In which a government attempts censorship and I become a libertarian

[katiefoolery]

So it turns out I'm an internet libertarian, engaging in dangerous "radical individualism", according to this blog.

This is news to me.

I thought I was actually someone to whom the idea of goverment censorship is distateful, appalling and actually just a little bit terrifying.

I thought I was someone who believed she lived in Australia, a reasonably open-minded, intelligent country, not behind the great firewall of China.

I thought I was someone who was allowed to make her own decisions about what she does with her life, rather than leaving that up to the government.

But no - I'm an internet libertarian. I'm expressing attitudes of radical individualism (gods damn me for wanting to be an individual! Why can't I just be a mindless clone instead?). I'm an awful, awful person who endorses child pornography and who knows what else. It's a wonder I can even live with myself. You must all be wondering how I can even sleep at night, considering how depraved and heartless I am.

And why? Because I don't want my government to apply a mandatory filter to my internet use. Hell, I wouldn't even want an optional one, but a mandatory one is just disgusting. It's like having your parents come and watch over your shoulder while you use your computer. It's like feeling guilty for doing something* completely innocent on the internet because, you know, you could be looking at porn. We've heard it's out there. It's CENSORSHIP under the guise of protecting children from the horrible things out there on the internet.

I have this crazy belief that most children actually don't need to be protected from the internet by the government because they live with people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. They live with people who can monitor their internet use. They live with people who can buy their own filters and install them on their own computers.

But no.

Instead, we have a government that's determined to do something; to pretend they're terribly net-savvy and aware and can have MySpace and Facebook pages and probably Twitter as well** and isn't that cool? Aren't we doing a fantastic job of keeping up with these young people and their high-tech ways? But wait... all these "working families" who voted for us in the election probaby have kids... and they need protecting from all this horrible porn... so maybe we should take all this new-found techy knowledge of ours and CENSOR THE SHIT OUT OF THE INTERNET create a protective net around undesirable content.

Because then we'll look like we're doing something. Being proactive. Protecting the children.

It won't become personal at all. Goodness, no. Look - other countries have the same optional compulsory filters on their internet, too! No, seriously. Completely compulsory.

Never mind that anyone can access a non-Australian proxy and bypass a filter.

Never mind that the filter has been proven to block innocent sites while letting wave after wave of porn and "undesirable" sites through.

Never mind that it can reduce the speed of your internet by up to 87%.

Ah, but I'm just being melodramatic and alarmist, according to this Clive Hamilton. This university Ethics professor - presumably a reasonably educated man - seems to think that a mandatory filter is the same as film censorship: "In the libertarian world where individual rights overrule social responsibilities we would have no film censor and kids could go to the cinema to watch whatever they liked". Apparently, rating films as acceptable for certain ages is the same as imposing a mandatory internet filter on everybody, regardless of age. It's not a case of saying, "Right - you're under eighteen, so you can't see this film and that, incidentally, is the worst fake ID I've ever seen in my entire life". No. It's a case of saying, "Well, we're the government and we don't think you should see this film at all. Or this one. Or... oh my god, no. Why? Well, sure, you might be over eighteen and quite capable of making your own decisions but we wouldn't let a ten year old see these films. So neither can you."

Remember a little while back, when NetAlert was introduced? A convenient, free filter that anyone could install to protect their children from things they shouldn't see? Or maybe you don't, because it was eventually discontinued. And why? According to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy it was because it represented an incredible policy failure and attracted "extraordinarily small usage".

A free filter attracted "extraordinarily small usage".

Suddenly, that explains why they're so keen on a mandatory one.

I believe that children should be protected when they're on the internet. I believe they shouldn't be exploited or abused. But I don't believe it's within my government's responsibility or godsdamned mandate to take control of that. Provide advice, yes. Provide optional filters, yes. Educate parents and carers, yes. Please, do all of that.

Just don't treat all of us like children.

Save the Net

* Only careful proof-reading allowed me to avoid leaving in the terribly Freudian "doing someone" I accidentally typed here...

** Turns out I was right about Twitter, too. Well, when it comes to the opposition, at least.

Comments

[lexicalcrow]

You know, I liked Clive Hamilton. Until I read that article. -_-

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

He just doesn't get it. :| I'm just finding it immensely disturbing that an ethics professor seems to believe that censorship is ethical.

[lexicalcrow]

Yeah, it's disappointing to see him advocating for censorship and such. The fact we need our own rights laid down in law is another matter entirely. *sighs*

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

It's very, very sad. And it verges on being tasteless and disgusting that they're practically exploiting children to justifty censorship. Anyone who disagrees with this filter is clearly a paedophile! Clearly!

What.

Heh, perfect icon choice, by the way.

[lexicalcrow]

Oh yes, we're all porn-hungry paedophiles for daring to oppose this filter! That's all we want to use the net for, apparently. XD

Haha, yeah, I thought so too. :P

[chrisondra.livejournal.com]

...

...

...

"some develop unrealistic beliefs about sexual relationships and perverse attitudes towards girls, such as being disgusted by pubic hair."

...

That comment made me just laugh. Here in America, at least, everyone is disgusted by armpit and leg hair on women. Pubic hair is just the next logical step, right?

Not that I think anyone should be disgusted by any of it, but I'm willing to bet that Mr. Hamilton doesn't find anything "perverse" about being disgusted by armpit hair.

So it amuses me.

Anyway, any article labelled "Whose rights matter most?" is going to reek, because it's never a matter of whose rights matter the most. It's a matter of who has the right to do what. That whole "My right to swing my fist ends at the other person's nose" thing. It's not a matter of your right to swing your fist is superceded by the other person's right to not be hit. It's just that you don't have the right to hit the other person.

Well, without cause that gives you the right, of course. =P

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Well, all of that hair is highly unnatural...

