Senator Conroy keeps telling the same old story: It’s not about free speech
February 17, 2009 – 8:34 pm
Everybody remembers when their granddad would sit them on their knee and enthusiastically recall a crazy story that happened to them in 1939. It was likely a ripper of a yarn. Unfortunately for you, Granddad probably forgot he’d already told you the same story the last fifty times you visited. Senator Conroy is a lot like your granddad when it comes to stories.
You see, it’s been over a year since Conroy announced mandatory ISP filtering would go ahead and he still says his plan for filtering doesn’t breach free speech.
Here’s an example of the stories he has been telling:
If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree. - Senator Conroy, ABC News,
We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues. However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.
In this context, claims that the Government’s policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified. - Senator Conroy, DBCDE Blog, Dec 22, 2008
And while we acknowledge there are technical issues to be tested, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.
In this context, claims that the Government’s policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified. - Senator Conroy, ALIA Information Online 2009 Speech, Jan 20, 2009
Anyone else hear an echo?
And today:
And while we acknowledge there are technical issues to be tested, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society. - Senator Conroy, Australian IT, Feb 17, 2009
His actions and policy say otherwise.
Only last month ACMA declared an anti-abortion website to be prohibited content, the type of content Senator Conroy intends to prohibit Australian adults from viewing.
Not only that, half of the content on the existing ACMA blacklist is classified (or potentially classified) RC, X-18+ and R-18+, which is legal to own or purchase in this country (with the exception of RC in WA and prescribed areas of the NT). As of 30 November 2008, less than half the 1370 URLs on ACMA’s blacklist “relate to” child pornography or child abuse material.
In his press-release-turned-opinion-piece for Australian IT, Senator Conroy says the Government has no plans to extend the definition of prohibited material, but it doesn’t need to. The current system already restricts content that is legal for you and I to view.
When you take steps to stop adults from viewing legal content, you are taking steps to restrict freedom of speech.
The details of your granddad’s stories probably changed each time he told them, as did your reason to believe the authenticity of the entire story all together. We can put that down to old age and a keen imagination. What’s Senator Conroy’s excuse?
22 Responses to “Senator Conroy keeps telling the same old story: It’s not about free speech”
Any moronic government would criticize China’s censorship of the Internet and then do it themselves.
Of course this is about freedom of speech. as an adult, I decide what I can and can’t view on the Internet, and it is not child pornography.
By Glenn Petrie on Feb 17, 2009
Are you sure all RC content is legal?!
Perhaps you mean the MA-15+ content instead
By Bourkie on Feb 17, 2009
@Bourkie
Refused Classification (RC) content is legal to possess and purchase in nearly all parts of Australia. The exceptions being WA and prescribed areas of the NT, and when the content is child pornography. However, it is illegal to sell RC content in Australia. Some RC material like euthanasia instruction manuals go into gray areas depending on your purpose for possessing it.
By Mike on Feb 17, 2009
Sen Conroy – “…there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content…”
The current policy isn’t really the issue here… it’s the policy 5, 10, 20 years down the track that’s the worry. This puts in the hands of this government and every government to come after a method to control speech without anyone being held accountable. It may not currently have been suggested, but Sen Conroy can’t guarantee it won’t be.
d.
By Dylan on Feb 17, 2009
Senator Conroy appears to be under the illusion that freedom of speech refers only to political content.
No country has absolute freedom of speech – child pornography, slander and “hate speech” are good examples of things that are seen as so hurtful to society that they must be banned, even under a democracy.
As such, I don’t believe many people are arguing that we should have ABSOLUTE freedom of speech, just about where we should draw the line.
This debate over internet censorship is fundamentally linked to freedom of speech and where exactly we should draw that line… saying otherwise is beyond misleading.
Still, I suppose it’s within his rights to say. Maybe one day we’ll have a law preventing people from lying; then the senator will have to be more careful with his words.
By HTA on Feb 18, 2009
I always find the logic of the argument that a censorship system will not be used censor to be flawed. How can it not be?
Once the mechanism to censor exists, it will certainly be abused by *someone* in the way that all systems are – the only real question is to what degree and when?
