With adults controlled like this, protecting children can wait
December 3, 2008 – 8:38 pmGuest post by Jon Seymour
Clive Hamilton does not believe, like the Kantians, that exercising rationality is a virtue.
It shows.
Hamilton does concede that rationality is useful to the extent that it allows one to avoid being manipulated by others against one’s better interests. The unstated corollary of this is that if one wishes to manipulate others against their own better interests, convincing them by rational argument may not always be the best strategy. On the contrary, if one’s aim is to win, and one does not consider that winning fairly is a virtue, moral panic rather than rational argument may well be your weapon of choice.
Clive Hamilton
It is clear Hamilton passionately wants to maintain social controls on the flow of pornography, irrespective of the medium through which it flows. He appears to want to win the political war against porn even if he buries his own reputation as an intellectual on the battle field. For Hamilton, this is a high stakes game indeed.
To the observer, this seems absurd – why would a respected public figure such as Hamilton stake so much of his intellectual reputation on a plan which, if implemented, could not possibly achieve the objectives that have been set for it. This just doesn’t seem to make sense, rationally.
For when measured against the stated objectives – eliminating virtually all access to extreme pornography via the Internet from Australian homes – the plan cannot possibly succeed. People trading extreme pornography on the Internet are already using p2p networks and encrypted tunnels or soon will be. People who don’t seek extreme porn rarely encounter it and those that do seek it will take extreme measures to satisfy their desires – that’s why they are called extremists.
However, to assume that the stated objectives are the actual objectives is to assume too much. What if the actual objectives of this policy are far more modest? Suppose, for example, that one believes that there is a net social benefit to be gained simply by moderating the porn consumption habits of the middle 80% of the population. While a leaky filter would be useless at preventing extremists viewing extreme porn, it could still be quite useful at moderating the porn consumption habits of the middle 80%. To explain why, consider how a leaky filter would work.
Suppose you are an adult who occasionally hits the net in search of a porn fix. Perhaps your particular interest is “South American Dancing Girls”. It is certainly possible that while Googling for a fix you may come across links to material in the more extreme category. Feeling aroused and against your better judgment, perhaps you click through one of the more questionable links, rationalising that a pay-wall will stop you before you get to the seriously sick stuff. However, suppose that instead of delivering a more salacious image, your browser displays the following message:
HTTP 403
Access from 10.10.2.2 blocked at 2008-12-03 00:45:00 GMT according to Schedule XXX of ACMA Act 2009.
If you believe this URL was blocked incorrectly, please e-mail you-blocked-my-porn@acma.gov.au.
As a denizen of the middle 80% of Australia do you:
- contact ACMA at the suggested address
- fire up Tor and see what was behind the blocked link
- write a letter to your morning paper and local MP decrying the state of civil liberties in the country and use as an example your recent experience
- pensively wonder about what law you may have just broken and resolve to be less adventurous the next time you need a porn fix
If you are congenitally stupid, you may do the first. If you are a porn extremist you may do the second. If you are committed to free speech and care not for your mother’s next tea party, you may do the third. However, if you are in the middle 80% of Australians, you will likely do the fourth – moderate your own porn consumption.
And that, like the Chinese filter, is how a technically ineffective filter can be an effective tool for social control; a tool for Silencing Dissent about where the boundaries of acceptable porn usage should lie. If parents really are worried that monitoring their own children’s Internet usage might impinge upon their children’s sense of freedom and responsibility, imagine how they will feel about Big Brother passing judgment on their own?
It seems the Government’s mandatory ISP level filter isn’t targeted at porn extremists – it couldn’t possibly be, because it won’t be effective for that task. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is targeted fairly and squarely at middle Australia. Indeed, it may even be somewhat effective at achieving the far more modest objective of moderating most people’s access to Internet porn within tighter limits. It won’t be perfect, but then it doesn’t need to be if your objective isn’t perfection.
Irrespective of whether you believe this more modest social policy objective is a desirable one, Australians should feel outraged that they are being corralled into accepting it by proponents such as Hamilton who are promising a solution “to protect the children”. It won’t and it can’t.
With adults controlled like this, protecting children can wait for another day.
Jon Seymour is a left-libertarian geek who believes that exercising rationality in the pursuit of moral clarity is a virtue. He blogs about this and similar issues at “Broadbanned Revolution – fight the philterphiles that be.”
This article may be reproduced, unedited, in other forums. Requests for permission to publish edited reproductions of the article should be directed to the author. Images not to be republished.
26 Responses to “With adults controlled like this, protecting children can wait”
Very nice…
By Sourabh on Dec 3, 2008
Isn’t it about time someone, anyone, stopped following the line of debate as prescribed by Senator Conroy?
He wants the discussion to be about CP. Follow this link to get a dose of reality:
Enjoy
By Bill on Dec 3, 2008
The link did not transfer. Try this:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310555/afact_ras_submission.pdf
By Bill on Dec 3, 2008
I would modify that to “If you are a porn extremist or an inquisitive teenager, you may do the second.”
