Last night I attended the #sicbne (Stop Internet Censorship Brisbane) meeting to get an idea about what was going on with this whole internet censorship thing that is being bandied about.
Truth be known, I didn't know all that much about it before the meeting. I knew that the bill had been introduced and that it had something to do with limiting access to illegal content online, but I didn't understand the depth of it prior to the meeting last night.
As I understand it, the government have introduced legislation which they say is designed to stop access to child pornography on the web. However, the design of the legislation is such that it prevents access to all content which has been 'refused classification'. In the main, this is made up of material that 'the government' deems 'inappropriate'. I don't have definite statistics on it, but my understanding is that approximately 18% of this is illegal content (such as child pornography), but the rest of it is material which has simply been refused classification, but is legal to view, possess and own in Australia. Examples are things such as Phillip Nietsche's 'Exit Australia' website which is designed to provide information about euthanasia. Also restricted are selected texts of an Islamic basis.
If this legislation is passed, Australia will be the first developed country to have such restricted access to the internet. Other examples of countries that have such restricted access are Iran and China. And we all know the reasons why the government want to control their access - to control their people.
An excellent point was made last night - sure, we like the Rudd Government okay, and they're probably doing it for the right thing. But allowing the legislation to cover all 'refused classification' content leaves the door open for some politician way down the line to use it to restrict our rights even further.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cracking down on child pornography. The abuse of children is a subject dear to my heart, and one of the reasons I'm going back to study human rights.
And if the filter was able to only restrict access to these sites, then I would be all for it. But, the way I understand it (and remember, I'm just a dumb lawyer, not an internet genius), this is not possible. It's kind of an 'all or nothing' thing.
The way I see it, Australia is a free country. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to view and learn about and possess any information that it is legal for me to possess. My passion is in human rights, so as a result, I want to know everything there is to know about human rights. And it's my right as a citizen of this country to do so.
What happens if sometime down the track the government strikes up a deal with the (now non-existent) government of the Sudan, who compels the government to deem information about the Darfur massacres 'inappropriate' and refuse it classification? This is clearly information that I am entitled to, and necessary for me to be able to do my job properly.
Sure, some of the information that has been refused classification is not in the mainstream interest. But then, neither is the nitty gritty of the abrogation of human rights. I know lots of people interested in it, and sure, people aren't against it, but the majority of people in this country do not spend their spare time researching it on the internet.
This is not a debate about child pornography. This is a debate about our rights - our rights as citizens of this country to be allowed access to all information that it is legal for us to possess. This is a debate about who gets to determine what is 'appropriate' content for us to view. Kevin Rudd? Stephen Conroy? Any number of those other politicians who tell us that they have our best interests at heart?
I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in them telling me what is 'appropriate' for me to view. I am an adult of sound mind - it is up to me to determine what is appropriate for me to view. When I have children, it will be my responsibility to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. It is not the government's job to tell me what is appropriate for me or my children to view - they have enough power already.
Can you imagine a world where you watch the news and there is nothing on there about the war going on on your border? Where during that day you witnessed a violent protest involving thousands of people, but are unable to access any information about that protest, because it is deemed 'inappropriate'? Can you imagine a world where your children don't learn about the nitty gritty of the way the world works, because the government has decided that it would rather your children grow up in a fantasy world where the government makes no mistakes than allow them access to information that gives them the power to make informed choices?
I can. It's called China.
That's where this legislation leads us. Do you want to go?
Truth be known, I didn't know all that much about it before the meeting. I knew that the bill had been introduced and that it had something to do with limiting access to illegal content online, but I didn't understand the depth of it prior to the meeting last night.
As I understand it, the government have introduced legislation which they say is designed to stop access to child pornography on the web. However, the design of the legislation is such that it prevents access to all content which has been 'refused classification'. In the main, this is made up of material that 'the government' deems 'inappropriate'. I don't have definite statistics on it, but my understanding is that approximately 18% of this is illegal content (such as child pornography), but the rest of it is material which has simply been refused classification, but is legal to view, possess and own in Australia. Examples are things such as Phillip Nietsche's 'Exit Australia' website which is designed to provide information about euthanasia. Also restricted are selected texts of an Islamic basis.
If this legislation is passed, Australia will be the first developed country to have such restricted access to the internet. Other examples of countries that have such restricted access are Iran and China. And we all know the reasons why the government want to control their access - to control their people.
An excellent point was made last night - sure, we like the Rudd Government okay, and they're probably doing it for the right thing. But allowing the legislation to cover all 'refused classification' content leaves the door open for some politician way down the line to use it to restrict our rights even further.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cracking down on child pornography. The abuse of children is a subject dear to my heart, and one of the reasons I'm going back to study human rights.
And if the filter was able to only restrict access to these sites, then I would be all for it. But, the way I understand it (and remember, I'm just a dumb lawyer, not an internet genius), this is not possible. It's kind of an 'all or nothing' thing.
The way I see it, Australia is a free country. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to view and learn about and possess any information that it is legal for me to possess. My passion is in human rights, so as a result, I want to know everything there is to know about human rights. And it's my right as a citizen of this country to do so.
What happens if sometime down the track the government strikes up a deal with the (now non-existent) government of the Sudan, who compels the government to deem information about the Darfur massacres 'inappropriate' and refuse it classification? This is clearly information that I am entitled to, and necessary for me to be able to do my job properly.
Sure, some of the information that has been refused classification is not in the mainstream interest. But then, neither is the nitty gritty of the abrogation of human rights. I know lots of people interested in it, and sure, people aren't against it, but the majority of people in this country do not spend their spare time researching it on the internet.
This is not a debate about child pornography. This is a debate about our rights - our rights as citizens of this country to be allowed access to all information that it is legal for us to possess. This is a debate about who gets to determine what is 'appropriate' content for us to view. Kevin Rudd? Stephen Conroy? Any number of those other politicians who tell us that they have our best interests at heart?
I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in them telling me what is 'appropriate' for me to view. I am an adult of sound mind - it is up to me to determine what is appropriate for me to view. When I have children, it will be my responsibility to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. It is not the government's job to tell me what is appropriate for me or my children to view - they have enough power already.
Can you imagine a world where you watch the news and there is nothing on there about the war going on on your border? Where during that day you witnessed a violent protest involving thousands of people, but are unable to access any information about that protest, because it is deemed 'inappropriate'? Can you imagine a world where your children don't learn about the nitty gritty of the way the world works, because the government has decided that it would rather your children grow up in a fantasy world where the government makes no mistakes than allow them access to information that gives them the power to make informed choices?
I can. It's called China.
That's where this legislation leads us. Do you want to go?
No comments:
Post a Comment