An open letter to Australian Women Online about their support of ISP filtering
October 31, 2008 – 3:06 pmThose that support mandatory ISP filtering (there’s one or two) often do so because they simply don’t understand how filtering works and believe it’s a solution to protecting our children from the risks they face when using the Internet.
There’s also those that do so because they would benefit financially from filtering being mandated and others who see it as a means of authenticating their morals and beliefs while opening avenues for controlling those of others.
AustralianWomenOnline.com’s (AWO) support for the plan seems to stem from pure ignorance.
Earlier this week, AWO deleted many of their earlier articles about filtering (and the comments that accompanied them) after Whirlpool users stumbled upon them and consequently criticised AWO writer Deborah Robinson for her views and reluctance to debate the issue.
Nothing has changed. In AWO’s most recent article Danielle Hutchinson writes:
The apparent unwillingness of some to rationally discuss, compromise and problem-solve over the use of this shared virtual world seems to us a sad reflection of the ever growing sense of individualist entitlement that’s becoming so prevalent in the “real” world.
At the same time AWO closed the ability for users to comment and debate the article as soon as it was published. Other recent AWO articles are open for comment.
Which brings me to this post. Geordie Guy has asked me to publish this letter he wrote to Danielle Hutchinson and AWO. I invite Danielle and anyone else from AustralianWomenOnline to respond.
Dear Danielle,
My name is Geordie Guy, I’m a member of the noisy minority you refer to in your article “Australian Women Online on ISP Filtering Debate” at http://www.australianwomenonline.com/australian-women-online-on-isp-filtering-debate. Your article contains a lot of misinformation, incorrect assumptions and misleading angles on the facts. I’d like to have commented on the article in place, or emailed you personally, however yourself or someone else from Australian Women Online have closed the comments on the article and your email address isn’t available. I therefore approached Mike Meloni to have my thoughts published.
Firstly in your article you state that the Internet is a shared resource and what goes on in this space must be negotiated. This paints an inaccurate picture. Your assertions invoke the idea of a playground in which it is unacceptable to misbehave because other users of the playground would be inconvenienced or threatened; this is not correct. One user of the Internet rarely directly intervenes in another’s experience unless that user or the parents that supervise that user permits it, and in the rare exceptions there are a host of laws and law-enforcement instruments already in existence to protect Australians. Your imagery of an ideological level playing field that has for too long been a no-go zone due to the misuse of the resource by others is wrong. It reads as a call to “take back the Internet”, and this is patently an appeal to emotion. I think you are to be admonished for it.
You go on to talk of a mystery “some” (this is frequently referred to as “weasel words”) who are unwilling to rationally discuss, compromise and problem-solve this shared virtual world. Perhaps you refer to me and those like me, that’s OK, but for rational discussion I am responding to your article via another website that champions the viewpoint opposing yours. It’s wrong of you to cast aspersions about the unwillingness of advocates of a free Internet to engage in rational discourse when we are unable to even comment at the bottom of your website in 160 characters or less. To problem solve, well that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Your comments about doomsday tactics are, I’m sorry, humorous. At no time have I seen (and I suppose that doesn’t preclude it), doomsday tactics from the anti-censorship lobby. We have stated the facts as they relate to the clean feed proposals and if those make people frightened or provide an “impending sense of doom”, it truthfully bolsters our argument, not the argument of those who would see the Internet censored;
- The clean feed proposed will do nothing to protect Australian children as it does not moderate the technology by which child abuse products or even other offensive material are predominantly shared
- The clean feed proposed will slow the Internet , cementing us at the bottom of the western world in terms of reliability and speed
- The clean feed proposed will inadvertently lead to the accidental moderation of material that it is not meant to block
- The clean feed proposed will still permit offensive material to be accessed by children or others who don’t wish to see it, and encourage laxness from parents who believe their children are protected
- The clean feed proposal is a colossal expense, which in the face of popular opinion, should be spent elsewhere, anywhere
I’ve covered some pretty assertive points there so I’ll elaborate on why, because your article misrepresents some things that I’ve rejected only in summary.
You state that we argue about “technical difficulties”, and it seems you think that we those against the proposal have their reasoning that the effort involved is too much. That’s only part of it. The opportunity cost that the federal Government proposes to incur by going down this ludicrous path instead of doing anything that will actually help Australians including Australian children is an outrage.
The technical difficulties represent what all technical difficulties do - millions upon millions of dollars. Senator Conroy has advised at varying times, $125 million dollars for the cybersafety initiative. I imagine rather than censoring the Internet which has provided so much value to Australians over the last three decades, this money could be better spent on almost anything else. I would almost prefer to see the Government offer one hundred and twenty five $1m rewards for information leading to the conviction of a child pornographer. Instead of trying to address the consumption of the product, an impossible task, why does the Government not seek to go after the people who directly harm children in the production of this material? Is this not what we do fighting against illegal drugs?