It will be used to chip away at free speech. It doesn’t matter that it may do a poor job initially, over time it *will* be expanded and it’s *scope* increased. Remember, the proposed system is a black box – anything can be added to it without our knowledge, let alone our consent. There is no disclosure or oversight in this system, the gatekeepers answer to *no one*.
I cannot see how I (or anyone else) could trust such absolute power to people who refuse to respect democratic principles. Aside from the fact that they have ignored the majority opinion on the matter, they have made it plain that they do not intend to allow this matter to be put to vote, let alone to put it to the electorate to decide. If this is such a *great* idea, then why is there so much opposition to it? Why don’t people want it?
Are we really supposed to trust our freedom of speech to a serial liar like Conroy? He *knows* the arguments being made – and he still refuses to acknowledge them, let alone address any of them. Just repeating the same old paedophile panic (whilst simultaneously gutting police child protection funding) doesn’t cut it. He cannot be trusted.
By Stuart Anderson on Feb 18, 2009
I can’t believe he is saying Censorship doesn’t hurt free-speech.
Even for Conroy that’s dumb.
By Dan on Feb 18, 2009
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1145505&p=10
Check out the message from the Director… I case you wondering why there is waaayyyy too many profilter commments.
By STWA on Feb 18, 2009
Just a quick heads up. I have heard via WP that the reason there are so many pro-filter comments on the Australian website is that they received communication (email?) asking them to support the filter on both Conroy’s and Hamilton’s article.
I’ve yet to confirm this. If I do, I say that attempting to manipulate public opinion in this way shouldn’t go unpunished eh?
By Sam D on Feb 18, 2009
Trying again to get my comment posted on Aust IT:
Senator Conroy: “The Classification Act states that a publication will be considered for classification based on “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.”"
I’d have more confidence in the govt’s ability to operate such a filtering scheme if their criteria didn’t read like a church bulletin.
With such wildly and unashamedly subjective standards guiding Aust’s censorship regime, the last thing I’m about to do is support a policy which seeks to expand the govt’s ability to control what I see and hear through yet another medium.
There is no doubt that, if implemented, this filter will be politicised and abused by special interest groups. Every year we see the Office of Film and Literature Classification bend to the will of whichever radical minority group cries loud enough to their local member; classifying the exact same material twice, yet curiously reaching considerably more cautious conclusions the second time.
If this is the, “standard”, upon which they intend to base filter policy (as indicated by Senator Conroy’s referencing of The Australian Classification Act), it’s abuse is a foregone conclusion.
By Icaria on Feb 18, 2009
The problem is people on the anti-censorship side keep saying the same thing, that they don’t disagree with the motive, but they do disagree with the method.
I haven’t seen many people get up and make the case that pedeophilia crimes are essentially thought crims and shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. Yes the overwealming majority of people find pedeophlia repulsive and cannot understand the tiny majority who enjoy it, but viewing pedophilia doesn’t in and of itself harm anyone. Child abuse is where the harm is and that’s where the police effort should be. Law enforcement might arrest a hundred persons with child porn on their harddrives, but how many children have they saved from abuse?
Looking at child porn is the same as looking at a photo of any other crime. We see real and fictional depictions of murder on TV every day, which is a far worse crime, but it is not illegal. I guarantee you that there are people out there who find images of murder arousing. Should they be charged?
No, because thinking thoughts, even if they are horrible, offensive thoughts, should never be a crime.
Please note, if a pedeophile is selling child porn or buying child porn then in the first case he is profiting from the harm of a child and in the second case he is aiding the harm of a child and in both cases a crime is being committed. But merely viewing child porn, as repulsive as it is, is a thought crime.
Anyway, since 99.9% of people are repulsed by child porn, no filter is required because we already actively avoid the stuff. Those who do actively view child porn are certainly doing an eveil thing, and they are harming themselves, but self harm should not be a crime.
To get back to my original point, it’s entirely fair to say that viewing child porn should not be a crime. The reality is that child porn is being used as justification to encroach on human rights. Those in favour of human rights should be prepared point out that child porn does not harm anybody. Conroy, I don’t just disagree with your method, I disagree with your motives, and doubly so.
Editor: Any comments, views or opinions expressed through this site are those of their respective authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by, or reflect those of the Editor or STOTC.
