censorship IV
Maybe it won’t happen after all…
The headline says it all - ‘Net filtering may not be mandatory’.
But first let’s look at the history:
The Australian Labor Party’s 2007 National Platform and Constitution.
Chapter sixteen, titled ‘Supporting Australia’s Arts, Culture and Heritage’, subtitled ‘Government Support for the Arts’, section 22:
“Labor supports a requirement for internet service providers to offer a filtered ‘clean feed’ internet service to all households, schools and other public internet points accessible by children.”
I am all for the support of the Arts, in fact I think it a really important area that desperately needs more funding, which in turn would potentially provide jobs to people like me. But I fail to see how that as a stated aim is linked to an internet filter.
In contrast, the preceding section in the ALP’s constitution is about the support of new media forms to present Australia’s culture and art and the following section is about the provision of public art in major buildings.
Does anyone else think it was shoved into a place where it might get overlooked?
What about the timing of the first media announcement of this policy? December 31 2007. I think it’s safe to say that it’s not really a day when most people are paying close attention to the news, instead they’re wondering about which party to attend / what vantage point to view the fireworks from / what they’re going to wear / which beverage they’re going to consume in copious quantities.
Senator Conroy stated, “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”
I don’t think there were too many people that were equating those particular things. Conroy possibly needs a lesson in how to avoid fallacies in order to strengthen his argument.
Back then the plan was going to be opt-out - ie it was voluntary, you had a choice whether you wanted your internet filtered or not. Somewhere along the line it was changed to a mandatory option, with users being able to opt out of the second tier of the filter. This would be enforced through legislative methods, hence the (supposed) influence of Family First’s Senator Fielding in order for the laws to pass through the Senate.
But in last week’s Senate estimates committee hearing, Conroy suggested that the filter could be adopted by ISPs on what amounted to a mandatory voluntary system if they all agreed to implement it. This raises the possibility of self-regulation, relying on an industry consensus to adopt the Government’s wishes. You only need to look at the industry’s response to the call for participants in the live filtering trial currently underway to see how successful that’s likely to be…





