Even considering how broad the scope of the net is as a form of media when compared to film, television and literature and how it is functionally unique; his was a strawman argument to begin with. Most anyone who is ideologically opposed to the censorship of the Internet is almost certainly opposed to other forms of censorship as well.

There’s an obvious rebuttal to this that even Clive should be able to understand:

“The World Wide Web isn’t like ‘films, television, books, and magazines’. The World Wide Web is like films, television, books, magazines, speeches, lectures, meetings, soapboxes, panels, parties, coffee klatches, crafting circles, political rallies, noisy pubs, arts soirees, jam sessions, sports gatherings, fan conventions, and millions upon millions of people conversing with each and showing each other stuff. Unless you think the Government should be mandatorily automatically filteirng each and every one of these things, your analogy fails. Next?”

“…support a system that automatically filtered out internet pornography going into homes, unless adult users asked otherwise…I’m shocked a percentage of any side responded no.”

“Unless adults users asked otherwise” indicates it would require adults to Opt-Out, that in my view is fascist and i certainly wouldnt support that. I have no problems with it being Opt-In and adults can chose whether they have it or not.

Mr. Hamilton has just made a very strong case for the deregulation of gun ownership. That is to say, he’s pushed me further towards supporting gun ownership.

If Mr. Hamilton believes the effects of his argument are so, “irresponsible”, and damaging on impressionable minds*, perhaps online editorial such as his should be added to the blacklist.

*I don’t actually consider myself to be impressionable but such is the price of maintaining my sarcasm.

——————————————

What an amazing piece of ill-informed, sanctimonious drivel.

Why is this a problem that even merits discussion of a theoretical solution? There is no consensus regarding the effects of viewing pornography on either adults or children, if you look for actual scientific studies, beyond demagogues and the vendors of internet filtering products…

Where is the demand for this filter? You quote figures from a five year old push-poll of a question not relevant to what is currently being proposed (an infallible, opt-out filter that technomagically knows if the end user is an adult or not) that says 93% of adults want what Conroy is peddling, but consider this: if parents, who ISPs make large portions of their sales to, really wanted ISPs to filter their traffic, then why aren’t there ISPs jumping out of their skins to offer such a service? If there are, why aren’t they blowing the competition out of the water? Demand creates markets. There is no market.

However, such as there is demand for internet filtering, it is met by user-installed filters like NetAlert, another government initiative. Your hypothetical club of parents who would like the government to help protect their kids from internet nasties have basically got a free kick here – why not use it? You may well say “Oh, but it’s been proven that kids can get around NetAlert”, and you’d be right – highly motivated kids with some technical ability can get around them. They will also be able to get around whatever the government mandates that ISPs shoehorn into their networks. Kids who may inadvertently see porn (and, I must say, in about 12 years of internet use I have never found porn I wasn’t looking for) or who casually look for porn will be deterred at least as effectively by NetAlert as any ISP-level system. The main difference is that NetAlert is opt-in and causes no imposition on anyone else.

You mock the argument that parents who can’t install NetAlert aren’t trying, but you neglect to discuss the actual effort required, so you really don’t know, do you? Buckling seatbelts before driving off takes effort. Appropriately regulating bathwater temperature takes effort. Raising children…*gasp*..takes effort, and against that backdrop, installing NetAlert is a pretty easy win for parents.

You say you deliberately avoid discussion of technical feasibility of filtering to concentrate on whether it is right or not. This is highly disingenuous on your part. We (ie: technologists, as opposed to you, a philosopher) know enough about the technology driving the Internet and about the nature of the filtering Conroy is peddling to know that it cannot deliver benefits making the requisite sacrifices worthwhile, any more than a rain dance will solve the drought. The only way it could would involve a fundamental redesign of the Internet, which could only occur by network-wide consensus, not the whim of a government department in some far-flung country with a measly 20 million people that hosts precisely none of the world’s important Internet exchanges (IXes). This is not a new debate; it has been played out over and over again and ultimately, each time, the only advocates for government censorship with any sort of technical background have been vendors of the products that would be used to achieve said censorship. Learn how the Internet works, learn the history, then come back and try again.

I note that in your talk at the Melbourne Writer’s Festival on the 31st of August, 2007, you quoted Franz Kafka on the injustice of man being ruled by secret laws, in relation to the then-recently passed anti-terror laws. How does that square with your apparent in-principle support for Internet filtering driven by secret blacklists? Where does your research funding come from?

Because there are some irresponsible parents, their children need to be society’s responsibility. Because these children “should” be society’s responsibility ALL children should be. Therefore we need to limit ALL information that ANYONE can have access to on the internet.

… scary, scary, scary ……