’m disappointed that this article departs from your usually lucid grasp of the issues. Yo hvae intentionally blurred the line between pedophelia and other dirty interests to make a point. Further, you seem to be suggesting that everyone’s rights should be restricted because some children aren’t being properly looked after. I very much doubt you will find any supporter of internet porn that would defend illegal images, such as pedophelia. This is the sort of blurring and moral outrage that Aunty Miranda at the Herald would be proud of.
As Brad says, there are far more issues at hand here. ISP filtering would be a dreadful imposition on people trying to use the net for other purposes. My experiences with net filters have been attrocious. They always tend to fall on the ‘safe’ side of censorship, and so lots of useful information gets blocked due to ambiguity.
Yes, we need to have this debate, but this article contributes very little. All I have gathered from this is that we should stop children looking at porn. I totally agree, and so would virtually everyone else. Is ISP level filtering the only way to do it? No, of course not. Are cars banned because children could drive them? No we have licensing and proof of identity, why not use a system like that instead? Sure you may have differing views on what people are interested, but really, why do you even care? As far as I’m concerned, consenting adults can do what ever they like. But we need to take steps to ensure this happens, and filtering the whole net will definitely not achieve this.
Great article!
Clive, answer this simple question (because you’re bloody doing everything you can to avoid going near it in the your writings so far): do you agree that an internet filtering system which blocks around 5% of internet content for no good reason (ie false positives) is a good idea, particularly if its precise operation is secretive and thus the public have no idea why sites are being blocked and it would be easy for any government of the day to use such a system to block any content on purely political grounds? Or do you genuinely believe that internet filters ONLY filter ‘harmful’ content (in which case you truly are a moron)?
So going on Mr Hamilton’s latest comment, we can only assume that:
a) Those who are against the filter do not believe in society
b) Those who are against the filter think it’s ok for children to go and see R-Rated films.
Brilliant argument there Clive. You’re really winning people over.
Sorry, typo in last, I meant to say, as third option:
it _is_ a problem, the Government should do something about it, but filtering is not what it should do.
The point about false dichotomies still stands.
Excellent comments. Also, I think the argument that “Australian censorship… has not set us on a ‘slippery slope’ to political censorship” has two obvious flaws:
1. Film/book/magazine censorship is a VERY dfferent to Internet censorship. One is obvious, one can be very insidious.
2. Just because government powers aren’t currently being used for “political censorship” doesn’t mean that they won’t be at some time in the future - and the proposed system would make it very easy to do with little transparency or oversight (as above).
Well Clive, I dont liked seeing people r-ped or women having s-x with animals on the net either, so maybe parents should take some responsibility. The internet in Australia is already slow enough without interferring filters.
Your comment “On the other hand, if a strong case can be made to restrict other forms of content — such as how to make bombs — because it is a genuine social threat let’s have that debate without resorting to meaningless slogans about the right to free speech being always inviolable”. .But where does it stop…maybe sites that have well researched, scientific evidence supporting “Global Warming Deniers” will be targeted next. After all, they could be considered a “social threat” by some.
OK, I know people are very passionate about this issue, but I am asking contributors to be clear about their arguments. As I see it, there are only three types of position to take on mandatory filtering.
1. We should not do it (end of story, as practicalities are irrelevant)
2. We should do it but we can’t (because filters don’t work well enough, so we have to put up with the problem or seek other methods).
3. We should do it and we can do it (so let’s go ahead).
If you believe we should not do it (i.e. your position is 1) there are two types of reasons for it:
1. It’s not a problem
2. It is a problem but it’s not government’s job to intervene to tackle it.
I’m asking people to sort out where they stand.
The proposal developed by me and Michael Flood in 2003 for mandatory filtering would apply to the internet the same sort of censorship regime that now applies to X-rated videos. Our view was that that regime gets the social balance about right.
I have to say that the level of vehemence and the nature of the arguments put in this blog by the libertarians are both equivalent to those used by opponents of gun control. “I’m damned if I will sacrifice my rights for anyone”, seems to be the common view. For myself, I care about other people’s children.
