News
Search
Software
West staff
online
Reference
|
The rush to censor
Help Desk:
Liberty or Tyranny
WAIA resources
ABA
guide for family use
SOME people might think that there is a public debate raging about Net censorship
in Australia. However, it is neither very public nor a debate. The whole issue --
important not only on civil rights grounds, but also on the future of electronic commerce
-- has descended to the level of sensationalist TV or radio talk-back shows.
Communications Minister Richard Alston made no bones about it last Wednesday when
introducing the legislation that is designed to stop access to X-rated Net content, and to
put up shields to stop under-18s accessing R-rated material. Senator Alston admonished the
Labor Opposition with this comment: "Labor must now stop its stupid political
posturing on this issue and confirm that it will support measures to stop paedophiles,
drug pushers, bomb makers and racists from using the Internet to spread their
poison."
This is known in the trade as a motherhood statement. It has no great proof behind it, as
more than two million Australians who regularly access the Net might atest, but it is
virtually impossible to argue against. Who in their right minds wants paedophiles,
racists, bomb makers and drug-pushers pushing poison?
But anyone who now questions Net censorship either for its practicality -- and most
critics consider it unworkable -- or its motives can expect to be tarred with the
motherhood brush. Not that many critics have much time to complain.
A Senate committee was last week given just nine days to examine the legislation which
political commentators say the Howard Government wants to push through as quickly as
possible. Nine days does not seem ample opportunity to examine the ramifications of
Government interference in an exciting global medium that has given the world a very real
feel of rapid free speech, as well as the potential to radically alter the way business is
done.
Nine days is certainly little time to consider why the Net, which pushes hundreds of
millions of views with mostly text and simple graphics -- and yes some of it is created by
paedophiles, drug pushers and racists -- should be judged by the same criteria as passive
media such as television and films.
And in nine days will anyone choose to remember that Net censorship was examined in great
depth by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in June 1996. At that time Senator Alston
agreed with the ABA's recommendations that the Government had little to do with regulating
the Net, and that the industry and adults should develop their own methods for shielding
children from the nasties. I wrote in The West Australian at the time: "The ABA's
call for parental supervision, self-censorship and an industry code of practice puts the
regulatory ball at the feet of Australia's one million Net users. It is a move away from
Government intervention and sends a message to politicians to tread cautiously in areas
they know little about and which have the potential to change society for good."
But, if you now listen to Senator Alston, who readily accepted the ABA report, the Net is
now too full of paedophiles, drug-pushers, bomb makers and racists to allow responsible
decision-making by the population. Why the change? Why the rush?
You need only look at the fact that Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine's vote
will be lost after June 30 and the Government will face a hostile Senate. It wants Senator
Harradine's vote on the GST and Telstra before then. And Senator Harradine believes the
Net is too full of paedophiles, bomb makers, racists and drug-pushers.
All articles Copyright: © West Australian Newspapers |
