I was waiting for the Christians to arc up.
For those of you who may be unaware of the current state of play in terms of Technology vs. the Government, the Rudd Government is investigating ways of filtering internet content nationwide in an attempt to curb child pornography and what it deems to be other questionable content.
In today’s Herald, director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, takes a stab at those criticising the policy, which would see compulsory filters installed over all Australian internet providers. After a lengthy rebuttal of claims that filtering would slow internet speeds by up to 87 per cent, Wallace ends with the following sagely, sermonly sentiment:
The internet is a fabulous resource for everyone, including our young people, but it has the potential to cause great harm if reasonable safeguards are not put in place. The real story here is not the dreadful repercussions of having internet filtering, but the dreadful repercussions of not having it.
I’ll be the first to agree with the first 21 words of that statement. The internet is tops; w00t be to it. And yes, it does have the potential to cause harm. But I don’t think a nationwide filter is the way to fix it, unless we want to go the way of North Korea or China.
Nick Minchin commented last week on how such a government initiative would stifle parents’ right to inform and educate their children about the internet, its pitfalls and its great opportunities. In response, Jim Wallace makes a sweeping comment that -
Concerned parents do not view filtering as interfering with their parental responsibilities; they welcome the help.
Now, in fear of taking this quote out of context, Wallace goes on to say that parents expect their government to help create a protective environment. And this is true, but I think governments should create an environment in which access to information – all information, of any nature – is free and equal to people of all ages and backgrounds. The internet can be dangerous, but it provides many opportunities for children to come to their parents with questions about the nature of society, and gives parents a similar opportunity to educate their children about things such as pornography, extremism, art and religion, among many others.
Further to this, I think Wallace and Minchin are fighting the wrong fight. The technology is there, and it works, for better or worse. Kevin Rudd only has to buy the patent from China or North Korea and install it himself. But I’m brought back to what the government has called ‘other questionable content’. Does this mean anti-government websites of all kinds? Dissenting poetry? A nasty blog post? A YouTube video mock-up of Kevin Rudd dancing in a bikini? Any website showing a Bill Henson photograph?
As most bloggers are now saying, this fight is about free speech and freedom of expression. The line between art and pornography is so blurred as to be almost negligible. Indeed some near-pornography has a rightful place in the artistic canon (the explicit ancient wall paintings in Pompeii and Jack Vettriano’s paintings spring immediately to mind). Should we forgo children’s (and indeed adults, professionals, academics, the working-class man or woman) access to such things, and deny them the opportunity to be inspired, enraged or simply to enjoy them?
The answer to that question is no. And the overarching theme is: Leave the net alone.
Until next time…