Make the right choice, Mr Conroy
The following post is an open letter To Senator Stephen Conroy on the subject of the proposed mandatory internet filter. I will be sending slightly modified versions of this to Conroy, to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to my local representative and to anyone else with a significant influence upon the internet filter.
Along with many other Australian residents I am deeply concerned about the proposed mandatory internet filter, as announced on December 15, 2009. It is my belief, and I am far from alone in this, that the filter will do little to protect the people it is designed to protect, will do nothing to prevent people from accessing illegal material if they want to, and represents a serious breach of civil liberties.
There is a wealth of expert testimony available supporting the above, including unambiguous condemnation of the proposed filter from iiNet, one of Australia's biggest ISPs, and further direct criticism from Google, one of the most significant global businesses of our time. If you've already chosen to ignore the variety of expert opinions that patiently clarify why the filter will not be effective then I see little point in me repeating them here. I do however feel the following points are well worth stressing:
- Illegal material is already banned under laws which, one presumes, ISPs wholeheartedly support and enforce to the extent of their abilities.
- The filter will prevent access to only a fraction of targeted 'RC' content.
- The filter will NOT prevent access to illegal or RC material to anyone who actually wants to view that content.
- In reality there is an extremely low risk of a child, or any other person, accidentally stumbling across pornographic content (and, in my extensive experience of using the web, zero chance of stumbling across bestiality, paedophilia and the like). Generally the only sites that actively promote pornographic content (apart from pornographic websites themselves) are 'underground' sites that would generally only be visited by technically proficient users: in other words, those users who are already more than capable of circumventing the filter.
In respect of my objection to the filter I wish to emphasise that such an objection does not make someone either paedophile or a person who supports child abuse, as Senator Conroy has implied in his own previously reported exchanges in defence of the filter. Indeed, as a father of a three-year-old I find it distasteful that I should even have to defend my position with the previous statement.
My son uses the internet and I find little cause to worry that he will stumble across anything inappropriate. What does concern me is the prospect of him growing up in a country where basic choice has been stripped away, where otherwise legal content that the government deems unsuitable is blacklisted under a 'Refused Classification' category.
We purportedly live in a democracy, where the electorate should be sufficiently respected by the governing body to make their own decisions. After all you don't lock us all up in our houses in order to prevent us committing crimes. Despite the prevalence of road deaths you don't find it necessary to take away our cars, or to forcibly limit their speed to 50kph. You trust the majority of people to abide by the law. Why then should our choice over how we use the internet be treated any differently?
Outside of the law it should not be the job of any governing body to decide what the electorate can and cannot consume. This represents a negation of democracy and puts Australia on a footing with other dictatorial, repressive and militaristic countries. Furthermore it erodes the standing of Australia on the global stage and diminishes its influence among other democratic and progressive states.
If the internet filter, as proposed, is enacted there are two things that are absolutely certain to be borne out of it. The first is that the filter will have virtually no effect in preventing criminals from accessing illegal material. The second is that this filter WILL COST YOUR GOVERNMENT VOTES. I am absolutely certain that, if the filter is put into place, a significant number of people who voted for Kevin Rudd in the last election will find someone else to vote for. I know I would.
However, there is one breathtakingly simple solution: choice. If individuals were allowed to choose whether to take advantage of an ISP level filter (and it could be mandatory for ISPs to offer such a filter) then I expect objections would whittle down to near-silence. Those who are concerned about what they might find on the internet and wish to have a filter can have one. Conversely those who wish to have uncensored access to legal content on the internet can can continue to have it. Meanwhile illegal content is still illegal and the law can continue to do its job in preventing access to such material. Money earmarked for the filter can instead be spent on educating people on the safe use of the internet and implementing measures that will actually work. With such a solution it's unlikely anyone would feel compelled to vote against the Rudd government and it might even win a few extra votes.
It is entirely unacceptable for the government to censor the internet, or indeed any medium, for political, sociological or ideological reasons. Please make the right choice and ensure that Australia remains a country where free speech and civil rights are both respected and upheld.
Should you wish to use this article in part or in entirety with or without alteration for the purpose of objecting to the proposed mandatory filter you have my explicit permission to do so without the need for attribution. For any other purpose terms of the Creative Commons license apply.
Take action - now!
There is an extensive list of relevant parties you can contact and further action you can take on the No Clean Feed website as well as on the website for Electronic Frontiers Australia. I strongly urge you to either copy my letter above or use the form letter provided by No Clean Feed and, at the very least, write to your local representative and to Senator Stephen Conroy and let them know your objections. For your convenience I have also attached an MS Word version of the above letter to this article.
Further reading:
- No Clean Feed
- Somebody Think Of The Children
- Electronic Frontiers Australia
- Australian Library and Information Association
- The iiNet statement (and additional statements) concerning the filter
- New comments by Google (February 15, 2010)
- Senator Kate Lundy is fighting for choice and answers many of the public's questions about the filter
- A brief summary of articles posted on Gizmodo about the filter
- A guide to protesting against the filter by Lifehacker
Shayne Power February 17, 2010 - 13:37
What he said.
Excellently put Justin. Spell out the objections and then put forward a sensible alternative. If only more of the internet was like this.