One more thing: Gavin Moodie’s comparison of modern net porn with Lady Chatterly’s Lover is the sort of idiocy typical of those who write for The Australian. “Long may our freedom last”. For God’s sake.
Clive this is a disappointingly incoherent piece. You don’t even seem sure which mode of transmission for pornography you’re objecting to. Is it the internet? Or the “videos” you refer to? Or “net videos”? (videos you order off the internet perhaps?) In the case of the remote indigenous communities you mention, it’s actually subscription television. Presumably you’d back removal of pr0n from subscription TV too? Oh, and don’t forget mobile devices as well.
It’s a big bad electronic world out there, ain’t it.
And what’s with your pr0n obsession anyway? As I’ve explained a couple of times, the internet censorship regime in this country already bans an extensive range of non-sexual and non-violent material because various interest groups have successfully lobbied against them. That material will be subject to a mandatory filter as well - as interpreted by ACMA bureaucrats, with no accountability. That’s why filtering is EXACTLY a slippery slope because the list of material deemed objectionable by politicians and those who lobby them only ever expands, it never contracts, and will be administered with no transparency.
There are plenty of tools out there for parents who want to protect their children online. All it takes is a bit of time and responsibility. But instead we get these self-appointed parental representatives who would have us believe parents are somehow supine and powerless before the media and need the government to do their job for them. Any parent who can’t stop their child from accessing the sort of content you reckon is just a couple of clicks away isn’t trying.
You state: “Unlike China, Australia is a democratic society. Australian censorship of s-xual content in films, books and magazines has not set us on a ‘slippery slope’ to political censorship.”
Sadly putting the infrastructure in place to eavesdrop on your population with impunity may prove far too tempting for politicians and/or law enforcement officials - need we bring up the example of the illegal wiretapping in the USA?
You also say: “We know that teenagers and younger children are getting extensive exposure to p-rn on the internet and on their mobile phones.”
Isn’t it the responsibility of parents to police the types of material that their children look at? The technology changes, but the curiosity of kids, and the responsibility of parents does not. Despite the current regulation – it’s not that hard for a kid to find explicit material that’s NOT on the internet.
“a few extra clicks of a mouse will take you to a vast array of extreme and violent s-xual practices” – Really? You must be really busy on your PC when you’re not writing puritanical rants about internet users….
“93% of parents of teenagers who, in a 2003 Newspoll survey, supported automatic filtering of internet” – 93% of parents of teenagers who are TOO F**KING LAZY TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN KIDS!!!
Bah. Keep your head in the sand, see if we care.
I remember the Australian Government banning the importation of D H lawrence’s Sons and Lovers on much the same spurious grounds as Hamilton’s argument for censoring the internet. The internet is special because the wowsers haven’t yet managed to control it as they control print and film; long may our freedom last.
I don’t know who you are Clive but you and your bluenoses can rack off,I have changed providers to get faster speeds, I don’t need you or Conroy or the idiot Christian right to tell me what to do in my own home,I thought we had grown up since cops peeping through windows.
If you want total Censorship go live some where that has it,I read there are 10,000 site blocked and no one knows what they are.
And given I would not trust politicians anyway both left and right how long before they start deleting site the don,t suit there political stance,sorry pal you want to play in a Christian wonderland be my guest but please leave me alone and don,t try and tell me what I can and cant do.
If the present generation of clods cant raise their kids and watch what they do on the net and buy their own filters why the buggery should I have to suffer for their stupidity
I can’t really add much else here except to support the notion that not only does this article dramatically miss the point of the argument against internet filtering but also puts up a flawed an inaccurate picture of what this filtering would look like.
Also, the attacks on opponents as being morally void are a lovely touch on a poorly thought through piece.
