Heath M

Not an argument about freedom of speech? Well, Mr Conroy, I’m afraid it is not up to you or the government to pick and choose what exactly the argument is about. That is the job of the Australian public, whom you are supposed to serve, and it has already being established by tens of thousands of people that this is indeed an issue of freedom of speech.

Of course, it isn’t just ordinary citizens who have voiced their opposition to the proposal largely or wholly on the basis of the threat it poses to freedom of speech. Do you honestly believe Amnesty International, the worlds largest human rights organisation, has formally voiced its opposition to mandatory ISP filtering on the basis of technical concerns? No. They are opposed to the plan because they see it as the significant threat to freedom of speech that it truly is. You may disagree Mr Conroy, but it is highly irresponsible of you as a public representative to dismiss the concerns held by a large number of Australians as irrelevant, which is what you have essentially done here.

As you are well aware, it is not only illegal content which will be blocked by this censorship scheme of yours. Content which is currently legal for Australians in most states and territories to possess, namely X-rated pornography and R-rated content which is not subject to an age verification system, will also be blocked.

However, the greatest threat to freedom of speech relates to material which would otherwise be classified RC by the Australian Classification Board, seeing as so much of this contentious material is political in nature. Websites advocating euthanasia are just one example of the kinds of sites which WILL be blocked. This is not senseless fear mongering – IT IS FACT. Various books relating to the subject have already been banned in Australia. You are proposing to apply the same content requirements used to ban these books to online material. Therefore, the outcome will be exactly the same! Special interest groups will undoubtedly hunt down all the pro-euthanasia websites they can find in order to submit them to ACMA, which in turn will be legally bound to add them to your ever-growing blacklist.

Now, try telling any euthanasia advocate that this is not an issue of free speech and censorship. I think you’d have quite a hard time, don’t you? What this demonstrates is that whilst you may not be concerned with the threats this plan poses to free speech, the argument undoubtedly exists. You cannot claim otherwise. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, the argument is still there, and it is your duty to address it in full, which you simply have not done!

Do not for a second assume that this is the only sort of material which will pose a political nightmare for the government when it is inevitably added to ACMA’s blacklist. Many pro-anorexia, pro-drug and event ANTI-abortion sites also contain material which would easily be classified RC by the Classification Board. Then there are the multitude of sites which contain frequent and/or aggressive use of the C-word, which would be rated R by the Classification Board if it were part of a film. How many of these sites are protected by an age verification system? I can’t think of any which are, but I know several which aren’t … there’s Myspace, Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia to name a few. You’ve probably never heard of them…

Of course, you will claim that this is a non-issue, seeing as such material is already illegal to sell of distribute within Australia, or to host of Australian servers. This argument fails to recognize the fact that most Australians are willing to accept that the internet may contain material more explicit/controversial than what would be allowed on film, just as most Australians are willing to accept that films may contain more explicit/controversial content than what can be screened on television. People are going to accept material being on the internet that they wouldn’t accept being published elsewhere, and this is precisely why you are seeing such a backlash against your filtering policy.

So please, Mr Conroy, listen to reason and stop banging your head against a brick wall. This failed policy is not helping you, it is not helping the government and it most certainly will not help the Australian people. Many of the people protesting this policy are the very same people who helped you get over the line in 2007. These people will not return the favour in the hurry, but there is still time to salvage some of the damage done to your party’s reputation. Bloody mindedness gets you nowhere in politics – just ask John Howard!