I’ve tried a few times now to write this post. It’s about Stephen Conroy’s Mandatory Internet Filter, and I’ll be damned if it hasn’t been difficult not to have it descend into a sledgefest.

Here’s the thing. Conroy is not being honest with you. At all, about anything he’s said regarding the filter. And here’s the latest example.

Check out this announcement from the DCBDE (Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy)

In it, Stephen (we’re on a first name basis you know) states:

“The Rudd Government agrees with Secretary Clinton that the internet can transform societies and enable and empower individuals to engage, connect and have a greater impact than they ever have”

followed by a plug for the NBN, and throwing out this little gem as a chaser:

“The Rudd Government also agrees with Secretary Clinton’s observation that ‘all societies recognise that freedom of expression has its limits’.”

this leads in to a (broken recordish) description of RC Content, why it is bad, and how much Australia wants it filtered.

Now now, Mr. Conroy, you naughty naughty boy.

Take a look at the full ‘Digital Freedom’ speech as made by HC herself and you’ll notice that the paragraph Conroy has so eagerly borrowed from, ends with this:

“But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.”

Out of context much Stephen?

Now. I could theoretically use at least 80 – 90% of Hillary’s speech to rebut the whole filter idea. I did that in draft 6 of this post (the one with the least slander and insults), and I’ve decided instead that you should open that link back up and just read the whole thing. Seriously – it’s one of the best I’ve seen about rights, civil liberty and intellectual freedom for.. well, let’s just say that pretty much everything I’ve read that’s better came from a time before I was even born.

Once you’re finished, I’d like to point out a little something, for the benefit of the Pro-Filter folk who I just know will say I’m taking the speech out of context myself (coz’ it’s clearly a speech about Government oppression, not kiddie and goat porn.)

The murder of innocent civilians is a tragic crime, but a crime nonetheless. Thusly, we the good people of Australia would not be able to see such injustice on the net – it would be blocked by Conroy’s filter. (For our own good, and that of our children.)

I’ve been asked – “Why would you want (us) to see it?”, to which I reply:

Why wouldn’t we?

Crime is a reflection of our society, culture and community, just as much as any Nobel Peace prize, relief effort, and a hell of a lot more so that any music award.

Why shouldn’t we be made to be aware of just how crappy, mistreated and amoral our world is at it’s worst? Wouldn’t we better address the problems in society if we were?

It’s not that I mistrust our Government, nor do I expect them to abuse the filter. For one, they won’t be controlling the list of filtered sites, the ACMA are.

And while opening the censorship door theoretically allows any future government to take this process back and abuse the ability to filter net content, I don’t really think any Western Democracy could get away with it (for too long), in this era of Global Accountability.

What I do have issues with are the following:

1:
Spending large amounts of taxpayer money to achieve something that can be effectively done with Google SafeSearch on (which it is by default) and the most basic of options of any number of free or commercial Security Suites.

2:
Misleading the public about the feasiblity, the motivation, and the outcome of such an undertaking, knowing that as a historically conservative nation, the masses will comply if you make them believe they, and their innocent, fragile, at risk children will be safer for it.

3.
Using a great speech about civil liberties and digital freedom to get yourself back into Google News Results (Snap! Have at you Conroy!)

4.
Avoiding holding parents accountable for the actions of their children online. We as parents are accountable for their safety and their actions (by law) out in the ‘real’ world, so why not online?

Kids are not, nor have ever been the ‘victims’ they are being stoushed as in this debate. (‘cept for the actual victims of abuse/porn, obviously) If you think I’m kidding, check out this report from Symantec on the search habits of our youngest Internet users.

It’s time we opened our eyes and recognized our own responsibilities in both the creation and perpetuation of a public mindset that allows child abuse to occur without confronting it directly, and in not stepping up as individuals to protect our children from our own ignorance and willingness to be blindly led by the desicions and (mis)information of others.

I agree there are ‘limits’ to freedom of expression. And I’d be disappointed if my fellow Australians didn’t share this opinion.

I also believe that civilised folk should be aware of infringements of civil liberties, here or abroad, and it seems to me that censoring examples of such infringements (even the nasty RC stuff Conroy wants to) is the societal equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling “La La La!” at the top of our lungs.

Ignorance is not the path to progress. It the path of stagnation, soceital decay and promotes an isolation of social conscience that cannot be afforded if we are in fact to progress as a nation, as individuals, and as a species.

You can’t change what you don’t see (Thanks Dr. Phil) and I’ve never been a fan of dealing with symptoms, and leaving the cause to fester away unnoticed – this is what I see the Filter as.

Placating a misinformed, fearful public to achieve what? An ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ mentality that preserves some kind of vague illusion of ‘control’ over the undesirable, but very real, very dangerous aspects of our culture?

Yeah – aren’t we the lucky country.

Do you know why the Kangaroo and Emu are the animals holding up the shield on the coat of arms of this wide brown land? Because they can’t walk backwards. It’s a symbol of eternal progression. The nations anthem reflects this -

“In history’s page, let every stage Advance Australia Fair”

So, good people of Australia. Do we advance into an uncertain digital future looking to be part of the solution to society’s crimes? Or do we step forward with our eyes closed, our ears plugged, humming along with the Pied Piper himself as he leads us and our children to digital ‘safety’?

Note: In the interest of disclosure, you should know I am an employee of Telstra. Opinion here (and elsewhere on the interwebs) is my own, not that of my employer. For the full Disclaimer, click here