The internet is the most powerful tool ever invented in history. Every person who has access to this portal can see the the collective human race laid bare. Images pixelate into the some of the most vile acts that only the the most disturbed can perpetrate. This government believes it must restrict this portal for the good of the children. The effect of the filter will exclude all, not just the kids view of the world. With this view obscured we will again “feel combfortable” about or world. A long sought after goal of our polliticians. With our head buried in the sand we can keep ignoring those disturbed humans behaviour rather than confront it with courage.
Putting aside the moral arguments for a moment, the question is “Can you efficiently filter p*rn out without adversely affecting other content?” Answer: No. The other question that follows is “can you filter p*rn without getting false positives and false negatives[1]?” Answer: No. So what is the point of it? There are already laws in place that are used to charge people who violate child p*rn laws, use them, and don’t try to micro-manage the internet.
[1] IE will it block things it shouldn’t, and not block things it should
This debate is muddled because people persistently confuse the question of whether we “should” filter porn with the question of whether we “can” filter porn. It strikes me that many internet libertarians use arguments to the effect that we cannot effectively filter to disguise a belief that we should not.
So far the only argument I have heard to the effect that we should not is the one BernardK and others put; that it’s down to parents to police the net. There are three flaws in this argument.
1. The implication is that if parents want to screw up their children then that’s their business alone.
2. Screwed up kids will affect other people, including the children of parents who do the right thing.
3. It’s anti-democratic. If parents club together and decide that it is too difficult or untenable for them to protect children by themselves and want governments on their behalf to help them then that is a perfectly legitimate view. It’s not the only issue, of course, because others are affected, but it destroys the argument that it should be left to parents alone if parents collectively decide otherwise. Collective decisions to protect our interests is what we do in democracies.
This last argument is why we have a classification system for films. In the libertarian view we would have no film censor and kids could go to the cinema to watch whatever they liked. Are any of the libertarians willing to fess up to thiis opinion? And of course, BernardK and others would be wholly opposed to bans on advertising junk food to kids. Well, I’m sorry, but I disagree with Mrs Thatcher that there is no such thing as society.
Clive’s name appears in a lot of PR work done by the activist groups loudly supporting this. This is another effort to label this system as child protection using filtering. It is not child protection. It is not filtering. It is censorship. We call it censorship in China and Iran where the same sort of system is used. The UK, Sweden and NZ do not use this. Everything about this is secret and not subject to input from the public. The ACMA “blacklist” is secret and protected from Freedom of Information. Listing appears to be at whim.
The secret list includes sites listed under terrorist legislation. That is political censorship. There is no appeal process for any site that is incorrectly blocked and manages to find out it is blocked. There is no consumer or civil liberties representative on the Cyber Safety Working Group. Who is deciding what is safe for us? Microsoft, Google and NewsCorp maybe? Very democratic group of corporations out there looking after their own interests. Where is the TV Safety Working Group? Children are exposed to many more hours of TV than the internet and at a much younger age than the internet. Is the government going to restrict access to Chinese dissident sites as part of the “trade” agreement? There is nothing to stop them doing just that.
Senator Conroy’s handling of this is insulting. Maybe he really doesn’t understand what he’s proposing. He has used misguided information. What is “inappropriate” or “unwanted”.
There are around 6 million internet connected homes. Only 1.5 or so million of them house children. What are their parents doing? Surely as an adult, I don’t need my access restricted to a government approved list of childsafe sites and risk being put on a list for opting out. Very slippery indeed.
Iran blacklisted another 5 million sites today. The proposed systems are also capable of being used for monitoring, logging and breach of privacy and are used for just that purpose by China and Iran if it suits them.
In the computing world we have a saying, ‘there is no technical solution to a social problem’. It’s sad that some geeks worked this out in 20 years while people in humanities are still bashing their heads against the wall.
I thought at first it was a different Clive Hamilton to the one who usually writes reasoned and sensible articles on social issue, but alas it seems I’m wrong.
Clive is right in saying that there are two issues, namely whether we “should” filter porn and whether we “can”, but in either case his arguments don’t stack up.
