![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It seems some political parties will be getting a bit of what they wanted after all. Yesterday, new Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy announced that the government will indeed be introducing mandatory internet filtering. This is something that has been rumbling around for years now on both sides of Australian politics and which I was hoping would never go forward.
The mention of schools seems manipulative to me, to make people think of poor defenceless children and to panic. Unless the connections of businesses and other locations will be exempt from filtering? Also worrisome is the mention of blocking this undefined "inappropriate material", which is what?
His response to objections is rather inflammatory:
Pornographic material, in case Mr Conroy does not realise this, is actually legal in Australia, Unless it involves BDSM.
I should perhaps add, though I think it obvious (except what people think obvious is often shown not to be) that I do not non-consensual material should be allowed. However, we are talking about a blanket ban on "pornography and inappropriate material" passing through Australian ISPs, -
It is at this point I realise I may be guilty of inadvertent sensationalism myself. People will be given the option of opting out of this 'service'.
-not anything to do with the enforcement of bans on currently illegal material. I would hazard a guess that it is already illegal to make available to minors pornographic or highly violent material, informed by such evidence as the fact my sister's copy of Fight Club is rated R18+ and not allowed for sale to anyone under the age of 18. Yep, an official part of our existing rating system (which incidentally requires any video game that would be rated 'R' be 'Refused Classification' instead). I would further hazard that laws covering the making available of such material to minors extends to the internet, or could easily be made to do so.
Further, there is already existing software for the purpose of filtering such content from computers. Parents can set it up for themselves if they make the decision that they do not wish their children exposed to such material or hire someone to set it up for them or the government could subsidise the cost/provide software and installation for those who wish it.
What I try to ask myself when questions such as this arise is, is there sufficient justification for removing this freedom from people? I do not think there is.
"Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material."
The mention of schools seems manipulative to me, to make people think of poor defenceless children and to panic. Unless the connections of businesses and other locations will be exempt from filtering? Also worrisome is the mention of blocking this undefined "inappropriate material", which is what?
His response to objections is rather inflammatory:
"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."I am fairly confident that making or owning child pornography is in fact already illegal. Is Mr Conroy aware of this? I do not think he should be Telecommunications Minister if he is not aware that Australian law enforcement already takes steps to track and shut down this kind of material, which involves harming people considered incapable of consent.
Pornographic material, in case Mr Conroy does not realise this, is actually legal in Australia, Unless it involves BDSM.
You likely are aware, dear reader, that I have recently resumed my posting of what I call Sunday Story Ratings, rating textual works by the standards Australia applies to film. Here are the guidelines the OFLC uses to classify films and computer games and which I use for classifying stories. These are the criteria by which material may be refused classification (not approved for distribution within the country) on the basis of sexual content:SEXAlso under criminal activity:
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or
abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.And that is the total of the detail it goes into. So far as I know, bondage and other activities related to BDSM fall or commonly fall into the category of "fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent". The material "not even suitable to be classified as R or X classification" is hardly some great threat people who wish to view it need protection from and it seems silly to me to deny people from viewing representations of common (I did not say majority) fantasies and activities. Why in the world should such material be not available, so long it is clearly marked for those who wish to view it and those who do not.
I should perhaps add, though I think it obvious (except what people think obvious is often shown not to be) that I do not non-consensual material should be allowed. However, we are talking about a blanket ban on "pornography and inappropriate material" passing through Australian ISPs, -
It is at this point I realise I may be guilty of inadvertent sensationalism myself. People will be given the option of opting out of this 'service'.
-not anything to do with the enforcement of bans on currently illegal material. I would hazard a guess that it is already illegal to make available to minors pornographic or highly violent material, informed by such evidence as the fact my sister's copy of Fight Club is rated R18+ and not allowed for sale to anyone under the age of 18. Yep, an official part of our existing rating system (which incidentally requires any video game that would be rated 'R' be 'Refused Classification' instead). I would further hazard that laws covering the making available of such material to minors extends to the internet, or could easily be made to do so.
Further, there is already existing software for the purpose of filtering such content from computers. Parents can set it up for themselves if they make the decision that they do not wish their children exposed to such material or hire someone to set it up for them or the government could subsidise the cost/provide software and installation for those who wish it.
What I try to ask myself when questions such as this arise is, is there sufficient justification for removing this freedom from people? I do not think there is.
- There already exist tools for this purpose which do not involve restricting the access of anyone who does not ask for it (and those who are their dependants, I suppose)
- People who know computers better than I do tell me it would not even work
- So far as I am aware there already exist laws intended to prevent minors from accessing the content which would be blocked
- I do not want the government to have a list of banned internet content which, even though it probably will not directly affect me, might be expanded to do so
- Any talk of child pornography or similar in relation to this is a diversion intended to produce a hysterical reaction and demonise opponents. Such material is already illegal.
