Much like an overwhelming majority of Australians, I find child and animal sex porn disgusting and agree that every power should be given to police to prevent its distribution and arrest those responsible. However, like a majority of Australians I am also opposed to the compulsory filter being proposed by Senator Conroy and the Federal Labor Government. Being the good English student I am, I want to discuss why I don’t like the idea of the filter (without getting too partisan!).
First, a filter would see us on similar lines as Britain, the US and Canada, to name just a few western countries. The difference between what those countries have in place and what the Australian government proposes is that the proposed filter filters not just child pornography or bestiality content, but also websites that discuss sexual health issues (especially issues within the gay and lesbian world), euthanasia and other issues of free speech. While these things may have ‘refused classification’ and would be banned in cinemas, magazines, books and on TV, where else would people making decisions about these issues go? Again, in western countries with filters, they are opt-in, in Australia you would have no choice.
It all comes down to trust. I find it a little bit unnerving to find that my government doesn’t trust me to make my own decisions. ‘You say you don’t want to see restricted content, but how can I trust you not to?’ is the message I believe is being sent to the Australian people with talks of a mandatory filter. With an opt-in filter, my government would be telling me ‘We’re going to assume you don’t want to see restricted content, and we’re giving you the tool to prevent yourself or your kids from seeing it.’ The idea that kids might stumble upon it is a little bit silly. If you are not looking for it then you probably wont find it. There are millions of websites on the internet and I doubt I will stumble upon child porn unless I really, really look.
One argument from those who support the filter and Conroy himself is that we censor books, films, television shows and most mass distribution media, so why would the net be a special case? Mark Newton, an engineer from an ISP, says that is a gross simplification. He argues that we don’t filter Australia Post or telecommunications and a lot more people use those everyday to communicate than they do books, films and television shows (as quoted by Moses on http://www.smh.com.au, April 1, 2010), which definitely makes sense. In reality, I can send a letter to someone in a country overseas where restricted content is available and be sent it in the post. Australia Post and the government are none the wiser. My text messages and picture messages are not filtered either: I could send my partner in crime a picture of a naked child at the beach using MMS and Telstra/Optus/Vodafone/Three/etc. and the government are none the wiser (unless someone gets hold of the phone).
Anyway, the point is that this filter is not going to stop child porn. The filter is just sweeping the problem under the mat, and if you look under the mat you will eventually. Conroy should instead focus on encouraging ISPs to make their own filters, and work on the national broadband network. The Federal Police and state police forces should be given extra funding to enforce the current laws as opposed to enacting new laws.
Signing off,
André.
No comments:
Post a Comment