The Internet shouldn’t be compared with other media as if they were all cut from the same cloth. For a start, it is international and its ethos is of neutrality. Control is anathema to its concept. Attempts to censor content require enormous effort and are mostly useless unless “white lists’ are implemented. In effect, that requires the censor to determine what are ‘good’ sites for us to view.
Much dubious content is exchanged via peer-to-peer networks and cannot be successfully monitored without a huge burden on ISPs. The government would be better off directing funds to those organisations fighting paedophilia and other net crimes.
To gain some idea of how difficult it would be to filter out undesirable content, consider how much net fraud occurs each day (Washington Post reported the other day that details of 500,000+ bank and credit card accounts were stolen by one trojan alone). Keeping your PC free from malware requires you to keep your anti-virus programs up-to-date and yet you’re still vulnerable to attack. ISPs have yet to devise a way to filter this stuff out, let alone identify and block pornographic images.
As to whether we should filter porn or any other material, I would need a lot of convincing that a government agency should be trusted to decide what I can and can’t watch. Why not leave things the way they are and encourage parents to use other means to protect their kids?
The problem is that the libertarians are quite prepared to see children sacrificed. When you talk of the cost of protection, you are talking about some glitches in reception and a few edgy sites having a bit of trouble getting seen. When they talk about the cost, it is the lives of raped children and babies and brutalised women and boys, all to feed the depraved tastes of emotionally stuffed up men who should get a life.
Decent sane men who have no problems with their sex lives don’t need to see sexual violence and child porn to get horny. Sane men either have sex with a consenting partner or masturbate. The rest are indulging in rape fantasies and that makes them wannabe rapists. End of story.
Well everyone wants an effective internet, and everyone has a sex drive I suppose, so this is quite a string. The rollout of the National Broadband Network multi billion dollar infrastructure is making this a very real public policy debate.
Some observations: I notice the ‘adult’ industry reckon 4 million access porn out of 20mil population. That’s a big. Mores are on the moves as per local 60 Minutes story recently.
On the other hand it must be a nightmare for parents to raise kids with realistic and respectful attitudes to sex, especially with brains lagging bodies. It must be the biggest consumer of silicon around. On another tack I wonder what it does for reduction in population growth rate, if any?
Clive’s piece seems overly long to say the same substance - looks like reaching a bit. That said I personally have no doubt Clive is taking on this issue in good faith. I think he is right about how unhealthy and exploitative the porn industry is turning people into meat.
On the other hand I think the rebuttal case has alot of weight too about right to choose and privacy. It’s an area that requires a skilled politician to resolve with merit on both sides.
Clive, you seem tense. Maybe you should take five minutes to “go surfing” if ya know what I mean.
Mention of the Little Children Are Sacred report is interesting. The section of the report on pornography says SBS and pay TV channel Austar are seen as the key providers of pornography in the communities surveyed. Aren’t they subject to the very regime Clive Hamilton is recommending?
I’d be interested to see the figures on how many pedophiles and pedophile rings have been busted BECAUSE of the internet. A few months back (and some of the details are hazy now and might be wrong) a Canadian bloke uploaded pics of himself having sex with children on the internet. INTERPOL or some similar organisation were able to get the pictures, unblur his face and they collared him in Thailand.
How many people were busted around world recently in that global pedophile sting? People on the internet leave fingerprints. The cops just set up a honeypot of child porn for the sickos to flock to and then hunted them down with their IP and credit card numbers in the following months.
Society has definitely changed (mostly for the better) with the availability of the internet. We’ve all had that moment where someone has sent an inappropriate website link/photo causing an “I didn’t want to see that” moment, right? Some of the criticism of Clive here has been a bit harsh. Yeah, censorship is bad but when you read stories like this, there does need to be a debate about what’s freely available out there in cyberspace.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2008/nov/20/pirate-bay
At the beginning of her trial, pictures from the autopsy of the murdered children surfaced on Pirate Bay, causing outrage in Sweden. The parents of these children contacted the site, urging them to take down the photos. When they didn’t get a reply, they wrote again only to get the reply: “What’s with this fucking nagging? No, no and again no!”
Pirate Bay has since apologised to the parents, saying that the reply came from a moderator who gets a lot of stupid emails and had lost patience. Still, the filesharing site refuses to take the pictures down, stating that it is firmly against censorship on the net.
Heavens above Clive what reductionist claptrap. You want to censor something. But you ask people who disagree with you to justify themselves. Whatever happened to not having to justify a negative? YOU make the arguments as to why freedom of speech should be reduced. Don’t demand that everyone else slot themselves into some matrix for the convenience of your argument.
And try making an point without invoking the kiddie pr0n bogeyman.
Dear BernardK
How is personal responsibilty is expected from a populice under siege from corporate advertising/influence(mind control?). When the nazis used these methods in the 30s the populice was excused due to being brainwashed and succumbing to propaganda. When the same systems of influence are used nowadays the average man is supposed to be able to resist. If they don’t resist it’s their fault. Regulate the adveretising and PR industries. Have politicians answer the question they’re asked and then tell us about our personal responsibility
In my part of the western suburbs both parents of nearly all families are working in Howard’s world so you are about to see a lot more kids without manners
Who will decide if the people are good enough to have kids. You?
You Bushwah (Australian Bourgouis) make me laugh.
Judge not lest you …..
Jup, you need to read Mark Newton’s letter I posted earlier too.
This isn’t about people fighting for the right to view extreme porn and child porn. This filter will not be effective, it is solely a political exercise. Going through the issues, again….
a) This technology has proven to be ineffective. It does not block or filter content on peer-to-peer networks, for example. Consumer-level filtering is just as effective as mandatory ISP level filtering.
b) This is much more wide reaching than child-porn and violent porn, which you have tarred the opponents of this plan with in your post. There was a list floating around of the current sites which have been targeted for banning by the ACMA. It contains R-rated (ie “normal” porn) sites, drug information sites, and people like Stephen Fielding and Nick Xenophon have already called for this filter to be used for other purposes.
c) It is woefully inefficient. Australia has poor internet speeds compared to the rest of the world and this filter has been estimated to slow down speeds a further 10-60%.
d) It is unfair on ISPs. Internet Service Providers run on very low margins for their internet service, due to the port costs charged by Telstra. This adds another cost that will have to be added to the cost of our already expensive internet.
e) And this is, in my opinion, the most important point. This filter can be easily bypassed by anyone who uses a secure proxy to access sites directly. This could drive pedophiles underground, and make it much more difficult for law-enforcement agencies to collect evidence and prosecute people who download child porn. If someone accesses child porn without one of these proxies, they can be prosecuted much more easily. I will refrain from using your tactics of painting supporters of this plan as advocates of child porn, because quite frankly it is totally offensive and massively ignorant.
Clive.. A bit dismayed to hear you say this. Just last night I listened to a speech you did at ANU regarding your book Scorcher. It was fantastic. I am surprised that you totally bypassed the most important issue. It’s not a libertarian argument. It’s a technical one.. honestly. You do realise that most nasty shit on the internet is accessed on peer-to-peer networks, immune to web filters. How can you support a policy that cannot possibly succeed in it’s aims? Come on man.. straw man arguments are for the climate change deniers - not reasonable dudes like you.
Strewth, Clive, talk about galloping logical fallacies. Time for you to revisit Schopenhauer. Your drivel isn’t worth more comment. Why Crikey published your shallow opinion is beyond me - still, it’s the best illustration of the paucity of argument on the pro-filter side to date.
Clive Hamilton is falling into the Conroy school of debate which says that anyone who disagrees with net filtering must somehow be in favour of porn — or too morally relaxed to care. And how he makes the leap to the Little Children are Sacred report is beyond logical description. Again, a popular tactic with the current Comms Minister.
By all means come up with a reasonable film-style certification proposal, but one that is not directed by the government of the day and which does not use the absurd fiction that net filtering works.
Cilve, you say that there are 3 positions on internet filtering:
1. we shouldn’t do it, whether or not we could do it
2. we should do it if we could, but we can’t
3. we can do it, and we should do it.
