You know your argument for filtering falls flat on its face when…
February 16, 2009 – 9:42 pmYou use any of these same tactics Clive Hamilton used in his opinion article for Australian IT, the Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians. Such as:
- You need to spend the first 271 words, or 5 paragraphs, brewing up a completely fictional situation involving a boy looking at “weird-looking vaginas”, upskirts and amputees… golden showers, “black bitches”, scat, facials, “huge penises”…
- Your vivid story proves supervision and PC based filtering is actually a more appropriate solution.
- You accuse GetUp! of misleading the debate by cherry picking performance results from the Enex test and in the very next paragraph cherry pick your own stats, failing to mention that the filter which degraded performance the least was also one of the least accurate at correctly identifying content.
- You accuse those who oppose mandatory ISP filtering as representing the most extreme strand of internet libertarianism, yet fail to respond to any of the actual concerns held by those ‘extremists’. Extremists like Senator Scott Ludlam, ALIA and Save the Children.
- You are still unable to point to a single person who has ever said that “people (including children) should be able to view whatever they like”.
- You conclude the financial costs of mandatory ISP filtering “will be small” yet fail to point to any report or quote from an ISP which backs up this statement.
- You fail to understand why mandatory ISP filtering is different to the existing regulation we already have in place for TV, Films and the Internet.
Care to add? I’m sure Clive will.
30 Responses to “You know your argument for filtering falls flat on its face when…”
On the other hand, much kudos to Clive for having the courage to spend countless hours on the Internet researching adult material. His article vividly shows how familiar he is with the subject matter.
By Colin on Feb 16, 2009
I submitted a comment to his faculty asking that some of his peers review his public commentary.
I doubt even half of his articles would be posted if they were reviewed by other academics first.
By Websinthe on Feb 16, 2009
While I agree with your assessment, I’m wary of jumping to the conclusion that Clive’s piece falls flat on its face.
As far as I can see, he’s been paying attention to the criticism levelled against him and has gone for a different approach this time. I actually think he makes two good points.
Firstly, by using the first several paragraphs to write such a graphic account of a porn adventure, he makes a subtle point about the consequences of having no moral standards in communication, which supports his idea that the internet is a lawless wilderness and the final frontier of content regulation.
Secondly, he is quite correct that it is not ‘our’ internet. There are several banners, slogans and campaigns surrounding this issue that say something along the lines of ‘keep your hands off our internet’. That simply supports his characterisation of opponents as extreme libertarians and we should be wary of playing into his hands.
This was not an article about the Government’s mandatory ISP filter. This was an article about morality.
While I disagree with his conclusions and it is easy to spot the many flaws in his arguments, we should be careful not to dismiss Clive too easily. He is clever, committed and influential. I think perhaps he could even be convinced by arguments against the filter if he were engaged properly. Mocking him only adds fuel to the fire I fear.
By Danu Poyner on Feb 16, 2009
Nice One Mikey. On the Money. And the man is supposedly an academic…
Oh how far the teaching standards have fallen in this country.
By Pyrmontvillage on Feb 16, 2009
I have to agree with Danu there.
We are dealing with people that are better trained, better experienced and far more driven by taking sides than by reading the facts.
How do we engage with people that can use their reputation to side step the need for facts and logic?
By Websinthe on Feb 16, 2009
@Danu
Gone for a different approach this time? I don’t think so. The very mention of lurid sex and horses in the first few paragraphs is enough to show Clive hasn’t gone for anything new. In fact he’s regurgitating the same dribble he has been since 2003.
With respect to this article not being about the Government’s mandatory ISP filter, I disagree. All previous articles in Australian IT’s filtering series have been about filtering and Clive’s is no different. His argument is simply based on morality. His morals.
Concerns about those presenting placards such as ‘keep your hands off our internet’ are noted, but even without them Hamilton would likely only address imaginary opponents.
Hamilton is clever, committed and influential. You’re right. He’s also an academic with peers. Pointing out that he is failing to address legitimate concerns and ignoring facts is required on our behalf.
By Mike on Feb 16, 2009
As I commented on Clive’s article on News.com.au (not yet published):
“A lot I could say in response to this article, but it’s ludicrous to interpret GetUp’s “our internet” as meaning that GetUp claims ownership of the web. It is so painfully obvious that GetUp means it is the people’s web, not the Government’s.”
By NathanaelB on Feb 16, 2009
Well said NathanaelB! My comment exactly.
What a grotesque distortion to suggest that Get Up meant it owns the net. Get over it Clive!
