Labor’s internet censorship plan
The Labor government’s proposal to require ISPs to give a mandatory ‘clean feed’ free of pornography and other ‘inappropriate’ material has created a lot of comment on many websites. Unfortunately, the chance of any rational public debate on the substance of the proposal will be fairly slim. It’s hard enough as it is with topics like pornography and the internet, but Labor Minister’s Stephen Conroy’s ridiculous argument, using an outrageous inference to egregiously smear anyone who raises concern about the workability of the measure, shows that rationale debate will be next to impossible – at least when it comes to parliament and politicians.
The Howard government regularly used smears and outrageous misrepresentation to defend their actions, but Conroy’s statement that
“Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree”
is right up there with the worst of Alexander Downer and other schoolyard smear merchants from the worst from the Howard era.
No free speech advocate that I know of advocates such absolute freedom as to defend the provision of child pornography. This provides a good example of how even the most important of principles still stop short of being absolute in all circumstances. But the fact it is already illegal shows just how dishonest Conroy’s statement is.
The government’s proposal is not about child pornography at all, which is already seriously illegal online and offline. It is about legal pornography and other ‘inappropriate’ material.
There is a big difference between children being used in pornography and children having access to or being exposed to pornography. The first is abhorrent, already illegal with harsh penalties and should never be permitted or accepted. The second is also wrong, but how to effectively prevent it – and how realistically possible that is – what we should be debating. Senator Conroy’s comment has nothing to with this and should be dismissed with contempt. I would like to see it roundly condemned by political commentators with a warning that the new government should lift its game. We would all benefit if they helped lift political debate out of the schoolyard and the gutter where the last government dragged it to.
There is little dispute that exposing children to explicit pornography is potentially harmful to them. Indeed, I’m not very comfortable with the notion that the ocean of pornography that exists these days is a good thing in general. However, a government putting constraints on freedom of speech and freedom of access to material by adults is something that in my view can only be justified in the most clear cut of circumstances. There already exists one such example – ironically enough, given Conroy’s comment, this is child pornography. There is pretty much universal support on making it completely illegal to access (and provide and produce) this.
If significantly reducing the chances of children getting access to pornography can be done in a way which (a) actually works, (b) doesn’t open up the chance for governments to censor or stop access to other information, and (c) doesn’t seriously impact on the performance and profitability of the internet, then I’d support it.
From what I’ve seen to date of the government’s plan, I seriously doubt (a), am concerned about (b), and don’t really know about (c).
Previous efforts by the last federal government to control provision of online material have failed dismally. The ‘ban’ on online gambling sites that passed the Senate about five years ago is clearly a farce which has done nothing other than prevent the provision of harm reduction/protection measures on Australian-based sites. Whether the Labor government’s proposal will do any better is another matter – it targets the ISP, rather than the controller of the actual website.
The catch-all nature of the term ‘inappropriate’ gives me concern. I have little faith that the current government will prove much better than governments everywhere, and be unable to resist the urge to continually increase the scope of what they try to control.
I really don’t have enough technical knowledge to know whether this will have a big impact on costs to ISPs or on the speed of the internet.
As with every aspect of the measure, until the full details are known its impossible to judge. However, comments like Conroy’s make it much harder to be confident that the government is doing anything other than populist pandering, putting up a feel-good measure which will have no practical impact but create the illusion of doing something effective. Such ineffective actions can even cause harm by lulling parents into a false sense of security, thinking that the internet their kids are accessing at home is effectively filtered when it probably won’t be.
ADDENDUM: For people concerned about increasing online safety for children, rather than scoring political points, Peter Black has a good post which links to an article some of the wider serious issues, and solutions. Also another one here.
27 Comments, Comment or Ping
markp
It’s very disappointing to see this kind of language from the new government… sounds so similar to Downer forever insinuating that anyone who didn’t support the war must hate the troops.
Do you think the Telecommunications Minister still beats his wife?
