A non-pervert for porn

Recently in Australian politics there have been calls for ISP level filtering of pornography and extreme violence on the internet. This is not the first time the idea has come up, and each time before it didn't go ahead. This time round it started out as a proposal from the Labor party, and the communications minister scoffed at it and said no. But then a Liberal senator, Guy Barnett, from Tasmania decided, hey this is a good idea, and now it's being taken more seriously by the government. At this stage nothing seems to be happening nationwide, but Senator Barnett has managed to organise a state wide trial in Tasmania, with only a few ISPs not taking place. Telstra and Optus, the two biggest ISPs are not taking place, which is promising.

There are many reasons why this is a bad thing, but one of the trickiest parts is that when you try and defend the right to get porn, you come off looking like a pervert. Now while I won't deny occasionally indulging, the type of content being filtered is irrelevant. To show this, consider all the arguments, but replace the word pornography with democracy. If you think this is being silly, or taking things to extremes, I invite you to consider China, where such filters are already in place. I think we all agree that China, for all its industriousness, is not the best role model for a country to follow.

As part of my plan to become more involved in things, I have so far sent two emails to Senator Barnett. The first put forward three reasons as to why such schemes are not a good idea. First it is an unnecessary and unreasonable extension of government powers, as the main motivation for this scheme, "The key objective will be to ensure every Australian has a right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence", according to Senator Barnett, is a parents responsibility, not a government one, and it is unfair to restrict others use of the internet to make things easier for others. Secondly, the free speech implications are horrible, for once such a system is put in place, what is to stop the government from expanding the material that is to be filtered. The third point is that such filtering will be inefficient, ineffective, intrusive and incomplete for a number of technical reasons.

My second email included a lot of questions regarding the trial in Tasmania, such as how it is to be operated, how it effectiveness is to be measured, under what circumstances will it be considered a success, and conversely when it might be considered a failure? How will the trial affect users. How will material that is restricted be seen by users. Will they be advised that the content has been blocked, or will it just appear as if it doesn't exist? Other than the fact that over half of Tasmania's internet users have their service diminished for three months, and which companies are involved, very little details of the trial have been disclosed. This has the potential to affect many people, and so we should be able to know what exactly is being done in this trial.

I'll also point out that I use the internet a lot. Much more than most people. And quite frankly I can't remember the last time I was bombarded with porn while innocently looking for something else. I've also managed to avoid a number of the other less pleasant of the internet. It isn't hard to do. If people do not take the steps to avoid seeing what the don't want to see, they shouldn't complain. And they should not place restrictions on what others do that has no affect on them so that they can stay in their state of blissful ignorance.

Finally to all those who think that this is a good idea, I again suggest you go through all the arguments for this and replace the word "pornography" with "democracy", or "traditional family values", or "free speech", or whatever is very important to your worldview. This isn't about what's being blocked. It's about blocking. The freedom to speak includes the freedom of others to listen. It also applies to people who say things we don't like. Freedom to say only the things approved by parliament is no true freedom.

I'll end with two quotes from Senator Barnett, which I feel highlights his brutal misunderstanding as to what fundamental rights are and how they should be applied (for those who don't get why this view is bad, see the end of this post).

"Every Australian has a fundamental right to access the internet free from pornography and extreme violence"

"The objective in the first instance is to protect children, before we consider the rights of adults."

End Post
Writing time: 1 hour
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: Penny Arcade podcast

answers for the clueless re basic rights.
1) No fundamental right is limited to a specific medium
2) No fundamental right is conditional (ie you can use the internet, just don't worry about the naughty parts)
3) Protection of children, while important, does not trump an adults ability to exercise a basic right