I have written another, rather less shocking fable as an alternative, in case anyone wants a ripping yarn but can’t stomache Dr Hamilton’s lurid language. See Clive Hamilton & Johnny Normal: A Twisted Tale
By Syd Walker on Feb 16, 2009
I wrote a long and witty comment and unfortunately the site keeps getting hung up (early filtering already?). Either it will appear 3 times or not at all.
So as not to waste my lovely effort, here’s what I wrote:
So, Clive, is it your moral compass that decides what grown adults should be allowed to see, or is it, say, Fred Nile’s? If porn depicts sex acts between two consenting individuals, who is to decide what’s “bizarre” or “sick”?
Nobody is forcing adults to look at porn. It should be a choice left up to the individual (and their own moral compass) without regard to anyone else. There is currently no scientific evidence that porn use causes physical or mental harm.
And yes, teenagers look at porn. They’re full of hormones and they’re curious. It’s up to their parents to either prevent them from accessing it or else educating them that porn is not reality and that the messages it gives are often counter to real life.
And the current censorship laws regarding porn do not have “widespread community support” anyway – see the Adultshop AC Nielsen survey which found that 76 percent of Australian adults believe explicit erotic films should be made available on a restricted basis to people over the age of 18 years and that only 30% found “actual sex” in films to be offensive.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21299540-7582,00.html
Perhaps the majority of Australians are “extreme libertarians”!
Our censorship laws need to be liberalised to bring them in line with the internet, not the other way around.
By Karen on Feb 16, 2009
By the way, here’s the story of how the classification board ignored “community standards” with regards to X-rated films.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23013963-7583,00.html
We need to point out that the “bring the internet into line with existing law” argument is flawed because the OFLC is flawed.
By Karen on Feb 16, 2009
Apparently Australian IT doesn’t like my comment, which I reproduce here for STOTC readers:
Hmm, how interesting. It seems Australian IT doesn’t want my comment. This is what I tried to submit:
The Net may not belong to libertarians. But it doesn’t belong to scaremongering totalitarians like Clive Hamilton either. The key phrase in Mr. Hamilton’s ludicrous slippery slope argument is this:
“He types in a search for, say, ’sex pictures’.”
In other words, the hypothetical boy got exactly what he asked for. As Trent (another commentator) points out, Mr. Hamilton’s example shows a complete disregard for the responsibilities of parents and individual moral responsibility. The web is an encyclopaedic resource – do we supervise children whilst they flick through the pages, or just tear out the bits we don’t agree with in case they get hold of it when we aren’t looking?
I find it revealing that despite the unquestionable moral evil of the examples cited by Mr. Hamilton, very few (with the exception of bestiality) are illegal under Australian law. Despite his protestations, what he is in effect asking for is a double standard, with the Internet being more tightly restricted than other equivalent media.
Software already exists to allow parents to regulate what their children can access on the Internet, and comes pre-loaded on many modern operating systems. These systems aren’t infallible, but neither are our society’s precautions to prevent pornographic magazines or films falling into the hands of minors. What Mr. Hamilton is effectively asking is that we ban all media not rated G.
Whether he understands this is another matter – he certainly doesn’t seem to understand how the Internet works, as evinced by this inane comment:
“…we have laws banning Australian ISPs from hosting the kinds of pornographic imagery I have described above, which all come from overseas sites…”
Internet Service Providers, of course, do not ‘host’ anything. The imagery in question, is hosted on the aforementioned “overseas” sites. ISPs are utility providers. They exist to deliver access to the Internet, which is an international network. The filtering system Mr. Hamilton is describing is a secret list of sites which are surruptitiously INTERCEPTED and made unavailable when requested by the Australian user. A “page not found” error message will be displayed, giving the impression the content does not exist. This is supposedly to prevent owners of illegal sites realising they are being blocked and simply switching to another host. However, because the list of blocked sites is kept secret (for the same reason) there is absolutely no accountability and nothing at all to prevent these crypto-government organisations censoring anything they want.
Mr. Hamilton would no doubt accuse me of ’scare-mongering’ for this, but the fact is it’s already begun. In the UK the Internet Watch Foundation caused uproar recently when it banned, not just an image, but an entire article on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, in the process accidentally blocking the entire country from editing the site. When Wikipedia produced an article on the controversy (without the offending image) they blocked that, too. The fact that the IWF felt enabled not just to censor the Internet, but censor all reference to their censorship, should give pause to anyone seeking to promote such a scheme in Australia.
To restate: Ample software solutions exist to enable individual families to restrict what their children can do online. Anything else is ultimately destructive to free speech and the liberty of the Australian citizen.