Jan 4th, 2008
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
I agree that the statement was rather biting, but it’s not without some bit of truth. You understand that your stance against child pornography is a traditional one and not a progressive one. Therefore, it is “traditionally” progressives who have shown the greatest leniency towards pornography and other sexually-related topics and their dissemination to younger and younger children.
I applaud your traditionalism in regards to child pornography.
Jan 4th, 2008
andrewbe
Very well said, Senator.
Like you, I was disappointed by Conroy’s fallacious argument that if you are against his proposal you are for child porn. I’m equally disappointed that so far there’s been very little criticism of this absurd statement in the media.
You could almost say that someone needs to keep the bastards honest…
Jan 4th, 2008
CORAL
Yes, they should get the controller of the actual website – not a difficult thing to do with the aid of highly trained experts, of whom there are many.
But I think Conroy may have been using a hard-hitting statement to get the message across.
Jan 4th, 2008
Leslie
On the concept of a “clean feed”, if the proposal is to use a black-list, then the feed can never be “clean”; the only sites being blocked would be those that the authorities know about. Sites appear and disappear every single day, how can they possibly hope to keep up?
And what of user-generated content? Will they ban YouTube or MySpace (sorry Senator Conroy), and Facebook? What may contain approved material today, may not contain approved material tomorrow.
But setting aside the fact that Senator Conroy’s proposal is almost criminally stupid, I am curious about the nature of the content he proposes to block. If the content they’re filtering isillegal, why even offer an opt-out? Does that provide tacit approval for Australians to seek out and consume such content? Can I opt-out of paying my taxes? Or crossing the street at the lights?
Jan 4th, 2008
thordaddy
Leslie,
You are an example of what I speak. Because you are a “progressive,” you have no principled arguments against child pornography other than perhaps a traditional one. So as a consequence, you find every reason possible to conclude that child pornography cannot be denied access and dissemination on the Internet. In fact, you seem to say that you wouldn’t sacrifice one restriction of the Internet even if it meant a stop to the access and dissemination of child pornography.
Conroy’s statement was not as Mr. Bartlett portrays.
Jan 4th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Sorry Thordaddy, the statement does not contain any truth at all. It also diverts attention from the real issue, as do your usual efforts to start a diversion by creating strawman arguments about whatever it is you want to define a ‘progressive’ to be.
The worst thing about such tactics is that they actually prevent debate about the issue of children accessing pornography. If people are genuinely concerned about this issue, the last thing they would be doing is diverting attention from efforts to debate how it can effectively be addressed. I am interested in a genuine debate on this issue, I am not interested in whether the person putting forward ideas fits the label of conservative, progressive, fundamentalist or anything else.
As I noted in my post, one of the bizarre aspects of Conroy’s statement is that nobody is arguing that people should have access to child pornography – whether they are conservatives, ‘progressives’, ‘traditionalists’, ‘modernists’, liberals, socialists or any other ideological label. It is one of the few views that totally transcends virtually all philosophies, making Conroy’s smear all the more inaccurate (and about the most irrelevant topic possible for Thordaddy’s straw man baiting).
And Thordaddy, your second comment shows you are exceeding even Senator Conroy in making direct and blatantly false smears. Leslie did not mention child pornography, the issue is not about child pornography, the government’s proposal will not change anything in regard to accessing child pornography, which is both (a) already illegal to proide and to access online and (b) very very difficult to stumble upon accidentally on the internet. Your comment is false, off-topic and a slur. Please improve your act or go elsewhere.
Which all reminds me of another New Year’s resolution – to use my own judgement more on this blog to try to enable the comments threads to provide scope for reasonable expression of views and debate, and be less tolerant of deliberate efforts to post comments which derail rational or on-topic debate. No doubt I’ll still fail from time to time, but if it makes at least some comment threads more interesting for an average person to actually read and be encouraged to comment themselves, it will be well worth it.
Jan 4th, 2008
coconaut
If it is anything like the censorship of the 50s and 60s, the ministers will need an “unrestricted” feed for themselves to “research” pornography.
