Bernadette McMenamin’s argument for filtering hinges on one very big ‘if’
February 5, 2009 – 9:56 pmGuest opinion article by Sunili Govinnage
I’ve always thought that the title of this blog, Somebody Think Of The Children, was mostly a tongue-in-cheek dig at the use of the “child protection” argument by people who oppose freedom of speech but don’t have any logical arguments to defend their view points.
I know some of the people/organisations I am thinking of honestly do care about the little kiddies (and sure, who wouldn’t? They’re so cute), but the argument they bring forward always reminds me of nations at war using human shields to prevent their enemy attacking: regardless of what the argument is, poor, innocent (possibly crying) children are held up with accusatory stares — “Are you really going to hurt this child? Because what you’re asking for will do just that.”
It sort of makes you wonder whether, if this tact doesn’t work, they’ll try with puppies. Kind of like the animal activist group PETA’s campaign to re-name fish as “sea kittens” so that people will be more upset about the horrors of fishing.
The latest installment of the War on The Interwebs (aka Senator Conroy’s “Cleen Feed” proposal) is an op-ed in The Australian’s IT section by Childwise CEO, Bernadette McMenamin, who has spent the last 25 years working both in Australia and overseas to prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. She states that:
One of the most horrendous developments that we have experienced in the last 15 years is the dramatic explosion in the global trade of child sexual abuse images on the internet.
To avoid being called a child pornographer, or even pervert-sympathiser, I want to make it clear right now that I am unequivocally against the heinous horror of sexual and physical exploitation of children in every form.
Bernie (can I call her “Bernie”? I’m sure she won’t mind. She seems like a fun gal) is absolutely right when she says early in her piece:
The world was relatively unprepared to deal with this unprecedented phenomenon [of kiddie-porn on the Internet] and it took some years for governments, law enforcers and child protection organisations to not only understand the nature of this issue but also how we should combat this trans-national problem.
She has my support on this 100 per cent. Let’s get those dirty bastards. But she completely misses the point in trying to argue that compulsory filtering in Australia is part of the solution to this global travesty.
Apparently the “ISP filtering of child pornography images would strengthen these current endeavors [net-safety education, law enforcement, etc] by blocking child pornography at the Internet server level” because the child abusers who rang Child Wise told Bernie they’d be less likely to act out because a “blocking mechanism would have reduced their desire to abuse children as their access to child sexual abuse images actually facilitated their offending”.
Um. Whoa? Doesn’t this scream out of a far bigger problem in dealing with offenders through more concerted efforts of mental health, rehabilitation and burning perverts at the stake?
Wouldn’t preventing the creeps from getting their peepers on child-porn merely repress a serious, underlying problem among the scum of society that might end up turning into a bomb waiting to explode as soon as the caged dogs get a whiff of fresh meat?
Filtering isn’t the solution to the horrible problem of child sex abuse. McMenamin even concedes that filtering won’t prevent the transfer of files through pervert-to-pervert networks but says:
“No one really knows whether the amount of images that will be blocked will be 20, 30, 50+ per cent but surely a reduction in any amount is worth the effort.”
First of all, a question of “worth the effort” is incredibly subjective, and secondly, how can McMenamin be sure that any child pornography will be blocked to those that matter. Surely those who seek it will go to whatever lengths necessary to get their sticky hands on whatever it is that they so despicably need.
I commend McMenamin’s reasonableness in concluding that if the trials don’t work she’ll shut up. But it just seems incredibly naive for her to argue that the whole-scale filtering of the internet in Australia, which will have much greater repercussions than just zapping out a small amount of kiddie-porn, is worth it “if at the end ISP filtering of child sexual abuse images will protect the children of the world.”
That’s a very big if. And somehow I just don’t think that Senator Conroy is the man with the vision or the capacity to protect the children of the world.
Sunili Govinnage is a Law (Hons)/Arts (Politics) (Hons) graduate from Perth who has been an active member of the online community since she was 14 years old. She currently blogs at http://blog.sunili.net and is on Twitter as @sunili.
If you’d like to respond to Bernadette McMenamin (or any of the nine Australian IT filtering ‘bloggers’), leave a comment below or pitch me an article via email.
17 Responses to “Bernadette McMenamin’s argument for filtering hinges on one very big ‘if’”
If the trials don’t work she’ll shut up? I don’t think that is a very likely scenario. She has demonstrated that honest debate (whether by ignorance or design) is not part of her agenda – I simply cannot believe that statement to be true.
We all know that regardless of the hard data, Conroy will declare the trial a resounding success. All the pro-filtering campaigners misrepresent the existing data now, there’s is no reason to believe that new data is going to be treated any more honestly. McMenamin (amongst others) is likely to latch onto any statements of success given by Conroy – none of them have let reality stop them up to this point.
She seems to be one of the few parties that agrees with the filter’s stated aims, rather than just wanting a trojan horse for a censorship system. I honestly believe (unlike some others in favour of censorship) her intentions are noble, but that just isn’t enough. I respect her right to advocate a position, I don’t respect her misrepresenting data and making specious and flawed assertions. I really hope that this is a result of ignorance, I really do.