Would I support the issue if the technical difficulties could be resolved? No. Because the method of the resolution of any technical difficulties is a waste of time, money and effort better spent in actually solving any problems that the Government’s intent is to resolve, and there are other problems that when you “peel back the layers”, are still there. This is important, even though the tone of your article suggests that they are mere useless backstops to a flaccid argument about technicalities.
The overall message that your article delivers is that a mythical divide between life online and offline exists, and that the Internet needs to be pulled into line. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. This assertion will be remembered (when the clean feed is a distant memory due to the outrage of informed Australians) as the most deceitful, fear mongering talking point of the debate.
I cannot articulate enough how dangerous and ill considered this position is. Its existence is the very reason why we go through this cycle. Tomes of legislation both state and commonwealth, instruments of law and trained law enforcement professionals apply the same standards to the behavior of people online as offline. Australians reject dangerous people and their criminal activities, and pay no attention to the tools they use to conduct them. Online is offline.
The Internet is “real life”. It’s sad that your article, while well written, adopts a “here be dragons” approach to something you clearly don’t understand. If one doesn’t understand something, they are likely to fear it, and in being complacent in clarifying the facts you are spreading the smoke and mirrors reputation of the Internet to readers of your article. This cannot go unchallenged. You are patently wrong.
Unlike broccoli which I consider delicious, I am an adult Australian husband and I do not want this. I understand that the plan to filter the Internet is nothing more than complacent laziness by ill informed people who do not understand the technological tools that are used to enormous benefit and freedom of everyday Australians.
These ill informed people, including yourself, whip up fear, uncertainty and doubt by painting a macabre picture of a behemoth entity teeming with criminals who consume the resources of good people and who are unwilling to share some mystic resource with them. I don’t feel that the same standards applied to the Australian gaming industry which was effectively outlawed overnight in 2001 (in your words, “negotiating its place”), should apply to information about sexual health, anorexia, opposing political views, advocacy of free speech, breast feeding or any other turn of phrase that would be censored under this plan or runs the risk of it.
I don’t believe our Government should waste its time, effort and money on a technologically flawed system and should instead protect Australians in ways that we expect to be protected - agnostic of the format in which the crime is conducted. Thirty years ago white collar crime was underprosecuted because it was considered not “real” crime such as mugging or rape, please, I implore you, don’t perpetuate the urban myth that the Internet is some foreboding playground of dangerous uncontrollable pseudocrime which is impervious to challenge by our police and Government, because it plays by an entirely different set of rules.
The Internet is not a free for all. Nothing is. We are all proud Australians and thus in any jurisdiction, subject to her laws. This is the case if we are in George St. Sydney, Chapel St. Melbourne, if we choose to exploit children in Vietnam or support it by consuming content at some website somewhere, or if we use the peer-to-peer networks that make up sixty percent of Internet traffic and almost all illegal material that the Government proposal would not regulate. Please, join the effort to have ordinary people take the responsibility to live in a community with each other under the rule of law, not under a censorship regime.
There is no virtual world. There is just the real world. In this real world, I call upon you to support Australia in protecting children, not removing or obfuscating it’s technological tools as some abhorrent, anarchistic scapegoat.
Regards,
Dip. I.T. (Net. Eng), MCSA, MCTS, CCDA, IBMCDP, CCA, Husband, Son, Australian
24 Responses to “An open letter to Australian Women Online about their support of ISP filtering”
Well done on an excellent response that whole heartedly agree with but would have found it difficult to articulate.
It’s difficult to keep emotion out of this debate, particularly regarding the frustration that many of us are feeling. You’re response was measured but it’s tone was firm, assertive and not without the flavor of such frustration.
By Mathew Byrne on Oct 31, 2008
That’s a fantastic letter from Geordie. Thankyou for posting it!
By Tim on Oct 31, 2008
Outstanding letter. Well done Geordie
By Rob on Oct 31, 2008
Magnificently put. Now if only this woman would read the thing…
By Estarc on Oct 31, 2008
Their claim that it’s a minority who are against the filter are absurd. The Sunrise poll showed that 80% are against it. A poll done by the Courier Mail, showed even less support for the filter:
“A poll asking readers if they supported the proposed internet filter showed 88 per cent – or 3222 voters – were against the plan and likened it to mandatory censorship. Only 11 per cent, or 426 people, supported it.”
By Jeremy on Oct 31, 2008
Great letter mate, that was an interesting read. that blog post on australian women online is total crap and needed to be rebutted. Nice work mate.
