Australian Christian Lobby responsible for increased pro-filtering comments?
February 18, 2009 – 3:42 pmIf you were wondering why the opinion pieces from Clive Hamilton and Stephen Conroy on Australian IT were suddenly receiving an extraordinarily huge spike in the number of comments from those supporting mandatory ISP filtering, it’s probably a result of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) requesting their members make themselves heard. According to a post on Whirlpool, ACL presumably issued the following messages to their supporters:
Dear ACL Supporter,
We need your help today in the public debate on internet filtering.
For the past week The Australian newspaper has been running a ‘Super Blog’ aimed at putting the Federal Government’s internet filtering initiative “under the microscope”. The way it works is that they run an opinion piece either for or against the initiative and then open up the issue for people to post their blogs. There have been some very good opinion pieces in favour of the internet filtering initiative (as well as several against) but the vast majority of blogs being posted are strongly against the initiative.
In today’s ‘Super Blog’, Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University (and previously the Australia Institute) has written an excellent and well-informed article entitled: ‘Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians’. However, disappointingly, most of those who have posted blogs in response are once again opposed to the initiative and what Clive Hamilton has to say.
If you’re in favour of Internet filtering – and if you read Clive Hamilton’s article you’ll see even more reasons why you should be – could you please consider posting a blog to support Clive Hamilton and the points he is making.
All you have to do is click here and it will to take you to the article. You then just scroll to the bottom where it says ‘post a comment’.
Please do take action on this as it is very important that those people in favour of internet filtering make their voice heard – and not just those who are part of the orchestrated campaign against this important initiative. It should only take a few minutes and if you need some ideas about what to write you could go to our ‘Keep IT clean’ campaign by clicking here and it will give you some assistance.
While you are there you might also like to send an email off to your Federal representatives on this issue, if you haven’t already done so.
Many thanks for your support on this issue”
For today’s ‘Super Blog’ in The Australian, Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has written an article entitled ‘Filtering doesn’t breach free speech’ which puts forward the need for internet filtering as part of a range of measures to help protect children online and also debunks ‘freedom of speech’ arguments against filtering.
Filtering critics have once again been out in force against the initiative, posting blogs criticising the article, usually with alarmist rhetoric.
We need to reinforce to the Minister and the general public the importance of internet filtering and the fact that there are many people in the community who want to see filtering go ahead.
And here’s a link to a blog from Conroy where you can post your 2c as well.
Good on ‘em. It’s free speech at work and I doubt the pro-filtering-brigade will sway many readers with comments like these:
Free speech aside, must images of nakedness be permitted for the sake of free speech? As an Australian, if a slower internet benefits anyone, I’m for it.
There’s no point attacking me and trying to make me fearful for my children’s safety to push your agenda of free porn.
I’m sure our government wouldn’t go to the trouble of introducing such systems if they didn’t make our children dramatically and demonstrably safer. To be able to allow the kids access to a safe internet will be a godsend.
Our daughter has a study desk in her room with other resources available including paper encyclopedias. It’s reasonable that her internet connected computer can be added to that learning environment.
Bring it on!
It is a shame Australian IT hasn’t published comments from at least fifteen people opposed, including me. Who knows how many more aren’t getting through. Update: After emails to Australian IT, this appears to have been rectified and comments from both sides of the fence are now being published.
24 Responses to “Australian Christian Lobby responsible for increased pro-filtering comments?”
Beat me to it again!
This needs to be shouted loud and clear: ACL and Jim Wallace are trying to manipulate the public perception and debate regarding internet censorship.
By Sam D on Feb 18, 2009
I was following Whirlpool all day. Hard to keep up with
By Mike on Feb 18, 2009
Ha! just got my comment through. Take that JW!
By Sam D on Feb 18, 2009
ACL are free to do as they like.It’s Aus IT only publishing pro-filter comments when there has been many from those opposed sent and not published in the last hour.
By Mike on Feb 18, 2009
Maybe the ACL has alot of people on their mailing list and are flooding Australian IT with posts.
By STWA on Feb 18, 2009
Opinions like the examples quoted above make me want to beat my head against the wall in frustration. They may be ill-informed and poorly thought-out, but obviously people hold them and are listening to them.
I’ll join STWA in giving the moderators at Aus IT the benefit of the doubt, but it’s still as frustrating as hell.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Feb 18, 2009
PS: Must resist urge to post snarky, patronising replies to comments left on Hamilton blog.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Feb 18, 2009
“The way it works is that they run an opinion piece either for or against the initiative and then open up the issue for people to post their blogs. There have been some very good opinion pieces in favour of the internet filtering initiative (as well as several against) but the vast majority of blogs being posted are strongly against the initiative.
In today’s ‘Super Blog’, Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University (and previously the Australia Institute) has written an excellent and well-informed article entitled: ‘Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians’. However, disappointingly, most of those who have posted blogs in response are once again opposed to the initiative and what Clive Hamilton has to say.”
