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.

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.

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.

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.

“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”

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.