By Jarrod on Oct 31, 2008
I have just read about this and am outraged! If Australia goes down this path, the precedent will be set for other western liberal democracies to follow suit.
I would fear even more for freedoms in “Big Brother” Britain, and elsewhere.
By Curly on Nov 1, 2008
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I would love to know what exactly AWO’s Danielle Hutchinson means by “negotiation”.
Most scholars would see negotiating as a process that is social by nature but quite obviously filters (ie computer programs) DO NOT and CANNOT negotiate. Filters by their very nature can’t make decisions regarding the legality of certain content either (otherwise we wouldn’t need barristers, courts etc).
This means the online filtering situation is very different from, for example, news agents selling a range of magazines for different age groups. News agents would have an understanding of the magazines they are allowed to sell and the laws regulating such sales.
Is AWO actually aware of the filtering software that is freely available from http://www.netalert.gov.au/ ? This software allows parents to negotiate with their children as to what they are allowed to access (obviously this approach does not scale to a whole population as diverse as Australia’s).
By Christopher Lueg on Nov 1, 2008
That was calm dispassionate and well thought through.
There are going to be many more Deborah Robinson, type characters that pop out of the wood work, once the extremist Christian lobby, get cranking at their end. They have tons of money.
This is just the beginning. So we are going to have to get more organised.
By Don on Nov 1, 2008
Hi Geordie,
Congratulations on a well thought out, concise and impactful piece. In such a huge debate, it is too easy to take a “But I disagree, just because I do” attitude, however you have brought a logical thought piece to this woman, who based on her previous works, will either have no response at all, or who will just respond with “I’m right, you’re wrong”.
You are bringing this woman the negotiation she keeps asking for, although I do not doubt her “negotiation” is just trying to get everyone to agree with her.
Which we don’t.
We already have a bad rep world-wide for having expensive, shotty and unreliable internet infrastructure. I live in Tasmania, (at one point a few years ago, the State Government attempted to coin the phrase “Information Island”). It is a known fact that *elstra charges independant ISP’s more to move data between the mainland than it charges them to move data between the mainland and international sources. Anyone who disagrees with me should try to get ADSL2+ at mainland prices. The options are:
1) Bigpond. Expensive.
2) ???
Upon contacting a few decently priced ISPs, I was bluntly told “Sorry, we don’t service Tasmanian customers”. We have about 4 DSLAMs in the state. Which are either full, or simply not taking new customers.
I fully beleive that a National Clean Filter will either revert the entire state back to dial-up speeds, or simply cut us off altogether.
Thank you again Geordie for bringing some light into our already darkened Internet Tubes.
By Zalchiah on Nov 1, 2008
http://forums.australianwomenonline.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=214
Quote:
Australian Women Online is not opposed to the concept of mandatory ISP filtering of illegal content on the Internet. We are of the opinion that such a move would only bring the Internet in line with the legislation that already exists in regards to pornography. We believe it would be preemptive to comment on the specific details of mandatory ISP filtering until the federal government has made some finally decisions in relation to this.
Everyone has the right to express an opinion in relation to the government’s plans to introduce mandatory ISP filtering. However, we will not be drawn into a debate about the wider issues. We are not in a position to provide a public forum for this debate on our website and we will not respond to the concerns of individuals who are opposed to mandatory ISP filtering.
Deborah Robinson
Editor, Australian Women Online
———————————
Obviously these people have no idea.
Oh, and because the Australian Women Online’s web blog could possibly talk about women, relationships, sexuality, and possibly already does… their business would be filtered from australia, for the good of australia.
I wonder if they’d like that.
By Mike on Nov 1, 2008
Think you could also respond to this?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24582570-953,00.html
By MIKE on Nov 1, 2008
“I don’t feel that the same standards applied to the Australian gaming industry which was effectively outlawed overnight in 2001″
What is this in reference to? How was the gaming industry effectively outlawed?
By Sham on Nov 1, 2008
Lol, yes I can, although I struggle to see how:
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said …
“Oral and anal sex have become almost normalised among 13-year- olds,”.
Doesn’t read as patently stupid anyway. I’ll put something together.
By Geordie on Nov 2, 2008
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Adolf Hitler
By James on Nov 2, 2008
Geordie Guy,
You can tell Australian Women Online what you think of their position on Conroy’s censorship plans by using the contact the editor form at
http://www.australianwomenonline.com/about/ or phone her at 61 (2) 9835 1128.
Go for it - I did!
By clarencegirl on Nov 2, 2008
It is unfortunate that Ms Hutchinson has taken a la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you approach to any correspondence on the matter, but please rest assured that your effort has not gone to waste. I talk about this subject with friends and family, and I’ll suggest that they read your excellent post on this page.