The very fact that he's talking about rights shows that he's missed the point entirely. It's not even about rights! It's about censorship and a government that's also missed the point. It makes me want to exclaim a lot and bang my head against desk-like surfaces.

[mistressmarilyn.livejournal.com]

Just what we need ~ a childproof cap on freedom of speech (which is what we constantly argue about her in the USofA). If our government could find a way to tax it, they'd filter the hell out of the internet.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

That's what's behind it all really, isn't it? The fact that the internet's so free and uncontrolled. There's nothing else like it out there and I think that scares the hell out of the people who want to have control over everything.

[vicky-v.livejournal.com]

So signing this.

Then I think a reunion between my head and the desk is in order.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Yay, thank-you! It's the craziest thing ever. At least one ISP has volunteered to test the filter purely because they want to prove it won't work and it will only slow the internet down to un-usable speeds.

Definitely a head-desk moment.

[crazedturkey.livejournal.com]

DUde I'm an adult. If I want porn I'm gonna get pron.

Freaking old people with no idea how this new fangled technology works. grrr.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly! Dammit!

It's as logical as the judge in Melbourne banning the broadcast of Underbelly in Victoria. Because there's totally no other way of getting your hands on a TV show...

[charliemc.livejournal.com]

Yeah, yeah. Apparently I'm a radical, because I've been in favor of keeping the 'wild, wild west' version of the internet alive and well. (smile)

I preach it way (way) too much, actually. You might be interested in checking out: SaveTheInternet.Com (http://www.savetheinternet.com/) (I've had it on my Profile page here forever and a day.)

I don't like government interference of ANY kind online. But they're bound and determined to mess with it. They just can't help themselves!

I also like to remind myself that the great minds who conceived of the cyber world in the first place are fortunately in favor of keeping it as free as possible and as open as possible. But if we don't express our concerns and keep informed, we're just asking to be suppressed. That's my obviously radical stance. (grin)

Interesting to see the Australian aspect, I have to say -- thanks for sharing!

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I think governments everywhere are scared of the internet because they have no real control over it. Nobody really owns it. And that's what makes it great.

[elfie-chan.livejournal.com]

So...if these parents (and we don't know how many of them there are) want a filter, why don't they get a filter? Why do they have to inflict their ideas on the rest of us?

I don't live in Australia, but I don't like the precedent this sets.

Also: The whole idea of deciding whether we should before deciding whether we can? Bogus. If we can't feasibly do something, it doesn't matter whether we should or not. Once you figure out you can't do something, it's time to stop wasting time and money on whether you should and find another solution. LOGIC!

This article's logic fails, not only on this level, but on others. It is not the government's responsibility to raise my kids. It is mine. And saying that asking parents to parent their own children is showing "contempt for children" is just ridiculous. If you're worried about your kids accessing porn over the internet, monitor your kid and turn off the computer.

I just get this feeling that the parents want to stop their kids from viewing porn, but they don't want their kids to yell at them for interfering with their lives. They want to be able to blame the government, instead! "Sorry, sweetie, it's not my fault that the internet is censored and you can't get to that important website for your school project. It's the government!"

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

See, I'm with you on this - expecting parents to parent their children seems logical to be, not contemptuous. Teaching children to stay safe on the net would seem to be more practical than just cutting everyone off from most of it. It's like the whole pool-fence thing: the fences might stop kids from falling into pools and drowning in them, but actually teaching them to swim is even more effective.

It's a terrible precedent. You just don't expect a Western country to think that any kind of censorship is acceptable.

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

What the actual fuck? Radical individualism? What does that even mean. For god's sake I want to punch that man now.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Please, be my guest. :D

My interpretation of radical individualism: having your own thoughts and opinions only cooler. Also, with many, many internets.

[naelany.livejournal.com]

* Only careful proof-reading allowed me to avoid leaving in the terribly Freudian "doing someone" I accidentally typed here...

that made me chuckle lol.

The rest of your post though, I'm right there with you. *sigh*

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I know! I couldn't believe I'd made that typo there, of all places.

It amazes me that the politicians pushing this can't see that it's censorship. Either that, or they're fully aware that it is and they're very happy for it to happen.

[naelany.livejournal.com]

*chuckles* As you said... freudian slip ^_~

*shrugs* I'm not as surprised by it as I probably should be. Which is scary enough in its own way, if you know what I mean

[flippyfrog.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, when the male politicians (and maybe some female ones) realise this filter means they cannot access their porn sites it won't pass.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Heh, hopefully. Because if it passes, then I'm leaving the country and I can't afford to do that.

[tim-of-oz.livejournal.com]

I think it's a case of nobody's rights being absolute, but imposing one filter upon everybody is clearly the stupidest thing to do possible.

Plus, the first people who figure out how to get past it will be 14 or 15 year old teens.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Exactly! If we ever want a way to get around the filters at my work, we just ask one of the students.

[frohike.livejournal.com]

Because your post is well presented and has info and all that jazz, may I link to it in my journal so that people I know can come here and read and sign the petition rather than me trying to post something coherent and failing?

By way of example, I made four typographical errors in this comment alone. And that's just the ones I saw.

ETA: Make that five. Is what I meant to say, during which I made four more. Whoops and another one. It's a wonder I don't injure myself somehow.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

Of course you may! I'm glad to be of assistance. :)

And now, I have to go and comb through the post because I'm paranoid about any typos I may have left in there...

Edited to remove typo, ironically.

[frohike.livejournal.com]

Many lols at our keyboard skills... or lack thereof.

[frohike.livejournal.com]

Also, I paraphrased your post a bit in an email as well, cos you say it so damn well.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I think you've single-handedly managed to increase my ego by at least double with all of these compliments. :)

Seriously, though, any little thing I can do to help spread the word is brilliant.