|
14 reasons why the filter is a bad idea |
FAQ
What is the significance of the colour scheme in the banner? What is the significance of the colour scheme in the banner? The black signifies the void of information caused by censorship. The red signifies the danger that this represents to democracy. Will the many people who are opposed to the filter succeed in stopping it? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing we do know is that: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Other media will still be relatively uncensored so it doesn't matter, does it? The internet is already very important in our society and in some areas it is progressively taking over from traditional media. In other areas content that is available via traditional media is also available on the internet.
So, yes, it does matter – and it will matter even more in the future. This is just bringing the internet into line with other media, isn't it? Not even close. For a start, material distributed by telephone or the post is not even subject to classification or censorship at all. Many people think that the internet should be considered as a distribution mechanism, like the telephone or the post, and not as media per se. So instead of "other media", let's say "films", since films are subject to mandatory classification and censorship. If Chairman Krudd gets his way, the internet would be censored much more strongly than films. We would have the farcical situation in which a particular DVD is legal to be in possession of, legal to own and legal to view but blocked from downloading via the internet. In addition, with censorship of films, the government has to say publicly what it is censoring and what rating it has applied. People who are then adversely affected can appeal the decision and ultimately get a court to review the decision. This is everything that Chairman Krudd's internet filtering plan is not. Looking at media generally, it is a mistake to think that there is any sort of consistency anyway. Australia has a confusing mess of independent censorship systems. There is one for each of:
and newspapers are not classified or censored at all (although, perversely, the newspaper's online version would be if Chairman Krudd gets his way). Putting all those considerations aside, it is only an assumption that it is appropriate to censor the internet in the same way that these media are censored. There are many differences between the internet and these media, for example, the immense breadth of the internet means less likelihood of accidentally encountering "unwanted" content and, for example, you must explicitly search for and/or request every page on the web (it doesn't just come into your home or get sent to you). It's only people in the ISP industry and the porn industry who oppose internet censorship, isn't it? The government and others who support internet censorship like to paint those opposing internet censorship as having a financial interest in doing so. This is rubbish. Some groups and individuals who have spoken out against internet censorship in Australia are:
When you've got librarians opposing your idea, you know that you must be doing something wrong! Read through that list and form your own view as to why they are all opposed to internet censorship, but it's impossible to conclude that they are motivated by financial interest. For example, you could suppose that the two children's groups are opposed because the filter won't actually do any good towards protecting children, is diverting money away from things that might actually do some good, would distract parents from doing the things that they should be doing and would create complacency among parents. Will internet censorship stop spam email? No Internet censorship is currently targetted only at web content. It will do nothing to stop or reduce spam email. Anyway, this proposal is bad enough as it is. Would you really want government-mandated filters fishing through all your email? Less spam is something that everyone except the spammers wants and benefits from, and ISPs already voluntarily do some anti-spam filtering. Will internet censorship mean that I will avoid accidental exposure to pornography? No The scope of this internet censorship proposal is broad enough to be a problem but not broad enough to do any good for people who want to avoid accidental exposure to pornography. You should install a PC-based filter if you want to avoid accidental exposure to pornography. Will internet censorship reduce the availability of child pornography? No Almost all child pornography is exchanged via means other than the web. Most child pornography is exchanged via Peer-to-peer (P2P) software. The police do a good job penetrating such P2P exchanges, and arresting the people involved, and the police can tell you that this internet censorship proposal will do nothing to reduce the availability of child pornography. In any case, people who access child pornography know or will find out how to circumvent whatever restrictions government requires ISPs to impose. |