By Allan Lewis on Nov 2, 2008
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said …
“Oral and anal sex have become almost normalised among 13-year- olds,”
————————
“oral and anal sex” (being promoted by the government in the United Kingdom (2003)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article885612.ece
February 21, 2003
Government urges under-16s to experiment with oral sex
By Glen Owen, Education Correspondent
A GOVERNMENT-backed course is encouraging pupils under 16 to experiment with oral sex, as part of a drive to cut rates of teenage pregnancy.
Family campaigners believe that the course, called A Pause, is having the reverse effect by exciting the sexual interest of children.
The scheme, which has been pioneered by Exeter University and is backed by the Departments of Health and Education, trains teachers to discuss various pre-sex “stopping points” with under-age teenagers.
It aims to reduce promiscuity by encouraging pupils to discover “levels of intimacy”, including oral sex, instead of full sexual intercourse.
More than 100,000 children are now taking the course at one in every thirty secondary schools. It forms part of efforts to tackle Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate, which is the highest in Western Europe.
======================
I DON’T BELIEVE IT’S POSSIBLE TO BLAME THE INTERNET FOR THIS ! Perhaps similar schemes are being promoted in Australia.
In any case I would expect parents to have some involvement, or at least be aware. They should be aware of what their children are doing or seeing or being advised about.
The person making this statement is an “adolescent psychologist”. I would expect that his exposure to this type of issue arises from “problem children” and no doubt his viewpoint is skewed due to his occupation.
By Bob Bain on Nov 2, 2008
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said …
“Oral and anal sex have become almost normalised among 13-year- olds,”.
Bit of free advice from somebody who knows a bit about psych research. Carr-Gregg’s routine is often nothing more than conservative middle-class moral panic dressed up in pseudo-scientific rhetoric. He frequently makes claims well beyond what the actual scientific evidence supports. Many in psych are not happy with many of his public statements.
Take everything he says with a large grain of salt.
By anonny-ho on Nov 2, 2008
HI GUYS,
I POSTED THIS REQUEST ON THE AUSTRALIAN WOMEN ONLINE WEBSITE BECAUSE MINISTER CONROY REFUSED TO RESPOND TO ME….
I wrote this letter to Minister Conroy and had no response . I thought with your unyeilding support of him you would be able to get it through to him for me…
Dear Minister,
Your work towards the filtering of online content to all Australians is ludicrous. We are a nation of free thinking free speaking people with some of the best minds in the world. You seek to shelter us from the information age and impose on us a view of the world from behind rose coloured glasses.
As adults we deserve the right to censor our own information and place restrictions on what our children view as well.
As Australians we deserve the right to free speech and the ability to read and share our opinions and points of view from those other than our countrymen.
Preventative education is better than a blanket restriction. You will drive more people to view the information you are restricting simply by placing a taboo on it and escalating the desirability of the information. Educate our children in nutrition and healthy self images rather than dumb them down and shake your finger at them.
Spend the money on educating our society on their rights and options when it comes to terminal care and pain management. Do not remove one of the final bastions of hope and acts of self relief from the desperate amongst us in intolerable pain without cure or hope of respite from the pain.
All of the information you seek to block is available on peer to peer networks and readily accessible to anyone with access to the internet.
A waste of time and money. Spend it on the children and educate them to the dangers the internet poses and help us keep them safe from predators and pedlars.
I hope that your views may change with time and you will seek to re-educate, re-invest and support our nation in their pursuit of education, entertainment, freedom and lastly, relief from personal guilt and pain if so desired. I welcome your retort and look forward with great gusto to an open dialogue on an issue that should only exist in totalitarian states.
Regards
By Mahq on Nov 4, 2008
Great letter.
I also wrote to them saying something along the lines of that I’m embarrassed to be an Australian woman if the likes of them are claiming to speak on my behalf. and also that before long their archaic views will be ignored, because freedom of speech loving gen y will soon be in control of the country.
By starlessaeon on Nov 6, 2008
These women are rampant feminazis who really shouldn’t even be allowed to exist. We really need to fear these uneducated middle-class women, because they have heaps of time on their hands, and no brains. they react against anything they do not understand. We had them wen I was a kid in the 60’s, ranting & railing against the evils of Rock&Roll. Same mindset, different medium. This censorship MUST NOT go ahead.
By Max Tivey on Nov 7, 2008
This post and thread make me so angry: http://forums.australianwomenonline.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=2511#p2511
I didn’t even know that STotC had already done a topic on AWO and the rampant ignorant women that run it.
By Sansha on Dec 16, 2008
we can not blame the internet or this, we as parents or adults need to put a plan in place.
David Fanshaw
http://www.v3Dates.com
By David Fanshaw on Jan 8, 2009