Bernadette McMenamin responds
January 14, 2008 – 7:13 pmStilgherrian has published a cracking letter sent to him by Child Wise’s Bernadette McMenamin. Whilst McMenamin’s drive to protect kids is one I fully support, she clearly shows from her communication with Stil that she is wiling to do it at any cost — even without knowing its potential to actually reduce child pornography.
Here’s part of her letter:
I am also a little perplexed about some of the feedback that I have been receiving about the uselessness of child pornography filtering. Now I am simply asking a question. If filtering of child pornography cannot work then why is there so much anger, fear and resentment to any attempt to block child pornography and other illegal sites? This is what I don’t understand.
Because we would prefer to spend the money somewhere that would actually help prevent kids becoming the victims of child abuse. That’s why Bernadette. You know, as opposed to wasting it on a filter that will NOT reduce the amount of child pornography available, or it’s production.
This is not a simple little procedure that will cost 30 bucks or even 30 grand. We are looking at an operation costing millions. And that’s just the setup costs.
I’m not the sort of guy who wants to waste money and pretend we are helping kids. I’m the sort of person who would prefer to REALLY HELP KIDS. You know by funding health services and the police. And I’m sure that’s what Bernadatte really wants to do as well.
I’ll say it once, and I’ll probably say it another 14,00 times by July: A filter will not reduce the amount of kids being exploited. It will not protect children.
You can read the letter here.
One Response to “Bernadette McMenamin responds”
I hope Bernadette follows through on the reasoned arguments people put to her politely.
1) The filter takes money away from education and law enforcement.
2) The filter fails to deal with the primary transmission vectors for child sexual abuse on-line: peer to peer cryptographically protected networks; and, adult grooming through forums / chat / instant messaging.
3) The filter retards the internet’s function to the point of preventing its reasonable utility and operation. Like broadcasting television with static to avoid the sight of ankles on TV.
4) Senator Conroy’s announcements cover “illegal and unwanted content”. Illegal content in Australia is so broad as to encompass most adult expression (through R18+, X18+, Cat 1, Cat 2 content being illegal online; copyright violations (with out grossly out of date copyright law) being illegal; defamation and vilification (being with our grossly out of date libel law being most political, social or economic expression regarding another person or organisation) being illegal.) Unwanted content must, perforce, be even worse than the above illegal content. Might I remind, that “adult themes” alone can push something into R18+. Might I remind that an item can be pushed to Cat 1 publication due to adult themes or coarse language of a high intensity?
5) While the law regarding depiction of child sexualisation is reasonable and just law; a large majority of children (being adolescents) sexualise themselves on the internet, including photographically; and, can be prosecuted under this law as adults for sexualising themselves. This is highly disturbing, and filtering will not prevent children from sexualising themselves in this manner. Education would prove more effective.
By fifers on Dec 16, 2008