As someone who’s sole purpose is child welfare, I cannot understand how she can justify the reduction of AFP funding for child protection to fund this unworkable mess. It won’t work – she admits as much herself. What does work is traditional policing, and she knows it. I cannot understand why she is working against her own goals.
By Stuart Anderson on Feb 6, 2009
Sunili, the whole “blocking mechanism would have reduced their desire to abuse children” statement set off alarm bells for me too. If McMenamin actually belives this, she’s a bigger fool than I thought.
To me I think that’s like saying that if there were no sexual images of women avalible in the world, men would stop thinking about having sex with women, which is completely ludicrous. Even if there was some way we could stop all child porn from being produced and distributed, child abuse will still happen. A damn filter will not stop kids from being abused.
By Matthew on Feb 6, 2009
child abusers who rang Child Wise told Bernie they’d be less likely to act out because a “blocking mechanism would have reduced their desire to abuse children as their access to child sexual abuse images actually facilitated their offending”.
Why does Child Wise associate with such people, getting a random phone call from a paedophile is one thing but teaming up to form an argument is at best questionable.
By Jaxx on Feb 6, 2009
Bernadette is correct. She knows that there are web sites on the Internet containing images of child sexual abuse that are illegal in Australia, yet these are freely accessible by anyone on the Internet. If you tried to bring these images into Australia by any other method such as on a DVD or hard drive you risk being arrested for this. So what’s wrong with blocking them on the Internet? If you try to access these sites from most ISPs in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia and New Zealand you will be blocked. Why should Australia be any different? We know that commercial web sites containing child sexual abuse images are not the only method by which this content can be accessed. But is that any reason not to at least block them? Seat belts in cars do not stop all people from being killed or injured in car accidents, but they do help many. Is that any reason not to introduce them. If ISP filtering works, and it does not slow down the Internet, then let it happen. Why is it that many ISPs in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia and New Zealand voluntarily block these web sites, some at the own cost, yet many Australian ISPs do not want to do it even if the government offers to pay for it?
By 4Children on Feb 6, 2009
4Children, if authorities know these sites exist, they know where they’re hosted. Why can’t police agencies over the world work together to take down these sites and prosecute those who host the material and upload it? Blocking it out does nothing really. The sites still exist, it’s just that some people can’t see them (unless they use VPN or other method which is dead easy to use).
I also question why all internet users must suffer absolute crap like the recent Wikipedia fiasco in the England for the sake of what is a handful of sites. It’s like trying to crack a nut with a bulldozer; it’s completely mad, complete overkill and quite ineffective.
Plus the recent leaking of blacklists is fantastic for paedophiles who now have list of sites they can go to get their fix from. So in short from the overseas experience, it hasn’t been all that rosy really, plus the Australian government is going much further than any other western democracy in terms of how they want to filter and censor the internet.
By Matthew on Feb 6, 2009
Honestly, the filter if it goes through will only serve to hide the crime of child pornography than reduce it.
Like a read a while ago from a mother of a sexually abused child: She doesn’t want the filter. Not because she doesn’t think child pornography is terrible, but because the AFP saved her child from further abuse. She knows that the AFP can stop cases of child abuse by stopping the source in each instance. She also knows that the internet filter wouldn’t have saved her child.
That was posted on a women’s forum a few months ago, and deleted by the owner (an ISP filter advocate) not long after.
By Joyce on Feb 6, 2009
“One of the most horrendous developments that we have experienced in the last 15 years is the dramatic explosion in the global trade of child sexual abuse images on the internet.”
That’s kind of a no-brainer considering that 15 years ago was 1994 which is well before the mainstream adoption of the internet as a medium. Not to mention that this ‘explosion’ probably tracks almost exactly with average bandwidth and number of users connected to the internet.
By Simon on Feb 6, 2009
Of course children have to be protected from images of sexual abuse on the Internet, but idiots like McMenamin do not realize that smart people can protect children simply by installing PC-based filters and configure them to block certain content that they don’t want their children to see. She has children on her own, so why isn’t she already doing this. McMenamin should not be surprised if her children are able to bypass this filter using software like Tor, VPNs, or Anonymizer.
By Glenn Petrie on Feb 6, 2009
I’ve blogged about this before (see link).
Any filter that detects existing child pornography images is only going to produce increased demand for new, as-yet-unseen (and consequently unfiltered) images.
Which children are we trying to protect again?
The ones actually being abused certainly aren’t going to appreciate the “protection” of an increased market for fresh images.
By Daniel on Feb 6, 2009
Maybe instead of worrying about the icing on the cake, they should be going to the delicious cakey part (or in this case, the cake is not so delicious) – going to the SOURCE of these child sex abuse problems, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. An internet filter blocking child porn is a bandaid on a bullethole.
