Protesters advocating child pornography: Bernadette McMenamin
December 16, 2008 – 12:39 amBernadette McMenamin, CEO of child protection organisation ChildWise, says those aware of the facts regarding mandatory ISP filtering are advocating child pornography.
“Instead of hearing hysteria from the minority we need to hear from the Government and exactly what it intends to ban.”
Ms McMenamin was equally critical of the past weekend’s protests and the DLC’s plans for future action.
“Let the 300 people march on Canberra because it looks pathetic,” he [sic] said. “It looks pathetic and shameful because most of these people are not fully aware of the facts and secondly, those who are aware are, in effect, advocating child pornography.”
Care to explain the ‘facts’ Ms McMenamin? The misinformation? Or how a mandatory ISP filter will protect children from the dangers they face online and off?
Instead of blasting those opposed as not knowing the facts, when it is in fact clear most do, it is time for Bernadette McMenamin to step away from the moral panic machine and take a deep, long look at the realities, assumed benefits and consequences of mandatory filtering.
McMenamin is in a privilleged position to make a real difference for children in Australia and around the world, but her desire to implement filtering with evidently little knowledge of the technology means she is putting more children at risk than she hopes to save.
20 Responses to “Protesters advocating child pornography: Bernadette McMenamin”
That’s just atrocious.
I was going to write her a letter (in fact I’ve already drafted it,) explaining politely why the points she made on SBS the other night were misinformed, but that’s disgusting. People who use the knee-jerk “you must like child porn” card can go to hell.
By Ash on Dec 16, 2008
Ooh, that gets my dander up. I’m sick to death of people pulling out some straw-man argument, instead of making valid points. Particularly when they then have the gall to accuse us of generating hysteria.
I think I shall follow Ash’s example and write a polite, if strongly worded, letter.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Dec 16, 2008
So practically every IT professional in the world advocates CP??!!!
If there was a hell, it would be nice to think that people like Bernadette McMenamin are going there…..
By Jason on Dec 16, 2008
Don’t pick on the poor girl. She needs to talk up the problem so she has a job next year. Here’s how it works.
No problem.
No funding.
No job.
By Bill on Dec 16, 2008
“Instead of hearing hysteria from the minority we need to hear from the Government and exactly what it intends to ban.”
Did one of the most vocal of the few supporters of “clean feed” just admit she does not know what the government is planning to ban?
By Carl on Dec 16, 2008
Just wrote he a letter, don’t know what good it will do though
By Sean the Blogonaut on Dec 16, 2008
“In effect”. Those two little words absolve the speaker from having to make any plausible or substantiated claim.
Flip it around. McMenamin’s insistence on a filter will drive unintelligent child pornographers – the low-hanging fruit in enforcement – to use untraceable, underground means. Therefore Bernadette McMenamin is, in effect, encouraging child pornography.
By Tim Bennett on Dec 16, 2008
I have corresponded with Bernadette and I think she may have been misquoted. She only supports a blacklist of illegal content. I have explained to her, politely why this is still a bad idea and we have agreed to disagree. Certainly she did not accuse me of supporting child porn. She is also uncomfortable with Conroy filtering or blacklisting legal content.
Childwise is not the enemy.
Bernadette told me that mine was the first polite email she had received on the issue. She said she had received so much hate and vitriol from people opposing which is abit of a worry.
By Jimboot on Dec 16, 2008
Children, all of them. Will Somebody Please Think of These Children?
(we need a different type of filter)
By Sansha on Dec 16, 2008
@Jimboot,
I agree, hateful emails are not the answer. However, Stilgherrian and I have both published posts as to why McMenamin evokes such a response.
@Everyone: Great points and comments made. Thank you. Keep them coming.
By Mike on Dec 16, 2008
@ Mike.
I also concur. We (as in those opposed to compulsory filtering) need to keep the debate polite and rational. Hate mail only damages the cause, by making us us look like the very hysterical nitwits that some people accuse us of being.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Dec 16, 2008
Given that the figures that Childwise use have been thoroughly questioned or even debunked (depending on who you believe), I think that if Bernadette is “fully aware of the facts” that she should share those facts with us. At the moment the only “fact” we have is that Childwise has picked up a large amount of public funding based on figures that have no discernible basis in reality.
