Check out Mark Newton’s article The Perplexing Internet Debate. In it Mark writes:
In the past, politicians have been able to monopolise the debate by having disproportionate access to media. Not so for Mr Conroy, who has been so thoroughly discredited by the controversy that his press office has refused to comment to media outlets since October 24, while the new media represented by the blogosphere is atwitter with fulminating dissent.
Peter Black also has an op ed piece in the Courier Mail today. Read that one here. Peter writes:
It can be argued that free speech is never absolute and that there is always a role for government intervention. That is why, after all, we have defamation and obscenity laws. However, those laws do not impose prior restraint on publication.
As a matter of principle I am personally affronted by the notion of any government censorship of information, but it is perfectly legitimate for people to believe that the government should regulate access to information in certain circumstances.
However, even if we accept that censorship is legitimate in certain circumstances, the current Government’s policy of mandatory internet filtering is practically flawed for several reasons.
And remember to listen to the Media Report’s interviews with Senator Conroy and Mark Pesce from this morning. A transcript is now also availble.
It’s not all net censorship news though: Jason Hill at The Age has a story about SA A-G Michael Atkinson withdrawing his support for a discussion paper and public consultation process on introducing an R18+ game classification. It’s been delayed indefinitely as a result.
