A year or two ago I attended a seminar regarding Human Rights in China. I was particularly interested in the presentation regarding censorship primarily focussed on the Internet. The ruling CCP party in China has concerns about Western influence on its people so much so that they've bottlenecked their entire Internet by using three gateways based on the mainland. Any information coming into China is disseminated first by "net-cops" who ensure that data meets a certain stringent criteria.
Of primary concern is any liberal democratic or progressive material that is deemed 'unhealthy' by the CCP.
Here is an extreme example of media censorship. I write about this in order to represent my idea of the death of a liberal democracy. When the free media is stifled and ideas are unable to be presented and discussed, democracy is well and truly on its way out.
Is Austalia heading the same way? Although still in a preliminary stage of development, current proposals being evaluated are the Federal Government's Net-Filtering policies. The idea of a net-filter was developed to combat the spread of child pornography over the internet. Before I continue, I am in no-way a supporter of child pornography and spit on those who proliferate this material. However the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This policy opens the door for a greater field of material that may be deemed 'unhealthy' depending on whoever runs or influences the blacklist.
The blacklist contains the URLS of websites deemed to be proliferating unhealthy material. The ACMA defines 'unhealthy content' as follows:
- Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board (formerly the Office of Film and Literature Classification). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
- Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.
Content which is classified MA 15+*, provided by a mobile premium service or a service that provides audio or video content upon payment of a fee and that is not subject to a restricted access system. This includes material containing strong depictions of nudity, implied sexual activity, drug use or violence, very frequent or very strong coarse language, and other material that is strong in impact. (ACMA, 2009)
Those opposing the net-filter are mainly civil libertarians who are concerned that the blacklist's criteria could be expanded to include political dissenters and therefore be used to stifle free and open debate and discussion.
The Government's main political avenue when promoting the net-filter was primarily concerned with combatting child-pornography. However as the ACMA have shown, the net-filter will target content with adult themes, a criterium that can be woven to suit many different ideologies especially the religious right. The ABC's Background Briefing radio program ran a session dealing with the net-filter in March 2009. Derek Bambauer reveals on the program that Australia will be the first western democracy to actually legislate a net-filter and therefore provides a template and a precedent for other nations to follow in its path. However as also pointed out in the program that Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Belgium, Germany and the UK have already emplaced net-filters that deal with child-pornography alone.
As Australia's mandate exceeds that of the countries listed above, we will provide a template and a success guage to other countries consididering a similar course of action. However there are several concerns to be addressed. The filter is in a test phase, however due to the lack of support from the main ISP's such as Telstra, Optus etc. the tests cannot hope to generate data from a valid cross-section of internet-using society. Also the filter is restricted to URL's and cannot impact on Peer to Peer networks through which a great deal of child-pornography is shared.
I am unsure of how successful this filter can really be with the existence of P2P networks. I extremely sceptical of any argument that states that this filter will in anyway stem the abuse of children by child pornographers who in the end don't need a market for their material as their perversion is their own. And a am extremely concerned about the risk that a blacklist could pose to the civil liberties of decent everyday people who use the internet.
I submit this to you dear reader in the hope that you will engage in debate and civilised discussion on my blog.
Thankyou for reading,
Bill.