I tend to think that kids, more than most adults, like a challenge and are fairly inquisitive. That makes me think that teenagers in the middle 80% are much more likely to take option two than adults in the same category.
Hell, I know I would have as a teenager. It’s a technical challenge and a chance to subvert authority; let me at it!
By Simon on Dec 3, 2008
Nice article, but you probably want 403 – Forbidden rather than 404 – Page not found
By James on Dec 4, 2008
Good point. Mike, feel free to update the post accordingly.
jon.
By Jon Seymour on Dec 4, 2008
I don’t know about that, they may actualy do something that gives a fake HTTP 404 error to prevent people from making lists of what is bocked. (or at least, do it thinking it will stop lists being made as Conroy still doesnt seem to have realized that circumvention is so easy)
By alphamone on Dec 4, 2008
Let’s not forget that, with the exception of the ACT and NT, X rated porn is illegal. Which effectively means you will not be able to go to a pornographic website at all.
That aside, I actually think Clive Hamilton is right – porn is having a really damaging effect on our society, and I’m not just talking about “extreme sexualities”. All porn.
The problem with Hamilton’s argument is that the technology just doesn’t work. His argument assumes that it does.
I guess the other thing that concerns me on the sexual front is that the proposal is very hetro-centric in that we’re already talking about “alternative sexualities”. What does that even mean? It means that anyone engaging in anything other than vanilla sex is “deviant” – I see that as really counter productive as well.
By Hammy on Dec 4, 2008
@Hammy: Illegal to sell in the States at least. Legal to own with the exception of certain material in WA and certain areas in NT.
By Mike on Dec 4, 2008
“That aside, I actually think Clive Hamilton is right – porn is having a really damaging effect on our society, and I’m not just talking about “extreme sexualities”. All porn.”
I have and will continue to take issue with that attitude. One man’s porn is another man’s art. There is no proof that “porn” does any damage at all.
By Stefan on Dec 4, 2008
@Hammy X-rated material is not illegal to possess or view anywhere in Australia – it is illegal to sell in some places.
This is different to child porn which is (rightly) illegal to possess or access everywhere.
If the Government believes X-rated material should be illegal to possess or view, it should attempt to write that into legislation, thereby criminalizing a not insignificant portion of the population.
By Jon Seymour on Dec 4, 2008
Stefan, actually there is plenty of proof – much of which Hamilton draws on. It’s also important to note that it is just as damaging to men as it is to women.
And you can’t seriously say “one man’s porn is another man’s art”. Come on – get serious. Porn is distinguishable from art by the fact that it’s only purpose is to provide a visual stimulus for men while they wank. I don’t have a problem with that (wanking or watching porn), but let’s call a spade a spade.
I should clarify here, I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say that I don’t have a problem with porn and that I think it’s damaging (with a significant body of evidence to back that up).
But once again, that’s not the issue. Let’s keep to the issue which is that this technology doesn’t work!
By Hammy on Dec 4, 2008
Hammy,
Lets see your evidence.
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/fallacies.html
Here’s some pre-emptive rebuttal.
By Stefan on Dec 4, 2008
Hammy, please direct us all to the studies that say that pornography (i.e. stuff that could be classified by the OFLC as R18+ as in magazines or X18+ films) is harmful or “damaging”, either to adults or teenagers. And please don’t link to Hamilton and Flood’s crappy excuse for a “study”.
By Matthew on Dec 4, 2008
You see, this is the problem with a debate like this – I want to talk about how ridiculous an ISP level “clean feed” is and all you end up debating is the merits of pornography.
Stefan, nice link. I don’t think I disagree with any of it. I don’t think anyone has ever committed a violent crime purely because they watch porn. Most men and many women I know watch porn regularly and none of them are murderous or a rapist or whatever. It’s like saying video games is the cause of youth violence – what a load of crap. That’s not what I’m saying.
The problem with porn is that is destroys your imagination. You end up seeing all sexual encounters through the lens of porn and I think that’s really sad. Not to mention creating unrealistic expectations and ideas about sex. It leaves you more detached.
I have read studies that point to an increase in sexual anxiety being linked to watching porn.
Not to mention promoting a view of women that is objectionable, commodifying, sexist and domineering. I don’t think the way women are portrayed in pornography is defensible. If those portrayals become normalised then it is “damaging”.
I can’t point to you a “study”. It’s been quite a few years since I read into it (and I did read into it quite a bit) and everything I read was in academic journals. Most of these journals are not accessible online – not that I can remember which journals these studies were in.
Moreover, you can’t really measure these things, it is all opinion, and I have stated mine here. An article showing that others agree with me is all I could point you to.
