Op-Ed: Australia on ‘Internet Enemies’ list because of Internet filter

Reporters Without Borders has placed Australia on par with Iran, Russia, China North Korea and Turkey on the basis of the Rudd government’s proposed Internet filter to screen out objectionable material.

The intention of the Internet filter is to screen out things like bestiality, child rape, torture, and other essentials to a full appreciation of the basic medieval nature of life on the Planet of the Idiots.

The objection to the filter by Reporters Without Borders is that it may go further and block access to materials which may relate to civil liberties. This is the “open and transparent society” concept with which we are all so blessed. While it’s a perfectly valid argument in theory, the naiveté which assumes that information which is already suppressed will somehow become more suppressed by an internet filter is a bit rich, even with the best of intentions. I just wish they’d invent a cliché filter. The arguments for and against censorship are so theoretical and so simplistic. Worse, they’re also extremely superficial. The civil liberties argument, used in a global society which is corrupt to the genome, is just unfortunate. I’ve now been listening to pro and anti censorship arguments for at least 40 years, and it still fascinates me that the basis of the argument rarely if ever gets mentioned: 1. Why does anything even need to be considered for censorship? 2. What sort of society has a default response for censorship? Anyway you look at it, even the perceived need for censorship represents social failure. However, if you have social failure, what do you do about it? Hide it? Or try to fix it? Why anyone assumes open censorship is worse than stealth censorship, I don’t know. Actual censorship, the suppression of information on a colossal scale, is a global reality. Exactly how Australia censoring a few internet nasties qualifies as a blow against free expression, free speech, or all the other non-existent civil liberties, I’d love to know. Somebody tell me the basis of the theory that the previous decade on Earth (the blue thing with the cars) was some sort of triumph of uncensored reportage of facts. So tell me: 1. Does anyone really imagine that this horde of freedom-loving politicians and other corporate crooks is about to provide information willingly, censorship or no censorship? 2. Does posting bestiality online for general availability guarantee civil liberties? 3. Will this filter reduce access for the malware associated with these sites, yes or no? 4. Will having no censorship turn the internet into a pristine wildland of virtue? 5. Does unquestioning upholding of the positives of anti censorship achieve much more than a lot of statements about how great it is to be anti censorship? (I haven’t heard a word from anyone about so many human rights issues for decades now that the idea that civil liberties are being effectively defended by anyone is a bit ridiculous.) 6. Does anti censorship as an ideal achieve very much while the various things which would have been censored continue to happen? Goebbels would have loved the current arguments. They’re so easy to refute. Anyone could say “Well, we’ve had zero censorship online for over a decade, and all it’s done is encourage more objectionable material.” Unfortunately for the anti censorship mob, the logic here is equating very objectionable materials with civil liberties. That’s like saying the right to information is based on the Crimes Act. It doesn’t really do a lot to present the case. It’s not likely to affect the Australian government’s decision, either. That issue has now been well and truly fixed by Anonymous getting the pollies pointed in exactly the wrong direction to consider any changes to the filter idea. Readers please note: We’ve already had one rehash of every pro and anti censorship argument on another thread about the Anonymous group’s objections to the Australian filter. My views have not changed and are not about to change. Nor have I yet managed to develop any respect for people whose contributions involve fearless agreement with others and mindless adherence to abstracts they obviously don't think about.