By ALloyd on Feb 17, 2009
I notice he has stopped calling himself an intellectual. At least for now.
By Dan on Feb 17, 2009
@Mike
I still think people are missing a valuable point here. I have tried to explain what I mean more fully over at my own blog.
http://www.danupoyner.com/2009/02/17/filter-opponents-must-stay-on-message/
By Danu Poyner on Feb 17, 2009
“Our censorship laws need to be liberalised to bring them in line with the internet, not the other way around.”
Hmm, maybe that’s going a bit too far, re /b/ and the ilk.
But yes, the ‘community standards’ is a load of shit, and we need new laws to reflect that and stop the classification system from banning films that only a small minority takes issue with
By anonindisguise on Feb 17, 2009
Danu, The onus is on Mr Hamilton to actually provide evidence to show that porn is causing problems for children. He does not have a valid argument until he actually comes up with something which proves this or makes his point at least a bit credible. Until then I think we can ridicule him all we like.
I understand the point you’re trying to make here (as well as the post on your blog), but Hamilton has brought this up, not those opposed to the filter. We shouldn’t have to disprove something he has absolutely no evidence for. I would like to think that only real problems should be solved, not imaginary or perceived ones.
By Matthew on Feb 17, 2009
Good article STOTC!
@ Matthew: You are right, we shouldn’t have to disprove Hamilton’s specious claims. But because they appeal to the fears of many conservative Australians, we do at least have to point out that his assertions have no foundation.
By Sam D on Feb 17, 2009
@Danu>
While there may be propaganda which refers to “our internet”, these tend to be created by well-meaning individuals who get a bit carried away, not the major players in the debate, as Hamilton suggests.
I agree that we need to stay calm and “on message”, because there is little to be gained by sinking to his level, but Hamilton’s article is still based on a glaring logical fallacy, and insulting to those who try to put forward reasoned arguments.
I note that while he seems happy to bleat about the harm done to children by looking at hard core pornography, he seems less eager to deal with the queries of those who ask for verification of his claims.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Feb 17, 2009
@Danu
It is a valuable point, but not a new one and not one I think is being missed by those of us presenting our views in the media or on most blogs. Naturally a coherent argument is something that has always been encouraged and still is.
Unfortunately, some people on Internet forums are not as skilled at presenting their reasons for objecting as others and in doing so they reduce the weight of their concerns or give Mr Hamilton the opportunity to quote it as being representative of the entire opposition. Easy targets and that’s not going to change. It can only be reduced as more people become educated with the debate. Lets hope that happens quickly but I’m not going to dwell on it.
However, when those who support the introduction of mandatory ISP filtering choose to make misleading statements and ignore facts, they must be called out.
Hamilton has failed time and time again to respond to legitimate concerns put forth by many of us, preferring to label the likes of EFA as extreme libertarians, when in fact they present a reasoned, well researched argument. Without putting words in people’s mouths, the same argument being presented by politicians and organisations who are far from being extreme.
Responding to Hamilton’s concerns about young peoples access to pornography is also not something that has been ignored, especially with respect to the filter and it’s ability to play a part in the viewing of pornography by teenagers and children. It is Mr Hamilton who has ignored those who have responded politely and reasonably.
If Clive Hamilton only chooses to cherry pick and respond to a very small number of comments on Twitter and Whirlpool mocking him or allegedly showing disregard for the welfare of young people, it says more about how weak his argument is than any other.
No one is dismissing Clive Hamilton or his arguments. Just the opposite is happening.
By Mike on Feb 17, 2009
The comments of Clive Hamilton, a person qualified as a Professor of Ethics, are intellectually astounding.
Hamilton’s high-moral-ground argument appears to be, governments are asked by its citizens to impose restrictions on them, as part of living in a democracy.
He said:
“We live in a democracy where citizens ask their governments to impose restrictions on certain types of content that are regarded as harmful to individuals or to the community more broadly.”
But ask yourselves this question: When was the last time you asked your Government to impose restrictions on your liberties ?
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t recall ever asking that of my Government, and I doubt there’s many of us, except a relative minority of do-gooders of society, that ever do. Perhaps Professor Hamilton is one of these people ?
What Prof Hamilton should have said is, a minority of people in society are often responsible for imposing their moral values upon us, the silent majority of society, through Government lobbying and political interest groups.
Hamilton also cites the Get Up campaigns’ use of the 87% slow-down in speed, as he put it, worse-case-scenario, blatant, “scare mongering”. But I see no problem with using a worst case scenario to highlight a problem. Get Up were merely highlighting the real potential for a significant reduction in speed, an argument which they are completely entitled, indeed – ethically obliged to make.