I see a 4th position:
4. we should do it, even if we can’t do it.
At this stage, unbiased expert opinion is not that we can do it. Rather, expert opinion is that internet filtering would be ineffective, and expensive. It would slow down the net, but it would not stop anyone prepared to mask their content - which is trivially easy to do.
That said, I can see one argument for trying to filter illegal material: even though the filtering is ineffective, it sends a strong signal that certain material is unacceptable.
For those reasons, I hold position 2 on the filtering of illegal material, with some sympathy for position 4.
What I cannot see is a net benefit in filtering of legal material.
Banning any vice has the benefit of reducing the number of consumers, at the cost of turning the remainder into criminals. The greater the percentage of the population that believe the banned behaviour to be legitimate, the smaller the benefit, and the greater the cost. Consider prohibition.
For those reasons, I hold position 1 on the filtering of legal material, with no sympathy for position 2.
Regards, Ben
Straw man possibly? just a tad? hmmm yes well.
Good comments Brad. I used to know Mark Newton about a decade ago and he’s certainly qualified to make the statements in his letter. Clive Hamilton must be a fool if he can write an entire article (and a followup comment defending his article) without once asking whether there is a workable filter system which can be used. My kids have filtering systems in place at their school - the filters block a hell of a lot of sites which are highly legit (my step-daughter was doing a report on the issue of ‘intelligent design’ but could not access the Discovery Institute’s website because it was blocked - this website was put together by Christians and has zero offensive content!), they fail to block sites they ought to and they slow everything down along the way. The problem with filters is that, whilst Clive naively assumes they can identify images such as women being raped or having sex with animals, they don’t know what they’re looking at. They can block sites with certain words, or they can block sites they’ve been told to block, but they can’t make any intelligent assessment of the material on a site beyond that. A video or picture is just a collection of pixels - it takes a human to make sense of them, computers can’t. Until filtering improves, we can’t pretend it works.
Clive, you compare the internet to movies, and books, and libraries. But it’s none of those things. Your analogies are poor. I’m not sure you understand what is happening here.
The Internet is a network across which all sorts of traffic moves. Text, hypertext, files of all descriptions. Multiple protocols.
The government are trying to restrict that network. You can access all sorts of immoral items in Australia if you know where to go , by using the road network. Imagine if the government placed filters on the road network to try to stop you from going to their list of bad addresses. The filters would be implemented at major intersections, checking all traffic for their stated end point.
Do you think that is a workable idea?
Several things would immediately happen - the traffic would be adversely affected, the bad people at those addresses would just move and the government couldn’t keep the list up to date. And people would just go the back way to those places anyway. Or, they would lie about where they were going.
All of those things will happen on the internet. The analogy stands up. Only the honest/moral people will be punished by this system. I would be interested as to how they would measure the effectiveness of such a program, and if (as I suspect) there is no reliable metric, then I can guarantee we are being ripped off.
In my house, I find that OpenDNS is by far the best tool for what the government is trying to achieve. And it’s free, opt-in, easy to use, and speeds up internet use, if anything.
As John Gilmore said: “The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it”. This is a fool’s errand. You are supporting fools. Find another way to achieve what you want to achieve.
Regarding the text “b-stiality, c-prophilia and inc-st”
I can’t guess what the 2nd word is. Maybe I don’t read enough relevant material.
If this censored email had an option to disable the filtering (i.e. non-mandatory filtering), at least then I might know what we’re talking about (and could use a dictionary to help deal with my sheltered upbringing).
Whatever … maybe this country can’t handle an option that allows for even an option of informed/unfiltered discussion.
I can’t remember where I read it, maybe even Crikey, but there was some research that tracked the take-up of the internet with a DECREASE in the number of sex crimes - debunking the supposed link between access to porn and increased levels of sex crimes. So if we’re worried about sex crime, maybe we should have more porn?
not only the points that Brad makes, but where is parental responsibility? Where is personal responsibility anywhere in this culture.