Sure it starts with blocking sites with child pornography (fair enough I say) but then goes gay porn, then goes straight porn, then goes the dissent (sorry, should say “terrorist”) sites, then goes the alternative political sites, then goes the newspapers, etc.
Also it’s technically unfeasible (as stated above).
Not only that, some of the worst material in Australia is available from pro-filtering sites like the so-called “Australian Family Association”. In about two minutes I was able to find a shocking article on their site *vividly* (it’s disturbing actually) describing sexual acts on children (allegedly) by that Alfred Kinsey fellow. Another two minutes on google shows that the AFA’s article is total lies! Kinsey never experimented on children, he got all his data from interviews (admittedly from some criminals), mostly from people recounting their own childhood experiences. So not only is the AFA lying (and distorting quotes), they graphically describe fictional child sex encounters on their site. What a disturbing group of people. They have, with their own imaginations, made up child predator stories. Creepy stuff. And these are the biggest proponents of filtering healthy adult pornography out of Australia!
(here’s the AFA link if you can stomach it: http://www.family.org.au/Pornography/kinsey.htm)
If the Labor government tries this inanity, I hope the AFA and their ilk are the first sites banned.
PS Will this post make it through your auto filter??? So strange to be writing about this stuff!
Jan 4th, 2008
coconaut
BTW, that was only the first article I viewed on their site. Who knows what other pornographic and violent filth the Australian Family Association is peddling on their internet website?
Jan 4th, 2008
James
http://www.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2008-January/thread.html is an email list that contains representatives from the engineering departments of nearly all the large ISPs in the country.
There’s been an interesting discussion on the proposal there over the past few days that includes reps from a few of our large, “second tier” ISPs like iinet and Internode.
Overall there is little support for the proposal, both on technical feasibility and the practicality of maintaining a blacklist, although more information is required before we will know the real cost and viability.
Jan 5th, 2008
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
Of course, “nobody is arguing that people should have access to child pornography…” Instead, they are arguing quite aggressively that any steps to stop access to child pornography are futile. Some go so far as to even mock the idea. Why would someone trying to stop access to child porn be mocked?
When you pretend that there is no basis for Senator Conroy’s statement this only shows an ignorance for certain political realities. Your stance against child porn is a traditional one. Many progressive don’t feel the same condemnation for pornography, be it child or adult, as you do. In fact, many are fighting hard to either tear down or blur those boundaries.
Jan 5th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Last chance Thordaddy – if you refuse to be on-topic and stop the blatant smearing and strawmen, I’ll just delete all your comments. I’m interested in genuine input and insights from readers about this topic (and every other topic I post on) – this is much less likely to occur if threads are filled with the sort of nonsense you insist on presenting.
This post is not about child pornography, and nothing the government is proposing will affect current prohibitions on child pornography online or offline. NO ONE is arguing that “any steps to stop access to child pornography are futile,” so just give it a rest.
And I do not give a toss what false or artificial label you want to give to my “stance against child pornography.” It is possible for people with different philosophies to hold the same view about a specific issue – indeed it happens more often than not. If you want to manufacture some distorted idea of what constitutes a so-called “progressive”, just so you can feel good about taking potshots at it, go do it somewhere else.
Jan 5th, 2008
lauredhel
“Of course, “nobody is arguing that people should have access to child pornography…” Instead, they are arguing quite aggressively that any steps to stop access to child pornography are futile. ”
This is just as much a mischaracterisation of the anti-filtering arguments as Conroy’s slur. All of the anti-filter advocates I have read so far believe that child pornography should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Sites need to be taken down, not just filtered for some, and perpetrators and consumers subjected to appropriate criminal law.
A national, mandatorily-implemented opt-out ISP filtering system for each and every http request bears no relation whatsoever to prosecuting kiddy porn perps. That it is technically infeasible has been made very clear by those who are actually in the industry, and those submissions are available to anyone who wants it.