By Alex Hutton on Feb 18, 2009
@Alex
The viewing of child pornography harms the victims of these heinous crimes for as long as the image is in circulation (and certainly long after it is taken out). In my opinion, the viewing of it is an extension of the crime — an accessory to the act itself because the image has been produced in most circumstances for consumption, unlike say the footage of a murder or death.
- Mike
By Mike on Feb 19, 2009
@Alex Hutton
I disagree Alex, most people would disagree with you I would assume.
That’s such an idiotic argument, of course viewing child porn harms people. It harms the children that were used to create it. It also encourages similar behavior, saying that the behavior depicted in the images is acceptable.
“I guarantee you that there are people out there who find images of murder arousing. Should they be charged?”
If people are being murdered to create this material, absolutely and if the murder imagery is encouraging similar murderous behavior(unlikely). But depends why they find murder images arousing.
“Law enforcement might arrest a hundred persons with child porn on their harddrives, but how many children have they saved from abuse?”
Sometimes when news services report that law enforcement arrest people for possessing child pornography, they sometimes also report about children who are removed from situations as they suspect are being ‘groomed’ or abused.
Why is this? because people who view child pornography are often also those who sexually abuse children.
By kyle on Feb 19, 2009
@Mike, without the crime, the original child abuse, there could be no child porn, that is true. But viewing child porn does not create child abuse, unless the viewer is paying to receive the porn — then they are assisting the child abuser and are an accomplice in the crime. Merely being in possession of child pornography is no crime. Yes, if a person is found to possess child pornography, they would warrant further investigation, but that does not mean that police can search everyone for child porn just in case they might have it.
@kyle the act of viewing the child porn does not harm anyone. Does it encourage similar behaviour? (meaning that a normal person, after viewing child porn, becomes more likely to commit child abuse) if that were the case then once they committed child abuse then they would have committed a crime, prior to that, they are only thinking about committing a crime.
Who is advocating viewing child abuse? Not me, I find the idea disgusting. If a person advocates child porn they would surely be heavily rebuked, and rightly so, but it wouldn’t be right to force them not to say such things. Everyone can clearly see that they are wrong, so in advocating child porn they harm nobody.
Regarding the point about murder. What about fictional murder? I’m sure that you would find glorified, fictional depictions of child abuse disgusting; so would I. But glorified depictions of murder are quite common, maybe you even own some DVDs yourself? My point is, photos of child abuse are not child abuse, photos of murder are not murder.
Your last comment may or may not be true, that people who view child porn also abuse children. As I said in my answer to Mike, that doesn’t make viewing child porn on its own a crime, and it doesn’t give law enforcement a license to search everybody in case they have child porn.
–
We constantly hear that child porn is absolutely unjustifiable. From a moral standpoint that is true, but it is not something the state should try to control. Yes, prosecute child abusers, and people who assist child abusers, but you can’t prosecute people for thinking about committing child abuse. The state can never prevent people having bad thoughts, so inevitably the come up with ridiculous ideas like mandatory internet filtering. But the heart of it is the notion that we can control people’s thoughts.
If we could stop people from fantasising about child abuse, it wouldn’t affect me, or 99% of other people, since most people don’t think fantasise about child porn. The fact is we can’t.
As Voltaire supposedly said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — well in this case there’s no need to defend the right of child abusers to think their evil thoughts, because nobody can ever prevent their thoughts. The point is to end the wasteful attempts to stop their thoughts. Instead, let’s focus on stopping their actions.
PS bravo to the editor for finally posting my comment, even with the disclaimer.
By Alex Hutton on Feb 19, 2009
@Alex
Whether it’s paid for or not is meaningless. There is always a victim.
“You can’t prosecute people for thinking about committing child abuse.”
Thinking about it, no, but you can charge them for viewing it. As I said earlier, those who view child pornography are continuing the act — the crime. They are taking part in the abuse. It does not have to be directly, as in in the presence of the victim to be abuse.
By Mike on Feb 19, 2009
@Alex
“Does it encourage similar behaviour? (meaning that a normal person, after viewing child porn, becomes more likely to commit child abuse)”
It does encourage similar behavior in regard to those who want to view it, those who want to view child pornography would already have ill thought about children.
“But glorified depictions of murder are quite common, maybe you even own some DVDs yourself?”
