Censorship

I try and stay away from the political stuff but today I just can't. It's not even political, really, but since it was proposed by the current Labor Government in Australia I guess it could be considered such. But really, how can censorship be considered political when it really falls into the realm of evil?

Go and read this article in today's online Courier Mail - the local Brisbane rag paper - before continuing. What - you don't want to? You really should read it for yourself... oh for heaven's sake. OK, a brief summary: the current Labor Government of Australia is proposing internet-wide censorship for all of Australia and could ban not just illegal but controversial websites. Yeah, bet you want to go read it for yourself now, dontcha? Go ahead, I'll be here when you get back...

Scary, scary stuff. This was first proposed after the election last year, although the proposal then came with an "opt-out" option. I was still against it, preferring an "opt-in" option instead for those who want to believe their Internet access is G-rated. There was such a furore over it at the time, especially as it had never even been mentioned as part of the Labor party platform prior to the election, and I thought it had died a quiet death. How wrong I was. Instead it went and mutated into something even more repressive.

The moron asshole fuckwit assclown Minister who came up with this plan is Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy, or as I will now call him the Minister for Moronic Ideas. Senator Conroy cannot even say for certain which topics will end up as part of the mandatory filtering list. There will also be a second-tier list of sites that will be optional for those who want, in the words of the government, a "clean feed" that will block "adult content". You must "opt-out" instead of "opt-in".

Hey, wanna puree my food while you're busy treating me like an infant? Maybe wipe my backside? Burp me... no, wait. I can manage that one all by myself. Ahhhhhh, that's better.

Seriously, this is simply wrong, wrong, wrong! I also find it very offensive - and I find very little truly offensive - that those who question this proposal are labelled pro-child porn, pedophiles, and anti-family. Because that is what Senator Conroy has done - taken a page from President Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us" book and turned it into "if you're not pro-censorship you support the abuse of children."

Fuck off and die.

In my own personal opinion, I believe pedophiles should be strung up by their private parts and dipped slowly into boiling oil whilst being stabbed with dull knives that have been coated in virulent bacteria. They then should be removed from said oil while still alive and left to die a slow and painful death. And yet I think this plan to force my internet content to be censored against my will smacks of the tactics of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world.

Who decides what is censored? Fellow Senator Nick Xenophon, who wants to block internet gambling? Or Senator Steve Fielding, who wants anorexia sites banned? What about religious groups who find gay marriage offensive? Euthanasia is illegal, so those sites could be banned. So much for that research paper.

The thinking that if you are against these filters then you must be some kind of perv that watches Internet porn also makes me roll my eyes right into the back of my head. Porn was around long before the big bad Internet, because sex is a basic human need. I don't watch Internet porn, yet if someone wants to watch legal adult porn in the privacy of their own home then that's their business. I can support someone's right to do something without doing it myself.

And then there's the whole "we must think of the children" argument. I'm in the business of parenting my own children, not everyone else's. If you don't want your children stumbling across or even deliberately seeking out porn, then install your own filter and set it to maximum. Don't expect the government to do it for you. And don't try and sell me the "I don't understand technology" song-and-dance routine. Take a class. Borrow a book from the library. Ignorance is no excuse. Kids can get around filters if they are very determined, much like they like to get around other silly rules parents put in place like chores and curfews. They test limits - it's what they do. Reinforce those limits - it's what we're supposed to do. My filter sends me reports when someone tries to access sites I've deemed inappropriate; having your mother ask you why you entered "Angelina Jolie nipple slip" into a search engine puts a stop to things pretty quickly. Short of cash? There are free filters out there, even one from the Australian government (the previous one set it up). Of course you could also try keeping the computer in a common area of the house and not allow it into their rooms so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what your offspring are doing. No, too difficult when you want to be your child's friend instead of their parent. What about those who don't have kids - why should they be forced to protect your children because you won't?

I'm not even going to get into the argument about how the truly nasty stuff is accessed via peer-to-peer file sharing or old-fashioned email, which these filters won't touch. Or how perfectly legitimate stuff will be caught in such a wide net. Or the opposite - garbage you don't want like the ads for penis enlargements that still end up in my email inbox. Or how the $44 million this is going to cost could be put to use on neglected infrastructure, hospitals, or schools. Or just give it to me - I can piss it away just as well as this plan will and will have more to show for it.

I'm so fired up about this that I even sent an email to my local MP, something I've only ever done once before (not counting that 5th grade class letter we sent to Senator Ted Kennedy). My consolation is that according to an online poll, 85% of people agree with me. Censorship has very short and slippery slope, and unfortunately Australia has no proviso for freedom of speech in its constitution. Allowing this to happen in even its mildest form is the thin edge of the wedge, and I think you'd be foolish to think otherwise.

I leave you with this quote from Clare Booth Luce:

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but, unlike charity, it should end there.