That Conroy has chosen to ignore those submissions suggests to me that he is either maintaining his ignorance wilfully, or that this proposal is a tokenistic nod to religious conservatives.
The fact that an opt-out facility is proposed makes it absolutely clear that this is not about child porn, and never has been.
Jan 5th, 2008
CORAL
If anyone in Brisbane is concerned about people trying to sell pornography or sexual services to children on the internet or via email, they can contact Police Communications on 3364 6464 and ask to speak to someone from Taskforce Argos.
Please believe me when I say that some people will go to extraordinary lengths to get to your children – hacking, deliberate deception, coercion – to name but a few.
Jan 5th, 2008
coconaut
I think this thread shows how difficult it is to argue against onerous government censorship!
Jan 6th, 2008
CORAL
That’s right, coconaut.
I would like to see a complete ban on the production, distribution and sale of all pornography, which puts money into the hands of greedy sleazemongers.
All it does is cheapen relationships, incite certain people to go out and rape someone, and can be left (either accidentally or deliberately) where children can access it. This is to say nothing of the “snuff” movies.
During my recent Group Session at the Family Relationships Centre, there was a mother complaining about her very young children acting out explicit sexual behaviour, after a visit with their father.
She said he leaves pornographic DVDs in the player. I advised her not to send her kids there.
Jan 6th, 2008
Tim
You might be interested in this one too. Cheers.
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/compulsory_
internet_filtering/
Jan 6th, 2008
ken
Ah the dreaded thordaddy has retrurned, and Coral preaching the nanny state.
Of course the statement is a crock, just political bulldust, just like the 3 million laptops just wating to be rolled out.
Dont even bother discussing it – when govenrments fidle with social poicy – socitey burns.
freedom of expression adn movment, access to information and knowledge, and individual responsbility have always been the cornerstones of advacnement despiethe best effrotrs of government to get in the way.
Jan 7th, 2008
CORAL
And what if individuals have no sense of responsibility, Ken?
Jan 7th, 2008
Pedro of Canberra
“If significantly reducing the chances of children getting access to pornography can be done in a way which (a) actually works, (b) doesn’t open up the chance for governments to censor or stop access to other information, and (c) doesn’t seriously impact on the performance and profitability of the internet, then I’d support it.”
Senator Bartlett
This is the most succinct and helpful summation of the issues I have yet seen on this topic. Thank you.
Unfortunately it appears to me that much online opinion to date has been driven by rather self-righteous (and ultimately self-serving) grandstanding based on concerns for freedom of speech. These concerns are clearly important but they should not automatically rule out any form of regulation (as many would suggest). I’m really glad to see a rational and balanced approach to the government’s proposal (in spite of the shameless rhetoric from Conroy that has accompanied it).
To your list of 3, I would add a fourth – a solution needs to be cost effective (i.e. results against objectives versus cost). A technologically workable filtering solution may be found that is ’safe for civil liberties’ and poses minimal impact on internet performance, but it may be prohibitively expensive when compared to other options (such as education plus free filtering software etc).
Some serious social and economic cost benefit analysis is called for. Which unfortunately in my experience governments tend to do poorly.
cheers
Jan 8th, 2008
Stuart Fenech
The answer to (c) is that it will cost, and there will be a performance hit. It’s just a matter of how much cost, and how much of a performance hit. To determine this, we need more information.
For what it’s worth, the UK/Sweden/Denmark/Finland/Norway systems only block child pornography – a very limited scope of truly abhorrent material. That would appear viable and supportable.
I’m holding back here—
Jan 8th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Child pornography is already illegal to access or to put online (which I agree is not the same as attempting to filter it). My understanding of what Labor is proposing is a much broader filter, and the stated intent is to protect chldren from inadvertently accessing pornography in general (or deliberately accessing it for that matter).
I’m no expert on this and I’m not sure I would want to be, but I think it is difficult to accidently access child pornography online (as opposed to regular pornography which is almost impossible to avoid in one form or another).
Jan 10th, 2008