Dale Clapperton: Mandatory ISP-Level Internet Censorship Smack[s] of the Condescending Paternalism Which Contributed to the Downfall of the Howard Government.
Following up on (and giving me another chance to use Soviet Ruddkips), I’ve been waiting for Dale Clapperton from EFA’s response to the Rudd government’s plan for mandatory ISP-level internet censorship. I was waiting, and yet STILL managed to miss it! Anyway, on Wednesday, EFA published a press-release roundly condemning the government’s plans:
“Waving the ’save the children’ flag may be good politics, but it ignores serious technological problems which will likely cause the proposed scheme to fail,” said EFA Chair Dale Clapperton. “Furthermore, Australia is supposed to be a liberal democracy where adults have the freedom to say and read what they want, not just what the Government decides is ‘appropriate’ for them.”
“These announcements smack of the condescending paternalism which contributed to the downfall of the Howard government,” Clapperton continued. “The proposals threaten the free speech rights of every Australian, and our concerns will not be silenced by Government sound bites equating free speech with access to child pornography.”
EFA has previously raised concerns about Australia joining North Korea, China and Burma in the club of nations who censor their citizens’ access to the internet. While the Minister makes no apologies for this alarming development, he has given us little reason to put our faith in his bureaucrats to administer such a system competently, transparently and fairly.
“Who decides what is ‘appropriate’ for adult Australians to read on the Internet, and according to what standards?”, asked Clapperton. “What will happen if the Government decides that information about abortion or gay marriage is ‘inappropriate’ at the behest of Family First Senator Steve Fielding?”
In an attempt to dismiss the policy’s critics, Senator Conroy said “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” EFA notes, however, that child pornography is already illegal, and very unlikely to come to the attention of either the casual web user or the censors themselves. “senator Conroy’s attempt to equate freedom of speech with access to child pornography is a transparent attempt to deter criticism of this fundamentally flawed proposal,” said Mr Clapperton.
[...]
ISP based filtering will not make the Internet safe for children, and may even cause harm in and of itself. If parents are deceived into believing that a ‘filtered’ Internet service is safe for children, they will be less likely to take sensible precautions such as supervising their children while they use the Internet.”
At a time when all sides of politics acknowledge the importance of developing our information economy, EFA feels that this announcement sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. “The Coalition was rightly ridiculed by the rest of the world when they announced in the late 1990’s that they would censor Australian’s Internet access. The Coalition, at least, sensibly realised that their proposals were technologically infeasible. It seems that the current Minister with responsibility for the Internet has yet to learn that lesson.”
The editorial in yesterday’s Courier-Mail largely echoed these sentiments:
BLANKET censorship of any kind in a democracy should be viewed with deep suspicion.
And so it is with the Rudd Government’s proposal to require all internet service providers in this country to provide a “clean feed” to Australian subscribers.
This will be achieved by filtering “inappropriate” websites - those with explicit sexual or violent content - at the ISP level.
Ostensibly the move is designed to protect children from accessing unsavoury web content, but it will catch every Australian internet user in the process. Some cynics might also suggest that the policy is at least in part aimed at appeasing some independent members of the Senate, such as Family First’s Steve Fielding.
What is to be deemed inappropriate will be determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, although we are yet to see any clear definitions of what will be permissible and what will be banned.
Those users who wish to access unfiltered content online will have to contact their ISP and formally “opt out” of the filtering, whereas the previous government had proposed a system whereby subscribers could “opt in” to a clean feed. Will there be a register of Australian internet users who elect to “opt out” for whatever reason?
[...]
The other danger with this style of censorship is the ability of regulators, once it is in place, to extend the parameters of what is unacceptable and deserving of a ban - a creeping cancer of government censorship in the worst-case scenario.
Ultimately, however, it comes down to parental responsibility. Sex and violence have existed since the dawn of time, and responsible parents have managed to shield their young from the worst of it without the compulsory help of a Big Brother.
The Rudd Government should concentrate on delivering on its promise to improve broadband access and efficiency in this country, and not try to impose itself as some draconian nanny watching over all of our shoulders.
Leave the parents to do the parenting.
That is all.