But no one is harmed from the creation of fiction glorification of murder, and generally doesn’t encourage like behavior. So it’s irrelevant.
“it doesn’t give law enforcement a license to search everybody in case they have child porn.”
No one here would think(I assume) that law enforcement should have that right.
It’s obvious that we are not going to agree about this.
By kyle on Feb 20, 2009
Ok, here’s my last clarification for now.
A photo is just a piece of visual information. No information should be illegal to be viewed or possessed.
Child porn is not a special case.
By Alex Hutton on Feb 20, 2009
This is a highly complex and very sensitive topic and I’ve been reluctant to wade in. However, I think Alex deserves some support, because what he is saying, if I understand him correctly, is at least part of the ground the censorship debate must cover.
It seems outrageous to ‘go there’ because of the cultural milieu we live in. The very idea of anyone deriving sexual pleasure in any manner from a child is regarded as repulsive. It is the subject of shock and horror; humane, rational thought tends to fly out the window.
There are a number of conceivable reasons why someone might seek to view ‘child porn’ (that is, images of children engaged in sexual activity).
They might be censors. They might be police. They might be religious leaders, searching to see what is available on the Internet to bolster their anti-censorship case. They might be curious members of the general public, wondering what all the fuss is about and looking for themselves to see what’s available on the web. They might be people who obtain sexual pleasure from looking at these images.
All these cases are possible – and more. I imagine everyone would agree that they should not all be dealt with, by the legal system, in an identical way. Some cases, clearly, could not be prohibited by law – even if the images are considered illegal.
Of all those cases, only the last one is really controversial. There’s a feeling that someone should not obtain sexual pleasure in this manner. There’s also a concern that they should not be encouraged, stimulated or incited in any way to commit real life sexual acts with children.
Here, I think, is where this is very broad agreement. No one I know in the anti-censorship campaign justifies or seeks to minimize the crime of pedophilia. Children must be protected from predatory adults. (There are, however, genuine ‘boundary issues’, such as sex between under-age consenting juveniles).
So, we’re left with the case of people who enjoy viewing ‘child porn’ (images of children engaged in sexual acts or depicted in a highly sexualized manner).
This ‘seems’ to be ‘clearly’ a crime… and perhaps should be regarded a crime? But surely those who insist it MUST be treated as a crime should at least explain why.
I’m not away of solid evidence that viewing ‘child porn’ leads to the commission of depraved acts. The evidence may exist – but I haven’t seen it. I could imagine a case being made that the opposite is true – that is, people with a pornographic release for their fantasies are less likely to commit the acts real life. It’s at least worth considering that possibility, isn’t it?
What harm is done by viewing images? I agree with Alex that images of child death are arguably even ‘worse’. Why is this society so tolerant of violence and so petrified of sexuality?
I have NO expertise in the relevant psychological/sociological literature. It may be that a clear ‘link’ between viewing child porn and actively perpetrating acts of child abuse is well established. If so, perhaps this information could be shared. All too often, it seems to me, such a link is merely inferred.
We know from history and ethnography that sexual morality is highly diverse between cultures. We know from the mass media that people are very diverse in our own times. Some people like being tied up. Others enjoy copulating in groups. Some men have a ‘thing’ about older women. Etc etc.
Increasingly, we accept that it’s silly to ban all ‘kinks’. But we do want to protect the young. I would extend that more generally to ‘protecting the powerless’ – and perhaps be more willing than some to make exceptions when adolescent power relations are not one-sided.
Even so, we need to guard against being panicked – through our natural acceptance of the need to protect children – into endorsing corollaries for which there is no real rational basis.
I have never met anyone who enjoys looking at child porn – or who told me so, at any rate. I don’t have a clear idea of the type of person they may be.
But I can at least imagine the possibility that a medical/humane approach to such people may be better all round that a prosecutorial/persecuting approach. What if they could see a psychiatrist or councilor without fear of being reported (Can they do this at present? I don’t know.) Is society as a whole really best off the way we currently handle this issue?
If someone’s only interest is to VIEW images, is any real harm being done – compared with very real harm likely to ensue if and when they become embroiled in the judicial/prison systems?