By Sam D on Dec 16, 2008
If we focus purely on the idea of blocking out child porn sites via a blacklist, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
But consider the fact that the blacklisted URLs would become obsolete in a very short period of time. Essentially, if a URL is found to have child porn, it’s then time for the international police to do their job, track down the perpetrators, shut down the hosting and close the site.
You’re then left with a blacklisted URL without anything on it. The police have essentially done the job of “filtering” already. And it’s possible that being blacklisted will alert the perpetrators before the police have time to act. So the filter makes things harder for the cops.
If we further consider the facts presented by Libertus http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html we’re only talking a very small number of html based sites that are live for a very short amount of time.
Meanwhile, there’s this handy secret blacklist to which any annoying political or sexual content can be added…
Ms McMenamin needs to give a whole lot more thought to what she’s advocating – and leave off with the abusive comments.
By Ms Naughty on Dec 16, 2008
I don’t think McMenamin has been misquoted – she’s too consistent with this line, even accusing Telstra of being soft on CP for not taking part in the trial. It’s either dishonest or a stubborn and deliberate effort to stay misinformed; either way it reflects poorly on herself and Childwise.
By Colin on Dec 16, 2008
If it wasn’t such a political hot potato, I’d suggest we push for a Senate inquiry into the Childwise funding.
In the meantime, perhaps she can read THE PERVERSE LAW OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY by Amy Adler http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html
By Sam D on Dec 16, 2008
She has not been misquoted…
She has misquoted.
She has lied, both blatantly and by omission.
She has published unsourced and unsubstantiated material as “fact” which was later thoroughly disproved by Libertus.
I would refer you to
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html
106 references, a document that debunks every one of the urban legends and made up figures Ms. McMenamin has used to put forward her case.
Furthermore, her inference that fully informed opposition to this censorship is tantamount to endorsing child pornography is repugnant and offensive.
Closing your eyes to the evidence of the crime does not stop the crime.
Lastly, if Ms. McMenamin truly believed that the anti filter people who understand the situation are in favour of child porn, she wouldn’t have couched the comment so to avoid litigation for slander. A very telling point, she is not confident enough to state, but knows that even the inference is enough to taint the debate in her favour.
I put Ms. McMenamin’s belief in this system on par with the belief that the world is flat. Ill informed and willfully ignorant. As such, I don’t believe she should be cut any slack whatsoever. I put her methods in line with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other dictators who have used the exact same methods to get their way. She should be made to prove her accusations or to publicly retract and apologise for them.
By Asmodai on Dec 16, 2008
“those who are aware are, in effect, advocating child pornography.”
really Ms Mecmenamin?
I guess that means Save The Children one of the world’s largest Child rights groups must be advocating it also?
I guess Amnesty International to?
I think it is clear that Bernadette McMenamin in her position is not used to not getting what she wants.
I believe that 99% of the time most people she talks to find it easier to agree with her rather than be accused of advocating child porn.
WE WILL NOT BE BULLIED!!!!
By Jeff on Dec 16, 2008
Take note of the recent child pornography busts.
It was noted quite clearly that most (if not all) of the content was distributed through file sharing, not HTML. There were also grave concerns for the welfare of the children being abused.
‘Think of the children!’ the government cries. Right, so blocking web based content and pretending it’s not there will stop the distribution of content through file sharing and drive funding away from the federal police to investigate and protect these children from abuse is thinking of the children.
With the way the government acts in question time, this logic certainly doesn’t surprise me.
By Steven on Dec 16, 2008
I think Bernadette McMenamin may have a mail backlog.
I wrote her too, focusing on the potential for political censorship:
As reported, your remarks included the comments: “most of the criticisms levelled at the internet filter scheme are founded on misinformation… It’s disturbing that people are getting hysterical about all the misinformation that is being spread about the internet filter.”
My own principal opposition to the ‘filtering’ proposal concerns the potential for political censorship on the web. I have written about this in a number of articles. There is nothing to prevent the ‘filter’ for being used for that purpose and the Government refuses to rule out doing so (in any case, it can’t bind future governments).
Can you please explain to me why this concern is ‘misinformed’? How can you be sure that political censorship will not eventuate from the new proposed censorship system?
Let’s see if she has the ability to engage in intelligent dialogue.
In my limited experience, that would be a first for a proponent of the ‘Clean Feed’.
The usual response seems to be duck, weave and avoid the question.
By Syd Walker on Dec 17, 2008