The Australian government has already spent $189 million trying to ‘clean up the internet’. Part of the money has gone to provide free internet filters for every household. This is an admirable service for the households that wish to have them. However, it has also required Internet Service Providers to block a list of sites, and it is now introducing a bill which would give powers to the federal police to add to the blacklisted sites any site that “encourages, incites or induces,” “facilitate(s)” or “has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating” a crime. It feels like a piece of legislation that China would be proud to own.
I am uneasy with these moves for several reasons:
1. It is not clear what criteria are being used to get sites blocked or what appeals procedure there is in place for sites that have been wrongly blocked.
2. The wording ‘any site likely to facilitate a crime’ is an incredibly broad brush and is likely to be abused. You could claim that virtually any text or image could incite someone to do something.
3. All filters are ineffective and end up blocking some of the wrong things. Great works of literature and art would certainly fall victim. And the plethora of spam is testimony to the many people there are out there skilful in penetrating filters. Filters do not stop all bad stuff getting through and do stop much good stuff.
4. Politically inspired broad brushes show considerable ignorance about the powerful flexibility of the internet. I am no tech-savy guru, but even I know how to post material on more than one web address, and move it around if necessary. As soon as one site is banned, authors will just move the material to another address.
5. I have argued elsewhere that to blame the communication service provider for the content that everyone chooses to communicate is absurd. Internet Service Providers are not the problem and it is very difficult for them to police what people choose to put on webspace. I certainly do not condone everything that is published on the web, but the Australian government seems to be chasing clouds.
Let’s consider an analogy. Cars can be wonderful things that enrich lives: they can also be dangerous and destructive. The key issue is largely about the decisions and skill of the driver. It would be absurd to say that because many people are killed in road accidents that all cars should be banned (though some would spuriously claim that the internet is all about pornography and crime and should be banned). It would be absurd to say that all garages should only sell cars that have a maximum speed of 5 miles per hour, or to people who they can guarantee would be safe drivers. The garages provide the neutral product. It is people who make it beneficial or destructive. And we avoid some of the dangers to children by having tight rules about who has access to cars and under what conditions.
As long as the internet and people exist, there will be harmful material published. The solution is not to try the impossible and censor the internet, but to continue to educate people in responsibility. We need to continue to promote the notion that lack of censorship does not necessarily mean complete freedom and that self-censorship is part of being a responsible social animal. We need to continue to educate parents about the need to regulate access to the internet for vulnerable users and to educate them about the strengths and weaknesses of any internet filters. We need to continue to educate vulnerable users about how to stay clear of internet dangers and what to do if they encounter problems.
As a society, we need to continue to prosecute those who abuse the freedom of the internet to abuse the rights of others. However, unlike what is happening in Australia, the brush we use needs to be thin and tightly controlled (child abuse and terrorism, for example), and any actions be done in the spirit of capturing criminals, not ‘cleaning up the internet’ or preventing hypothetical crime.
“All censorship, other than self-censorship, implies that you have betters who are judging you in case you look at something that they know you shouldn’t. It infantilizes you, insults and imprisons your humanity, and makes your censors into sneaky little spies - which is, of course, corrupting for them.” Semaj Eyr (2007) Personal Correspondence.
I too find it disquieting that the Australian government is prepared to attempt to “clean up” the Internet. Once the principle of censorship is established, few governments can resist the temptation of using it to cover up their own mistakes and misdeeds “in the national interest”. The ultimate result is that it works to the disadvantage of the population, not to its advantage.