Oh it’s a problem - the government has to solve it. And bring everything down to lowest common denominators.
Personally, I’m sick of this.
I’m a civil libertarian who doesn’t feel everyone has a right to everything; in fact many of the so called rights people insist on are privileges.
Yes, think of the kids - but place the onus back on parents to teach what is appropriate. And maybe while they’re at it, howabout some manners?
The problem does not lie in the content of the net - it lies in individual abrogation of responsibility.
I’ll take a counter view to my libertarian stance that will solve this problem; do what China did and make couples apply for a license to have a kid - charge them for it, and make sure they are capable of bringing up a child with “aussie values”
Mixed message? Sure is. Like life really.
I don’t really think this “rebuttal” of the “libertarian” position actually addresses any of their arguments. Brad’s comment lists the main points of argument neatly enough, but like Senator Conroy himself, Clive prefers straw man arguments & attempts to impugne the morals of the opposing position.
Nothing could better illustrate the weakness of the censorship case then their congenital incapacity to argue on topic.
If you have $100 milion dollars & a burning desire to protect children, how about making a federal grant to assist some of the nation’s terribly underfunded child support services. An Iranian style mandatory internet filter is an absurdly inefficient way to “protect children”.
This is the biggest load of claptrap so far on this subject to date. You are deliberately using ‘moral panic ’ and at the same time pretending you aren’t.
Why shouldn’t the internet be a place of unfettered freedom and who gives a continental about society’s so called ‘morals’ The net has allowed you to prevent your drivel and I find it completely offensive but don’t expect to deny you the freedom to do so.
Clive wrote:
‘The individuals who live in cyberland often display a contempt for social rules and moral norms that would put post-modern academics to shame. Attacking Labor’s filtering plans, the CEO of iiNet, Michael Malone, declared: “We live in a world of multiple sets of morality, all of them equally valid”.’
I think you will find that it was actually Simon Hackett said that “http://au.dedicatedserverdir.com/news/showNews.aspx?ID=28740”. In fairness to these contemptuous individuals lets see what they actually wrote:
“If the Federal Government says we are going to stop certain sorts of objectionable content, what on earth is the definition of bad here?” asks Hackett. “Is it the Federal Government’s definition of bad? Is this going to be a white Anglo-Saxon protestant filtering system? Is it going to be a Muslim filtering system? Is it going to be one that doesn’t like Scientology? The problem is we live in a world with multiple sets of morality, all of them equally valid.”
Exactly what contempt for social rules and moral norms is being displayed here, Clive?
Yes, you can choose to selectively quote one person, attribute that quote to another person and imply by omission that this straw person is an advocate of some kind of extreme social position, but all it does is undermine your credibility as a public intellectual and cast a dark shadow of the intellectual integrity of your own arguments.
Please continue.
You’ve completely missed the point Clive.
a) The filter slows down the net dramatically
b) The filter doesn’t filter all content it shouldnt
c) The filter is easy to bypass by anyone who knows what they are doing
d) The filter goes way further than just porn
I suggest you read the letter from Mark Newton to his MP Kate Ellis, as he really does know what he is talking about.
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/25/the-mark-newton-letter/
> 1. The implication is that if parents want to screw up their children then that’s their business alone.
The implication of your argument, Clive, is that all parents want to screw up their children.
If this wasn’t an implication of your argument, there would be no reason for a mandatory ISP filter. You know that is true because you have actually written statements to this effect in other places.
If your arguments have any validity at all, and I am not granting that, then the strongest case they build is that adults with children should have their ISP feeds filtered.
Filtering everyone’s feed because it conveniently absolves you of explaining to Australian parents that they are all irresponsible reprobates who can’t be trusted to bring up their own children without Government help is not a sufficiently good ground to filter my internet connection or anyone else’s.
BTW: in your scheme, will households with children be allowed to opt out of the mandatory filter? If so, on what grounds. Who gets to decide that a parent is sufficiently responsible to monitor their own children’s internet use?
