AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
In March we had an epic technical debate on this blog about the Rudd Government’s proposed porn internet filter.
Think that was complex?
This week the debate got a whole lot crazier.
It all started when Senator Stephen Conroy, the Communications minister, appeared at Senate Estimates.
Christian lobby lose plot on freedom of speech
The Sydney Morning Herald went big on Wednesday with Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) accusing the Government of breaking an election promise because Senator Conroy says the mandatory filter should only stop illegal material. Wallace wants all offensive ‘adult’ material blocked.
The technical experts say this is silly and unnecessary given other filtering options. Like deep sea fishing, innocent Christian sites would undoubtedly be caught by the ACL’s (ill-defined) proposal of a widescale dredge-net system. I can’t believe the ACL are being so stubborn on this point.
Lets remind ourselves of the full proposal being hawked by the Rudd Government since mid-2007:
TIER 1- MANDATORY BLACKLIST FILTER
It is almost universally agreed that a small targeted blacklist filter focused on overseas-hosted illegal content is technically workable.
TIER 2 ‘OPT-OUT’ DYNAMIC FILTER
This dynamic filter is proposed to screen legal porn. Citizens would have to opt out of the filter to be excluded. There is a debate between the technical experts on whether this model is feasible.
I was so sure the Herald had got Wallace’s comments wrong that I rang the ACL myself where spokesperson Glynis Quinlan confirmed: “We really want to hold the Government to their promise for a mandatory clean feed for kids. We don’t want to put it in the too hard basket. Our hope is the technology will catch up.”
The ACL are doing a disservice to their core conservative Christian constituency by not grappling with the free speech issues properly.
Yes, concern for vulnerable people – such as women and children who may be the victims of future sexual assaults – should be the primary starting point for Christians as they enter this debate.
However, the (necessary) secret nature of any proposed blacklist should trouble all Christians, especially if it is being used by unaccountable technocrats to block ‘legal’ material. There needs to be appropriate limits placed on the Government’s censorship powers.
You’d think this would worry the ACL too. Especially when we know that stopping so-called ‘religious hate’ (ie proslytism and criticising other beliefs – material that many members of our community claim is ‘offensive, adult’ material) is high on the agenda of some Government agencies - as we discussed last week. after my visit to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission hearings.
This is the main reason I would prefer the mandatory filter to focus on illegal content only. Determinations of RC content (therefore Conroy’s proposed mandatory filter) are not made by the Australian Government but only by the independent Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). Any decisions of the OFLC can be challenged and independently reviewed by a ‘community’ board. The OFLC media officer has told me that they ‘always’ publish publicly a record of these review decisions. So, in regards to a future RC-based mandatory filter, I can see no reason why a descriptive account of the banned sites (which does not specifically list the url) cannot be published.
Senator Conroy certainly told Senate estimates this week that any mandatory web filter would need the sort of transparency and review that I know is already provided by the OFLC process for illegal material .
Its true the ACL accepts the need for transparency. “A panel of review is a good idea,” Ms Quinlan told me.
But if they are suggesting this should apply to a mandatory filter of all ‘offensive adult’ material they need to better to explain how that could possibly work in practice.
Media misrepresents the issues
The other issue that concerns me is the very poor quality reporting of this issue in the mainstream press.
The ‘headline’ issue in Asher Moses’ Herald piece that a mandatory filter be based on Refuse Classification (RC) is certainly not the ‘back-down’ he claims.
I wrote the following in the April edition of Southern Cross: “Despite the fact that Senator Conroy told both Senate estimates and the recent Australian Telecommunications Users Group conference the proposed mandatory filter would only screen ‘refused classification’ (RC) material, there is much public confusion about the extent of the Government’s plans.”
Indeed much of the confusion has been created by unhelpful and garbled media reporting.
Likewise the Australian appeared to have the big scoop of the week suggesting Senator Conroy is backing down on the mandatory nature of the ‘illegal’ porn filter. This is buried deep in Asher’s story but headlined by the Australian’s website the day before:
“Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today told a Senate estimates committee that the filtering scheme could be implemented by a voluntary industry code.”
Now that really would be a backflip.
As his opposite number Senator Nick Minchin put it: How can you have voluntary mandatory system?
Yet, from my reading of the Senate Estimates the media reports misrepresent the questioning of Minchin and the answers of Conroy. To be fair to Conroy he was merely canvassing a potential scenario that is not even realistic given the anti-filter position of ISPs, not announcing a new policy.
You can read the PDF of the hearing with the Communications Department on the 25th and 26th. It is on the parliamentary website. (This interchange is on pages 42-44 of the May 26th hearing)
Am I being too harsh on the ACL and their position on free speech?
What do you make of Senator Conroy’s performance?
Why don't you run this article before Jim Wallace or Lyle Shelton to invite their response?
I have asked ACL to respond. Hopefully they will.
The best way to start implementation is to block illegal content. This is a no-brainer. I think we need to pick our battles - and blocking illegal content would be a good start.
In my mind this raises some additional questions apart from the free speech/ censorship process questions I raised above.
1. The R18+ classification category is not currently just about restricting porn/sexual content... it catches other content as well.
2. From a policy point of view the kiddie clean feed was always meant to be the opt-out dynamic filter not the secret mandatory blacklist.
3. a huge blacklist of all 'R18+'adult content raises seemingly 'killer' technical issues as discussed on this blog in March.
Nevertheless I particularly note the difference between MA15+ and R18+ around the issue of 'themes'.
Whereas to get a MA15+ classification 'strong themes must be justified by context'...
Films receive a R18+ classification when the theme will offend sections of the adult community: 'Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community'.
To have mandatory web censorship of internet material simply because it may 'offend' some sections of the community is clearly a restriction of free speech.
If someone from the ACL does weigh in here, I'd be interested to know a couple of things re their current campaign:
(i) Why do they characterize opponents of the filter - which includes a number of Christians - as "The porn lobby and some in the internet industry [...] trying to scuttle the Government’s plan to clean up the internet for our kids."?
(ii) How they can argue against a Charter of Rights because "It will give unelected judges power to pressure politicians to fall in line with a 'rights' agenda. It is vital we take action now to stop this and to protect our freedoms." while, on the other hand, arguing for harsh Government censorship of the internet handled by unelected bureaucrats?
How can you argue to protect 'our freedoms' (of speech, I guess) against a 'rights agenda' on the one hand, and for harsh Government censorship on the other? Do they not realise that they could well be two sides of the same coin?
They want a full right of reply by which they mean equal billing as an article on the front page.
I'm looking into whether I can make that work logistically.
I mean, why do we listen to the ACL anyway? They're just a fringe lobby group. No one elected them, or made them spokespeople for us. They don't speak for me. They've got every right to lobby for whatever issues they like, along with every other citizen, but I don't see why, in this debate or any other, we should treat them as anything other than what they are - just another lobby group.
Their performance in this debate should, if anything, give us pause for thought about giving them a platform beyond what they already have. They have, in my opinion, consistently mischaracterized the debate in this case, and haven't exactly been beacons of light or accuracy. Their performance on SBS's Insight was embarrassing. They have resorted to divisive, polarizing language rather than engage in the complexities of the debate, and now find themselves with an unrealistic, untenanble and unthought through position which will amount to, well, nothing.
And all this from a group headed by Jim Wallace who publicly chided church leaders for being too outspoken in their opposition to the Iraq war in 2003.
Heaven forbid.
Its not our usual policy at all.
Plus Lyle's statement clears up their position in a way it was not before - so I think its helpful all round.