I think the term blog was used once correctly in that entire block of text. I doubt most of the people on ACL’s contact list even know what the word means when used correctly, let alone in this anachronistic context.
We’re meant to trust these people when they try to tell us how the Internet should work?
By Icaria on Feb 18, 2009
My comments were finally published. I guess the emails to the Aus IT kicked them into gear.
By Eddie on Feb 18, 2009
Looks like my ISP (iPrimus) does not want anyone to submit comments to AusTV. All I get when I press the Submit Comment button is a blank page and the browser telling me that it is reading the web page, but nothing happens. Does the same happen to you?
By Glenn Petrie on Feb 18, 2009
Glenn, are you using Firefox? The AusIT comment submission function doesn’t work properly in Firefox for some reason. It works for IE7 though.
By Eddie on Feb 18, 2009
My comments are never ever posted at The Australian any more, no matter what I comment. I thought it was just me…
What is it with the logic of the Christian right anyway? Vehemently freedom of speech and anti-totalitarian, but yet always instantly swayed in blind favour and fervour of their own anathemas (such as censorship and filtering) as soon as the phrase “traditional morals” remotely appears on the horizon and a form of censorship that might favour their world view.
God, if only Christians would actually go back to fulfilling the Great Commission, giving up all their worldly goods for the poor, preaching the good news to all men, and seeking the kingdom of heaven and stuff like that as they were ordered to by Jesus, instead of making up and then fighting their good little ideological fights in favour of secular governments who really couldn’t even care less what they think. What a different world we’d live in.
I wonder if they’d still love the filter so much if they knew that one of the blocked sites on the government’s list is a Christian run anti-abortion site?
By Daniel on Feb 19, 2009
Some groups seem to be ignoring the possibility that they could find themselves on the receiving end of this censorship. I’m hoping this is due to some sort of intellectual blind spot, rather than some sort of conspiratorial backroom deal.
Others, usually those who have been in trouble for racial/sexual/religious vilification or discrimination have been much quieter. Not anti-filter, but not loudly pro.
By Sam D on Feb 19, 2009
Glenn, are you using Firefox? The AusIT comment submission function doesn’t work properly in Firefox for some reason. It works for IE7 though.
By Eddie on Feb 18, 2009
No wonder they were only posting pro-filter comments.
If you couldn’t tell already, I’m sceptical of the runners of websites that only work in IE. More often than not, it shows a limited understanding of how broadly people access the web through the most basic medium: the browser. Nevermind the more complex stuff like the effects of filtering.
By Vanessa on Feb 19, 2009
Some comments have disappeared from the Conroy blog. One of my comments yesterday was one of the victims.
By Eddie on Feb 19, 2009
So the ACL has encouraged its contacts to speak up. So what? Tell me Eros & GetUp and others do not do the same! Or is speech only free when you say something I agree with?
By Robbles on Feb 19, 2009
@Robbles
I don’t have a problem with the ACL’s call to action. I support it. As I wrote in my post, ‘Good on ‘em. It’s free speech at work…’.
The post merely draws attention to one of the possible reasons for the increase in filter supporter comments (and the lack of factual information in said comments) on Australian IT.
By Mike on Feb 19, 2009
Mike, I appreciated your comment about free speech it was more the “ACL trying to manipulate” comment from another post that got me going!
By Robbles on Feb 19, 2009
No worries
By Mike on Feb 19, 2009
My latest (utterly mystified!) article about the fiasco, FWIW:
Superblog down the Whirlpool?
at
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/02/20/superblog-down-the-whirlpool/
If it contains errors, please let me know.
I can’t seem to find comments about the Conroy/Hamilton article takedown, here or at Whirlpool.
Perhaps the Government has blanked out the article just for me – to test an extremely clever new technology?
By Syd Walker on Feb 20, 2009
I’ve posted a couple more comments on Conroy’s blog this evening, here’s hoping they get through. 2 points I’m concerned about – many of the pro-filter camp don’t seem concerned that the filter may block legitimate and legal content – the WANT it to block nudity and “filth”! Also, they seem to be confused about how the filter is supposed to work. They seem to think that the filter is designed to stop *children* viewing pornography involving *adults*, when it is supposed to stop *adults* viewing pornography involving *children*! The mandatory filter will not make it harder for children to “accidentally” view pornography (and yes, I remember telling my parents it was an “accident”!). I’m very concerned that someone is spreading false and misleading propaganda to the pro-filter camp. Or perhaps they just don’t understand how it works, or don’t care? It seems to me that anti-filter people are generally more net-savvy and interested in FACT, while the pro-filter camp are “technologically challenged” and interested in EMOTIONS.
By Ilaeria on Feb 22, 2009
I posted several anti-filter comments on BOTH sites, over several days.
Not one got through.
Not happy, Jan….
By Max on Feb 26, 2009
Why are the Christians using the Internet anyway?
To paraphrase an oft used argument, “God invented Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and the Internet!”.
tsk tsk!
James.
By James on Jun 9, 2009