By AileenWuornos on Feb 6, 2009
In the comments section from Bernadette, or some low-life posing as her
“For the record and I have made this statement publicly before is that Child Wise supports the mandatory filtering of illegal sites and not legal sites. We are not pro censorship. Therefore we believe that the black list to be filtered at the ISP level should only consist of illegal sites including child pornography.
I have presented my arguments to many of you individually and through the media so I do think there is very little else I can say.
I will continue to state my views (as you do as critics of the ISP filtering scheme) to support measures that will protect children and can prevent people from viewing child pornography.
Again I want to reiterate that this is only one strategy amongst a whole host of other strategies that governments and the world community should adopt.
You can call me whatever names you continue to do and for those who question my motives please examine my track record. I am certainly not a moralist nor pro censorship as I dont believe that filtering child pornography is censorship.
Child Wise works internationally to protect children delivering multiple programs in the most vulnerable communities so my life doesnt consist of simply blogging and making comments about ISP filtering. We are at the coal face each and every day dealing with victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. There is very little else I can say to address your criticisms of my stance.
I am not a government stooge and have been (on the record) very critical of government policies or lack there of in relation to child protection. I do however apologise to people who took offence at my comments regarding the protestors against ISP filtering. I do believe that you believe what you are saying and I ask for the same consideration back that many of us working in the child protection field do so for little rewards and funding.I have no other motive than the protection of children whether you think my comments are misguided or misinformed. As you will continue to lobby against it I will continue to lobby for a scheme that will block child sexual abuse images. At the end of the day we will just have to agree to disagree.
Bernadette McMenamin AO
Child Wise”
By Jarrod on Feb 6, 2009
We are living in an unprecedented social experiment.
Never so much technology has been available to everyone.
From a very young age, children start with a computer connected to the Internet then graduate very quickly in the name of parent security with mobile phones, they are the new generation of connected kids.
For these kids social interactivity is happening through emails, SMS and of course what it is called “Social” sites with the likes of Facebook and others.
By didier on Feb 6, 2009
We the unwilling have been abused by the unknowing for so long we now know it is a waste of time to try to inform them of their stupidity. No one disagrees with protecting children but excuse me we have a government that is not willing to be transparent about what web sites it intends to block. Simple solution – be transparent and publsih the list. No one would be able to argue then that is some secret censorship going on and no one would be upset about blocking the listed sites. If the list is wrong it can be challenged and corrected – simple. It is that Conroy is bent on a secret list that is the problem, today it is about illegal child propongraphy, so what about Islamic websites? I bet they don’t get blocked – or will they? No one knows and that is the problem. As long as the good Senator wants to keep secrets we are suspicious so perhaps the campaigners for the filter should get onto our side and fight for transparent lists? If we are together then there is a united front that the govt will be less likely to resist.
By K on Feb 8, 2009
I doubt child pornography is mainly distributed through web sites. They probably use password protected files on emule, torrents, newsgroups, irc channels, MSN, file hosting services etc. How can you block/filter all those options? You simply can’t because it’s impossible.
Why is it that many ISPs in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia
Australian internet is in stone age compared to those countries. And as you should have seen on this blog countries with those filters are also blocking perfectly legal sites and child pornography is still present.
By SkipEU on Feb 9, 2009
Wow, I can’t wait for these for these filters to be implemented. When these filters are implemented all child abuse and creation of children pornography will cease to exist in Australia.
Then the rest of the world can see how great implementing ISP mandatory filters are and they will all follow Australia’s lead and then the whole world will be a child safe environment.
Seriously though…
In her article she said
“Viewing child pornography should not even be considered as freedom of speech.”
Does Bernadette McMenamin seriously think that people consider filtering child pornography on the internet an issue about free speech?
She must really be stupid if she can’t even consider other possible implications of this filter.
By kyle on Feb 9, 2009
What I cannot understand is why preventing the viewing of child pornography is such a high priority.
The argument of supply and demand – that those who view child pornography create demand, thus increasing the number of children who are abused – seems null and void to me since, on the internet, you can pretty much get anything for free. By this logic, having child pornography on the internet is in fact REDUCING the demand for the material, since those who are inclined to view it are not forced to BUY it through more conventional means.
It’s the same as, for example, the music industry, which many claim is shrinking because of rampant piracy. Except, in the case of child pornography, having the material is already illegal, so there is no reason to fear retribution for downloading it… in fact, one would think it much safer than buying it in some dark and dingy alley (or wherever it is that you buy the stuff anyway).
I also refuse to believe that having access to child porn will make people more likely to abuse children themselves. Adults have been sexually ‘abusing’ children throughout recorded history. Surely people being able to get their ‘fix’, for free, in their own home, does nothing but reduce their desire to resort to more extreme, and certainly far more dangerous (from the standpoint of being arrested) methods.
So child pornography on the internet reduces demand, and also desire.
Of course, what I’m forgetting here is that the government is not actually interested in stopping child abuse, it’s interested in persuading the idiots who make up the voting majority that it is doing all it can to stop it. Sadly, one of these idiots seems to be Bernadette McMenamin.
By HTA on Feb 9, 2009