It’s been an amazing week for Australia in terms of the debate on filtering, censorship and internet safety.
Before you read on, please note that any opinions expressed in this post are (as always) mine as an individual — they do not necessarily reflect those of Education.au its management, stakeholders or staff.
It came to light that the international organisation Reporters without Borders released a report entitled “Enemies of the Internet” that lists countries who censor the internet. Australia was placed on their watch list. Wow.
Then, it was revealed that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint about a link posted in the Whirlpool forums to an anti-abortion site displaying images proporting to be late term aborted fetuses. ACMA responded by banning the site, contacting the host of the Whirlpool forums and telling them that the administrators of the Whirlpool forum HAD to remove the link or ACMA would fine the host $11,000 per day for each day it remained.
Then the international whistleblower site Wikileaks claimed they’d gotten ACMA’s blacklist of banned sites and posted it on their web site. I can’t provide a link to Wikileaks for you because ACMA has banned the site. I can tell you that at this writing the site has a notice up saying their servers have been overloaded due to a sudden spike in popularity and the organisation is working to restore it.
The list included sites that appeared from their URLs to be child pornography and graphically violent — but there was also a web site for a Queensland dentist and apparently gambling sites and permissable adult pornography (I can’t confirm or deny this last statement). Stephen Conroy denies that this was the ACMA list - but does say some of the sites appearing on the Wikileaks list were on the ACMA list. He refuses to disclose what sites were on the actual list.
There is a lot of anger erupting up over this. That one person can complain and a web site is banned is a threat to the free flow of information and discussion. It seems as if ACMA is applying the same way they handle complaints about television programming to the internet. For me, it doesn’t translate. The internet is infintely more vast and complex than television. The fact that it is interactive and about communication makes it a different beast.
That it seems that web sites are being banned without public understanding of the objective criteria being applied to the decision-making process is a major problem.
I’ve read on several sites that child pornography is largely distributed via peer to peer file sharing networks — a way of breaking up large files across multiple computers so that one server doesn’t bear the burden. They are more notoriously used for pirated movies, books and music. But shutting them down isn’t the answer either - there are many legitimate uses for them.
Child pornogrpahy, violent sexual images and films existed before the internet. It is already filtered/banned. Narrowing this debate down to whether or not you’re a fan of hardcore porn is dangerously simplistic.
If we applied the criteria of possible offense and children might see it to television then soapies, crime shows, several reality shows, the A segment of some news programs and dozens of ads would disappear. I know that supposedly some shows are on past the children’s viewing hour - but what about daytime soaps and promos for the naughty/graphic shows to come that are shown throughout the day? And don’t get me started on some of the “Sexpo” billboards and the disgusting “gentlemen’s” magazines that are displayed near grocery store check-out counters.
As UK actor and Twitterer Stephen Fry suggests - think of applying the same thinking to our cities. Would we end up with ID cards, armed escorts and entire sections being locked away? Or do we use our common sense and don’t let children roam free until they are equipped with the tools they need to stay safe?
What’s the answer?
There has to be transparency in the decision-making process for a start. What criteria leads to a web site being banned? It should NOT be because it offends someone’s sensibilities as in the case of the anti-abortion site. And the criteria can NOT be solely about children and what they might see. The internet did NOT evolve as a children’s-only resource.
There has to be parental (and aunt, uncle, grandparent and the rest of the family) responsibility. Don’t tuck the computers away in bedrooms with doors. Don’t wave your hands and say they’re too hard for you to understand - use them and learn so that you can apply your life savvy to the online world and advise the young people you care about. Find an adult education class and learn about computers and the internet. Use a filter at home. If your child is savvy enough to break through a filter, chances are he/she is doing so to get at the stuff that’s being blocked. Use the same tack you’d use if you found magazines of a certain genre under their mattresses and have a discussion.
There has to be education and I know the government has plans for this. Let’s get it out there in the press now - inspire reasonable debate and discussion rather than demonising those with opposing viewpoints.
There has to be public input. Hold community forums and debates across the country. The internet is going to be and for some of us already is the backbone of our lives. Education, commerce, communications, research, health, entertainment, news — it’s too important. It’s more important than television and radio and the traditional press because it’s by and for us.
By harnessing the collaboration that many tout as a strength of the internet and ensuring that transparency is built into the decision-making processes, we could surely come up with balanced solutions. Because it’s about all of us, our access to information, education, commerce, health and communications tools and our standing in the world as a free and open society.