But just to be clear: I don’t have a moral objection to people watching porn. However, I do feel that the portrayals of sex in pornography are sexist and create unrealistic expectations for men. When that becomes normalised (which it has) I think that is damaging to society. However, it should also be noted that I think it is a symptom if our masculine/misogynistic society, not the cause of it.
… at the end of the day I actually don’t feel strongly about this. I really don’t care (have I mentioned that already). But if I follow my beliefs to their logical conclusion I think porn has a negative effect on society, but I would never ban it.
Now, did anyone else hear what Conroy said in the Senate the other day?
By Hammy on Dec 4, 2008
here’s an article: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2007-05/29/content_882823.htm
‘Michael Flood, a research fellow in gender studies at La Trobe University and co-author of the 2003 report Youth and Pornography in Australia, says: “This is not about couples going to the porn store to spice up their sex lives. Men in growing numbers are using porn in ways that are secret, shameful and damaging. It is having a damaging impact on intimacy and sexuality.”‘
Pamela Paul also agrees with me: http://www.pamelapaul.com/pornified.html
and here: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/10/How-Porn-Destroys-Lives.aspx
But that’s just a couple of them
By Hammy on Dec 4, 2008
I’ll be honest. I like my porn. I don’t think it is the porn so much as societies reaction to it that causes problems. This discussion (and this is probably not the place to have it) can chase it’s tail; porn affects society, society affects porn, porn affects society etc.
I’ve calmed down, and can agree, here the issue is the technology and the technolgy doesn’t work.
By Stefan on Dec 4, 2008
Hammy,
I should point out that Micheal Flood is the guy who worked with Clive Hamilton on that 2003 report. Micheal Flood is also a radical feminist.
He’s pretty much on par with Robert Jensen… I wouldn’t say they’re very objective.
By stwa on Dec 4, 2008
Technology won’t work. Most of porn is downloaded via bitorrent anyway.
@Hammy: in my country majority of households have access to at least 6 hardcore pornography channels 24/7. Teenage pregnancies are practicaly non-existent, rapes are extremely rare, people have positive attitude to nudity and are open to talk about sex and problems with it. So I do not see porn is doing any damage to our society. Not to mention some of European countries have set legal age to watch porn at 15. I would say prudish societies have higher social costs and more problems with accepting sex, to talk about sexual abuse, STDs etc.
By SkipEU on Dec 4, 2008
Shouldn’t that be an HTTP 403?
By Andrew Garrett on Dec 4, 2008
“It is true that research has found that it is possible to use pornography in a laboratory to produce negative effects. But it is difficult to do this. Firstly you need to use people who don’t normally choose to watch pornography. Secondly, you need to produce an uncomfortable viewing situation for them – for example, put them in a stressful environment, in a university setting, surrounded by strangers and scientists. Thirdly, you have to get them to watch the pornography in quite a strange way. You have to make them watch it (as noted above, in a public place, surrounded by strangers) for extended periods (up to an hour). And, of course, they can’t masturbate or have an orgasm during that time. At the end of all this, some researchers have found that they have managed to make the research subjects aggressive.”
Indeed.
from http://www.thepornreportbook.com/index.php?pageID=7#q2
By Jon Seymour on Dec 5, 2008
David Marr makes this chilling point in the final paragraph of his piece “Panic & Censor” in this month’s “The Monthly”.
“But they don’t understand the deep politics of censorship that survives untouched by time: being effective is never crucial. Governments only have to show they’re doing all they can”
By Jon Seymour on Dec 7, 2008
I’m trying to make sense of your first line
If you are claiming that Hamilton is unlike the Kantians, I’m right there with you.
But if you are claiming that Kantian ethics does not hold rational thought to be basis of moral agency, then I’m very confused.
Kantian ethics is not based on the notion of virtue, but it is WHOLLY GROUNDED in individuals using rational thought in order to produce the moral principles by which they should live. Thus being rational is the cornerstone of the whole Kantian enterprise.
Furthermore, Kant argues that in order to be be ethical, we cannot allow institutions such as the church or the state to do our thinking for us. If we simply accept what we are told, and value what we we are told to value, we are not acting as moral agents at all.
Finally, Kant argued quite specifically for the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish. It is only through free debate that we as a society can develop and that we as individuals can become autonomous, which for Kant always means thinking for ourselves.
This places Kantian ethics at the opposite end of the spectrum from those who seek to censor or control what we can publish and what we can read.
By Gretchen on Dec 8, 2008
It was the first sense. It it based from the following quote from Hamilton’s “Freedom Paradox”.
“All this is to say that I place greater value on people exercising their second-order preferences than their first-order ones, and that this good life is preferable to the pleasant life. This is not because second-order preferences are intrinsically more virtuous – unless the exercise of rationality is itself considered a virtue, a position taken by the Kantians but not by me…The danger for people who are unable to control their immediate urges is that they become subject to manipulation and exploitation, and it is this that confers greater value of the good life.”
By Jon Seymour on Dec 13, 2008