By Syd Walker on Feb 21, 2009
There are many concerns as to the structure and the true purposes of the Federal Government’s proposed internet censorship system, and the social and moral implications it could have. While the first level of the ‘two-level filtering system’ is apparently intended to block all child pornography, the second is to block access to sites which are deemed to carry ‘illegal or inappropriate material’. I believe there are a number of issues with this; while it is the government’s responsibility to do every in their power to control the production and proliferation of disgusting material like child porn, the proposed censorship system seems to be based on an assumption that any average person using the internet can just happen across child pornography. This is completely wrong; I have never heard of anyone I know, much less young vulnerable children using the internet, simply stumbling across vile, illegal material like child pornography. To access this sort of material you absolutely have to go looking specifically for it online, and even then the networks are very closed and do not use the mainstream internet. A basic PC filtering system and responsible monitoring of children’s internet use by parents is adequate to guard against exposure this sort of harmful material. Secondly, as the debate continues over the move to block internet sites containing ‘inappropriate’ content (level 2 of the system), outrage grows over Stephen Conroy’s constant avoiding of questions and issues regarding the exact criteria which qualifies a website to be considered ‘illegal’ or ‘inappropriate’ and therefore to be blacklisted; if we don’t know what exact content is inappropriate, how is are we, as responsible adult, supposed to make informed, independent decisions for ourselves? This insulting ambiguity is fuelling the outrage and frustration that is causing people to feel there is going to be an infringement of our civil liberties and leading to comparisons between the Australian government and the government-implemented censorship regimes which control nations like China and North Korea.
By Kate on Mar 30, 2009
I have read the discussion on this blog, and thank everyone for expressing the opinion clearly, as I had not thought about this issue other than in quick news reports.
My concern is why do we as a people of Australia need more rules/censorship, when we just need to enforce the rules we already have? The issues debated are already covered legally.
Do not censor the information, as i do not believe censorship will stop individuals committing crimes. The internet is only a tool, perhaps a very good one, however not a reason for individuals actions in committing a crime.
By Joccoaa on Aug 8, 2009
I’m a little late to post this… But I just find it odd that nobody in this long-winded back and forth arguement between Alex and others bothered to mention the possibility of a link between viewing violent material and committing violent acts.
Personally I don’t know whether there’s really a link. I’ve heard plenty of complaints about violent videogames corrupting children, and attempts to have those games banned. I’m not sure about TV…
But there’s a whole whackload of violent TV shows. Look at CSI, which depicts quite an array of different kinds of murders. Look at all the war movies that glorify the war on Arabs. Even cartoons are filled with violence. And then there’s the NEWS full of terrorism (of the middle-east variety or the NATO Empire variety).
But Mike avoided that particular line of arguement. Mike, do you want to ban the majority of TV and videogame content? Do you want to ban the news perhaps?
As Joccoaa says, it’s useless to censor in the first place. Don’t murder, don’t rape, don’t molest, don’t steal. Those things are already illegal.
Banning the thought/idea of a crime is more like pretending it isn’t there. It’s like Politically Correct speech rules. Nobody’s old. Nobody’s dead. Nobody’s black. Nobody’s got shell shock. All because we refuse to say the words! If we refuse to show Abu Ghraib photos on the news, does it mean Americans aren’t torturing Arabs?
Punish the crime itself, don’t punish the knowledge that the crime exists. Controlling information promotes fascism by giving politicians the option of removing inconvenient information from the public view. Don’t just sit there and allow it to happen by listening to the paedophile argument! (which is a lot like the anti-Semite arguement, whereby if you disagree with Israel you must hate Jews)
By Bryan on Mar 1, 2010
Whether or not viewing genuine child porn (by which I mean actual photos of real children being sexually abused) harms the children, what about images of people who are provably adults but who appear under-age, or drawings and textual descriptions? These do not harm children, because in the case of fiction there are no children involved, and in the case of the adult model(s) society already considers it acceptable for them to appear in porn if it weren’t for their appearance.
Just because you find it repulsive, that doesn’t mean you should ban it. After all, most straight people would find gay (male) porn repulsive too (although without any associated moral outrage, in most cases), and many people find BDSM disgusting, but that doesn’t mean you should ban them, so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
By Anonymous Coward on Apr 9, 2010