So, Professor Hamilton, your arguments, whilst they have merit, are not completely based upon sound intellectual “ethics” but perhaps more so upon your own personal views ?
By Big Galoot on Feb 17, 2009
ALloyd: “Apparently Australian IT doesn’t like my comment”
I’ve tried to comment twice on Aust IT’s “Superblogging”, debate. My comments were respectful and well-reasoned yet neither were published.
The only explanation I can think of is they don’t like essays for comments. Both my attempted contributions, like yours, were quite long and responding to quite a few claims. Most of what gets published seems to be limited to one or two paragraphs.
By Icaria on Feb 17, 2009
I think Danu is somewhat misinterpreting the dismissal and ridicule of some of Hamilton’s arguments:
This isn’t day 1 of the debate. The same tired, unrealistic hypothetical scenarios have been beaten around for months now. People are tired of simply engaging, “social conservatives”, at whatever level they deem appropriate.
No one is dismissing Clive Hamilton out of hand; they’ve heard what he and others have had to say. They’ve indulged this narrative and explained well and truly why what Hamilton, Wallace, McMenamin, etc are arguing is irrelevant – but they’ve been ignored.
It’s clear at this point that Hamilton (amongst others) aren’t interested in actually debating this. Rather, they’re spewing forth the same tired, refuted nonesence in the hope that if they repeat themselves loudly and often enough, they’re going to be taken seriously.
The appropriate response to this, in part is ridicule. Obviously, the exclusive ridicule of a point of view is no more honest or constructive than what Hamilton is doing but simply extending to these people the same courtesies over and over again is extending to them an undeserved level of respect, unbefitting of their conduct.
It needs to be made clear that we are not amused by emotional arguments and slight-of-hand, else bystanders are going to witness this argument and mistakenly think that both sides are arguing at the same level. We’re not. The most prominent advocates of this filter have demonstrated that they’re not above wallowing in the mud and we need to laugh at them for that.
By Icaria on Feb 17, 2009
Now that Clive Hamilton has specifically turned this into an argument about porn for adults, it’s become apparent that those who oppose the filter have a number of different viewpoints on this topic.
So… questions:
Do you believe porn is harmful to teens who stumble across it (or who, more often, willingly seek it out)? Is this belief based on any evidence?
Do you agree that adults should have the right to view consensual sexual material that some may find offensive?
Do you feel that the way Australia approaches porn via other media (and through the OFLC) is reasonable?
Do you believe in free speech?
Because that’s what it comes down to. You may find porn offensive but it has just as much right to exist as the most vitriolic anti-abortion site.
I’m not “off topic” here. This is a point that the pro-filter people will want to pursue because it’s easy to take a high moral ground stance about porn and people will be too embarrassed to speak out. We need to be firm on this point.
By all means, suggest that porn is inappropriate (as opposed to harmful) for children and teens – that’s why we have filter software. But make a distinction. Adults have the right to look at porn.
And there is no scientific evidence to suggest that looking at porn causes any harm.
Indeed, as I wrote in my second unpublished reply:
The FBI has actually found that the incidence of rape has DECLINED in the last ten years. That’s the last ten years during which internet porn has become readily accessible.
This researcher says he believes that net porn does not encourage rape but rather prevents it:
http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf
Yes, I AM an extreme libertarian.
By Karen on Feb 17, 2009
@Mike,
“Pointing out that he is failing to address legitimate concerns and ignoring facts is required on our behalf.”
True, but its better from an anti-filter (or pro-free speech) point of view that he ignores the facts. I doubt Clive is going to change his position after taking such a strong public stance. If Clive comes up with a strong argument for the filter it will give him two weapons (influence without the need for a strong argument as well as a strong argument).
I very much doubt he can come up with a strong argument for filtering, but if he were to do this it would make it much more difficult to prevent the implementation of a filter.
By Sonic the Bogdog on Feb 17, 2009
I would also say that more open attitude to porn reduce teenage pregnancy. No wonder USA top the world list and UK is second.
we have laws banning Australian ISPs from hosting the kinds of pornographic imagery I have described above
How can a modern, free and democratic country even have a law like this?
By SkipEU on Feb 18, 2009
@Big Galoot
We ask the Government to restrict our liberties when we have laws that prohibit things like defamation, jaywalking, intellectual property theft, indecent exposure and countless others. We ask the Government to restrict our liberties when we have police and courts that enforce those laws.
Laws, manners and social standards are how a society regulates itself. They are an inevitable result of civilised society. The alternative is anarchy.
