When you sit down opposite someone who is a genuine and committed campaigner against child abuse, you're already at a bit of a disadvantage. Because you disagree with them about censorship, say, there's the temptation (or the necessity) to demostrate that you're not for what they are primarily against; that you just differ on the means and the acceptable costs of achieving the outcomes we all want.
As frustrating as that can be, it's even worse when someone who should know better tries the same cynical tricks tricks with malice aforethought. It'd be a bit naïve to expect a real nuanced debate on the issues with a child-safety crusader, but we expect much better from our political leaders. When you write a letter or speak to a someone whose job it is to debate and implement policy, you ought to be able to get a straight answer. But this has been next to impossible on the subject of Internet filtering. Make an insightful challenge to one aspect of the policy and you will hear back: "Labor went to the election with a comprehensive policy on cyber-safety, one aspect of which was Internet filtering..." You will then be told it works in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky, you will hear an implication that those against filtering don't care about children.
One outspoken critic of the scheme, Mark Newton, has been trying to break through the noise. His well-researched letter and a subsequent meeting with his MP failed to elicit a good response. His recent followup is an excellent example of clearly setting out the reasons the filter is doomed to be a fiasco. Will the Government finally feel the need to make a reasoned response? The magic 8-ball says "Don't hold your breath." Check out the letter here.
We're not giving up. We think the message will be heard amongst the public and in Canberra: We want to protect kids, but this will not work. Trying it "just in case" has enormous costs to our budget, our civil liberties, and our competitiveness in the digital economy. Censoring the Internet is not the solution. Let's work together to find a better way.
(By the way, for those of you who were wondering, the pollies hear from us at EFA too. We just have to be a bit more discreet.)
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Protect the children - mandatory filters for religious instructors not the internet.
Why is the media so quiet about this? Why isn't it front page? Is the media somehow complicit in this? I'm getting increasingly worried it will be covertly ushered in using the excuse that not enough people spoke up against it. Mr & Mrs Average Dancing With the Stars TV watchers need to realise what is happening here. I honestly don't think enough people know about it or have any idea. Terrifying.
I disagree with the contention that starting a conversation about filtering with a child abuse campaigner leaves the civil libertarian at a disadvantage.
There are strong arguments against censorship which support the anti child abuse case.
For example, when the blacklist is inevitably leaked, few child abuse campaigners would relish the inevitable fallout. Remember, when the blacklist shows up on the web it won't just promote child abuse in Australia, it'll promote it everywhere else in the world too.
(assuming it'll be an accurate, well managed list. Which it won't be. :-)
I think anyone who is against the Government on this issue can start conversations with supporters of children by agreeing with them that many parents have serious concerns about Internet content, then questioning whether the Government's current plan is actually a good way of alleviating those concerns.
Pointing out that kids know more than parents and will conseuqently be able to bypass censorship schemes is a start. Pointing out that child abusers will have the same capability should be a slam-dunk against the proposal.
The anti-child-abuse brigade aren't an enemy, we just spend most of our time talking at cross-purposes. Start the conversation by identifying areas of agreement, then critically examine the Government's proposals to judge whether they meet the goals of child supporters. They plainly don't, so make it clear. Winning the hearts and minds of these people isn't difficult, unless we start the conversation combatively.
It's sad to think that as much opposition as there is here, and as much as none of it differs wildly, the clean feed will come into effect.
Why? The majority of Australians (while considering themselves champions of freedom, 'the australian way' and of the underdog) are LAZY and APATHETIC.
'Not voting the Labor govt in next election'? 'Hoping that the plan falls through' ? I'm sorry friends, this is not the kind of approach we need.
Please- PROTESTS, LETTERS, EMAILS, DEMONSTRATIONS and something *other* than sitting back and hoping all the other good people fight your fight.
Do you realise that once the plan is implemented, it won't matter WHO you vote in or out? Once the changes necessary to implement the filtering are in effect, they are practically impossible to remove. Again, the TOO HARD basket. Each successive govt will simply move in to a house with infrastructure that is too problematic to remove. It won't *get* removed.
STOP IT BEFORE IT STARTS.
Post a Comment