As for the theoretical threat of censorship. You are proposing the construction of censorship apparatus that will censor annorexia as easily as it will censor porn. The is practical outcome of your proposal. Whether it actually will censor it doesn’t matter - the infrastructure will be there, ready to be switched on the next time a regressive Government takes power.
There is no benefit in filtering my Internet connection. Unlike others who apparently need to do it for their job, I have no reason to view child porn, online or offline. The imposition of a mandatory ISP filter on my connection provides zero practical benefit to me, or to anyone’s kids.
As to your argument that we seek to evade responsibility, that is rubbish. The only person in this debate advocating abdication or evasion of responsibility is you, Clive.
jon seymour
Clive,
Are you claiming that because we disagree with you, we don’t care about other people’s children?
Your false dichotomy omits at the very least a third choice:
it’s not a problem, the government should do something about it, but filtering is not what it should do.
If you choose to frame the debate by presenting false dichotomies, why should we bother giving your arguments any credence at all?
jon seymour.
It’s interesting to observe the flood of criticism anyone who presents a view not being in line with ‘this is outrages’ gets, regardless of what they say!
What absolute twaddle. “Both major parties” my ass, and i quote:
“The Opposition’s communication spokesman, Nick Minchin, said it would take “a lot of convincing” for the Coalition to support the Government’s filtering plan.
“That’s the problem with having this sort of highly centralised government-mandated nationwide filtering system,” Senator Minchin said in a telephone interview. “The argy-bargy that would result over what is in and what is out strikes me as being almost impossible to manage and it would be a cat chasing its tail.”“
doesn’t sound like support to me, but obviously Mr Hamilton doesn’t provide any references for any of his “facts”, hoping that readers who’ve not followed the issue, and are against the censorship, would feel that they are in the minority.
I have elaborated some of the points I have already made here in a more considered piece on “Somebody Think Of The Children”
http://tinyurl.com/6235bx
Clive, what is so different about the internet? Nothing at all. So why do you advocate the blocking of X rated material when it is available in adult shops?
On the child protection angle, the rest of your article unfortunately reads like Bernadette McMenamin’s lines on the proposed filter; “Can we just put aside the fact it won’t work, cost millions and nobody wants it, and focus on the positives?”
I suspect that neither the problem nor the solution are as easily identified as you believe, Clive.
Airy references to “children,” “younger children” and “teenagers” shouldn’t go unchallenged. How many children? How many younger children? How many teenagers? When you say “it is likely [unsupported assertion] that some [airy vagueness] boys and young men have developed unrealistic and perverse expectations about what a s-xual relationship involves,” just how likely is it, and how many boys and young men are we talking about? And as contrasted with what, the good old days when boys and men all had realistic expectations of sexual relationships? When was that exactly? And can we clearly isolate one influence, the internet, as responsible for these unrealistic attitudes? Don’t we think that, for example, TV and movies and magazines give boys and young men unrealistic expectations of what a s-xual relationship involves?
I’m as worried as the next man by the apparent rise in sexual assault and violence, but I’m not nearly as confident as you are, Clive, that we have quantified the issue with any precision and identified a solution that will work, either in the technical sense or in the sense of solving the problem. Wasn’t it just last year that the government trumpeted an expensive new net filter that, if memory serves, one of those very children you refer to was able to break within an hour or so? I have little faith that they’ll do much better this time.
I’m an IT security professional with over 20 years experience, and I don’t believe such a filter is workable. The idea that it could “…sharply reduce the availability of material deemed offensive or unsafe at the cost of a small degree of degradation of the system” is risible.
I don’t know who the independent experts Clive refers to are, but in my experience people making those sorts of unsubstantiated and (to people who actually are experts) ridiculous claims are usually selling something - generallly snake oil. Systems that can never hope to do what is claimed, sold to the ill-informed on the back of fear mongering and hype.
If the filter proposal gets up, somebody’s going to get a lot of taxpayer money for providing something that almost certainly can’t do what Clive and the other believers think it can.