By Danu Poyner on Feb 18, 2009
@Karen:
Q: Do you believe porn is harmful to teens who stumble across it (or who, more often, willingly seek it out)? Is this belief based on any evidence?
A: Definitely not. As an ex-teen who willingly sought out porn myself, I don’t believe it caused me any harm.
Q: Do you agree that adults should have the right to view consensual sexual material that some may find offensive?
A: Yes!
Q: Do you feel that the way Australia approaches porn via other media (and through the OFLC) is reasonable?
A: Reasonable, I can accept. Ideal? No.
Q: Do you believe in free speech?
A: Yes!
“By all means, suggest that porn is inappropriate (as opposed to harmful) for children and teens – that’s why we have filter software. But make a distinction. Adults have the right to look at porn.
And there is no scientific evidence to suggest that looking at porn causes any harm.”
Exactly. I’m now an adult, and I still look at porn, and I don’t believe that it causes me harm. And of course I’m not looking at child porn or animal porn – only consenting adults.
Now, on to my own comments…
Regarding filtering in general, I work for an internet dating company that has many clients in the Middle East. Many of our sites – which are not adult dating sites, porn sites, whatever, just sites for adults to meet other adults for dating and marriage – are blocked by those governments. We have to advise people from those companies to use proxy servers, but occasionally even those get blocked. Naturally, I’m concerned that this could also happen to clients from Australia, which would obviously be bad for me.
Regarding the people on both sides of the debate in general, I find it very interesting that the “pro” commentators nearly always cite their sources for statistics, with references, and put them in context. But the “anti” commentators very rarely do. Looking at Bernadette McMenamin’s “super blog” (http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25010836-5013046,00.html), for example:
“Critics of this new scheme have argued that ISP filtering of child sexual abuse images simply will not work. However these filters are actually working very effectively in Scandinavian countries and in the UK as well as in recent trials in New Zealand.”
Compared with Mark Newton’s (http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25045088-5013038,00.html):
“In 2005 the New Zealand Government looked at this issue and concluded that the international deployments it was able to observe were impractical and not-fit-for-purpose, specifically noting that the UK system was only 10 – 15 per cent effective even when it was notionally working.”
And its Newton who provides a link, not McMenamin.
Regarding Clive Hamilton himself…Surely his scenario could have been prevented by adequate parental supervision? And isn’t most of what the boy saw in the scenario legal to view? How is the filter going to stop this scenario from happening? How much of what was described is going to be blocked? Personally, I have a problem with very little of what he listed, and have been known to view much of it at some point myself.
But of course, I’m not against the filter just because it might restrict my access to porn…I’m against it because I don’t believe it will be affective, because I disagree with the process being so opaque, because I disagree with the Government deciding what I can and can’t view, because I don’t want my internet service to decline, and many other reasons. I don’t understand how this proposal was even possible in what is supposed to be a “free and democratic society”.
Whew, sorry for the novel!
By Ilaeria on Feb 19, 2009
Can you please help me in relation the censorship of the internet in ireland.
Eircom the main internet provider in Ireland has plans to curb peoples use and enjoyment of the internet by filtering all content on the internet. This non government controlled filtering of the internet is to stop the illegally uploading and downloading of copyrighted material. IRMA (Irish Recorded Music Association ) which is controlled by the main record labels (EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner) are to supply Eircom with the IP addresses of all people they detect illegally uploading or downloading copyrighted materials. If you are found to be illegally downloading copyrighted materials you can be disconnected from the internet.
The filtering of the internet and the treat of disconnection is serving a commercial interest group and is not to the benefit to the people of Ireland. We do not condone piracy but we should never have censorship, surveillance and treat of disconnection from the internet. The internet has become a main part of Modern life people use it everyday for doing business, communicating with friends buying and selling goods, reading the news as well as many other reasons. There is over a billion people in the world that use the internet and half the world have mobile phones to disconnect people from the internet is ending there freedom to work and communicate with the world. Censorship, surveillance and disconnection of the internet for the benefit of music industry is ridiculous. How can a democratic nation allow a private industry association to dictate what information their population can/cannot read. The future of the internet is at stake if we let censorship of the internet start now we can never stop it.
can you please help me make this be known to the public or give me advice in how i should launch a campaign to stop it at the moment i am sending this email and asking people to forward it toThe following email addresses the minister for communication the irish media and eircom (please help forward to the following and to your friends)
eamon.ryan@oireachtas.ie, customer.services@eircom.net, sales@eircom.net
eircomadvertising@eircom.net, newsonline@rte.ie, info@tv3.ie
.
Thanks
Ger
By ger egan on Mar 23, 2009