Why mandatory content filtering is bad for the future of young Australians
January 10, 2008 – 9:36 amAt the centre of the Government’s argument for mandatory filtering is the protection of children. Disagree with the plan and you’re labeled as someone who doesn’t care about the welfare of children. Wrong.
You see, I care a great deal about the future of young Australians. I care that we produce a generation of educated Australians. Adults that are forward thinkers and don’t follow suit, they follow what’s right. Dynamic, open-minded Australians that adapt to change. Australians that respect other people’s views — without the need to force their own.
But this can be achieved in only one way: The free flow of information, education and free thought.
A filter doesn’t allow that. It facilitates the exact opposite.
A filtered information network blocks the flow of knowledge, hampers education, and creates a society where free thought is feared, not encouraged.
Under a filtered network, access to information is based on a stranger’s morals and beliefs and restricted if isn’t in accordance. It produces a generation of people that are a product of Government endorsed information.
The Future
The Internet can and will change how our world functions. Do not exclude Australia from such a momentous occasion – allowing us to only hear in passing what’s happening outside our protective bubble.
The internet is not something that we should still fear in 2008. It’s time to leave behind the sensationalist Time covers, and images of scary hackers and men out to get you. It’s time to include the net in family discussion and even use it together as a family.
When we make the Internet become something other than a piece of technology to be feared and rather an information tool for the family to take advantage of, blocking the very information that makes it invaluable seems like such a silly idea. That’s because it is.
The Government should fund classes to teach parents how to use the Internet and monitor their child’s activities, not offer to do the job for them. That helps no one. They should collaborate with the States to design an in school education program to teach children of all ages how to safely use the Internet. Education is the key to protecting our children, not censorship.
You cannot restrict thinking. You can throw a blanket over something, but it doesn’t mean people won’t try and look underneath. Young Australians are not stupid, they will seek the information they need and want even if their parents or Government disapprove.
Mr Rudd, Mr Conroy. Please don’t reduce Australia to a nation that believes censorship is the answer to keeping children safe or fixing deep social problems like child pornography. Lead Australia to become a country that promotes freedom, respect and progress. A country that doesn’t fear the Internet, but embraces and advances it. When that happens, we may finally start to put an end to the problems you so adamantly hope your filter will fix.
- Mike
7 Responses to “Why mandatory content filtering is bad for the future of young Australians”
Education, making sure every kid in the nation knows about Cyber-Dangers, how to prevent them, deal with them if they occur, in addition to educating teachers, parents and the community, is where we will make real advances in keeping safe with technology.
And although freedom is theoretically a nice concept, its annoying, appalling and can be more dangerous than the opposite.
Anything possible can happen, complete freedom is anarchy – and although this anarchy is not too widespread, it certainly exists on the internet and can have some effect.
In an ideal world (like Australia) the setup is; Freedom to the extent that does not harm anybody including yourself – which is ideal.
Making sure the wellbeing of kids is not negatively impacted is the imperative – and that is simply more important than free access to information. Saying that, we need to understand what will be the most effective way of positively harnessing this freedom whilst keeping wellbeing high – and filtering will not achieve that, rather, education will.
By Tom on Jan 10, 2008
Using the term “Cyber-Dangers” is rather indicative of a certain level of tech knowledge.
So Tom, you’re saying that the wellbeing of kids is paramount. The problem here is that the proposed system WILL NOT prevent kids getting hold of porn. It WILL NOT prevent kids finding pro-anorexia sites.
It may well, however, block sites that teach kids about puberty, sexual health, sexuality and other ideas that make fundamentalist religious people nervous.
So the proposed system does not meet your criteria. It will negatively impact the wellbeing of kids, while not protecting them from (what you consider to be) nasty content.
By Shermozle on Jan 10, 2008
With all due respect, Shermozle, such a scenario you present is entirely speculative. Know-one knows exactly what it will block and how easy it will be to bypass (but of course, it will be able to be) – but anyway, Cyber-Dangers is constituted mainly of Cyber-Bullying/Harassment, Addiction, Privacy, Security, Misinformation, Illegality etc. etc. – I could go more in-depth but hopefully you get the gist. Educating kids about these, how to avoid them, and how to deal with them if they occur is critical here – and filtering really is very small and arguably will provide little help at all.
By Tom on Jan 11, 2008
All the nanny-state schemes start like this, Tom. How can you argue with wanting to protect the children? If you disagree with Stephen Conroy, you must agree with child-molesters, rape and violent murder. It’s a false dichotomy.
If we start censoring subject A now, who is to say the infrastructure won’t be used to censor politically sensitive subject B further down the line? A slippery slope argument, to be sure, but a valid question.
The curtailing of liberties starts small, with apparently positive intentions. Don’t be fooled.
By Jesse on Jan 11, 2008
Jesse, no rational person would agree with child-molesters, rapists and violent murderers, but saying that you must if you disagree with Conroy is plain silly. I do not totally disagree with Conroy on many things regarding this stuff, such as the government needs to do all it can to protect kids online (as rhetorical as it may sound), and again, thats where education is the way to go.
And on the subject of political censoring… in Australia, the 3rd most developed nation on earth, political and/or illegitimate censoring would never happen, why? Because we have a society and media obsessed with freedom (not to mention opposition forces), and if such occurred, it would be exposed in a very short amount of time, be on the front page of every paper in the nation/world and the next Newspoll would not be a good one! It is simply too big of a risk, and politicians are smart enough not to take that risk (thats if they even want to, which is all speculation, as well).
By Tom on Jan 11, 2008
Tom, it is not sufficient to say that the illegitimate censoring would not happen simply because it would be too risky for the government to do so.
That’s like saying the the president of the united states of america would not pass a bill exonerating him of war crimes related to the torture of POWs protected by the geneva convention, simply because that would be too risky. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc]
It it obvious that even if the filters are introduced on the condition that it will just block child pornography, it is only a matter of time before it extends to other things. Fielding is already calling for pro-anorexia websites to be included in the block list.
In the the UK where such filters exist groups are calling for the filters to extend to radical islamic websites. I mean if the law says we can block one thing that is illegal, why can’t we block all illegal organizations websites?
It is like saying just because the police can hold a terror suspect for a certain amount of time with out charge, it doesn’t mean that they will. The federal police held suspect Mohamed Haneef for as long as they could and still wanted to detain him for even longer if they could. After this whole affair also the police criticized the media for publishing mistakes in the investigation etc but this is another topic altogether.
When they were debating the introduction of capsicum spray for the police force they always showed that scene of a crim with a knife threatening police and how the police are able to use pepper spray to subdue him in a non-lethal fashion.
Then you have a police woman who gets scared of a few rowdy fans at a tennis match and she lets loose with the spray.
Child Wise’s Bernadette McMenamin says it is better to have something rather than nothing to protect children right?
Not when it effects every law abiding internet user in the country.
Why should every internet users connection be forced to use a filter that WILL effect performance because it might stop some people from viewing material that is already illegal. If a law abiding citizen is capable of staying away from illegal material, why shouldn’t he/she be able to have access an internet connection of the maximum capable performance that the technology of the time allows?
The internet is an area that politicians have always had trouble understanding. The strength of the internet is that it is a medium of complete freedom. Where bloggers can maintain anonymity and express their opinions.
Bottom line. Censoring the internet in any way, shape or form is something that has no place in a free country.
By Jeff on Feb 1, 2008
Thanks for your comments guys.
By Mike on Feb 2, 2008