The Government's internet filter legislation has been given the green light, despite objections from everywhere I look.
According to StephenConroy, the point of the filter is to ensure the safety of all Australians, particularly children, from material deemed unacceptable for society. Aren't most children supervised when accessing the internet? And what exactly is unacceptable? I understand that pornographic images would be classified as such, but what about things like religious beliefs? Extremist sites are deemed unacceptable, but how long will it take for other sites that disagree with Christianity to become blacklisted? How long before political commentary that opposes government policy is added to the list? Honestly, if you're going to open up this can of worms, there's no telling where it will end.
Minister Conroy says that the filter is 100% accurate. I laughed. Innocent sites have already been blacklisted in the trial, and IRC channels and peer-to-peer clients remain unaffected by the filter. If that's full accuracy I'm absolutely dying to see what 50% looks like. It's an absurd claim.
Is this just a ploy to gain censorship power by the Government? Many would say yes, myself included. Apparently I am not a responsible enough person not to access sites that would scar me for life or be deemed criminal. Apparently no Australian is. Will it turn out a few years from now that my blog will be blacklisted for speaking out against the filter? Possibly. Many fear that Australia is slowly turning away from democracy and becoming a police state. Maybe it is.
I'm all for ridding Australia of child pornography, it is vile and is all about the torture and victimisation of kids. But surely the filter can target only these type of sites? And what good is a filter that doesn't stop file sharing clients and IRC channels?
All I know for sure is that I wholeheartedly object to the filter, but whether or not my opinion and the opinions of so many others makes a difference is yet to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment