Here's an excellent article on Labor's proposal to censor the internet, which has still not gone away despite a change of prime minister. Senator Conroy continues to treat people who are concerned about freedom of speech and worried about scope creep as somehow being friends of pedophiles and child pornographers.
A nice sample:
Although Senator Conroy plays down the impact of the filter, saying that determined people can get around it if they really want to, critics are concerned that Conroy's non-policing of filter circumvention will not be mirrored by future governments who may also broaden the scope of the censorship it affords. He told Four Corners, that he "absolutely guaranteed" that no future Labor government would let this happen and subsequently that "If a majority of the Parliament in the future want to broaden the classification, well then, Australians should stand up and say 'just a minute', and I'll be one of them." We contacted Conroy's office to ask how the Senator guaranteed this would not happen but the question was not answered. The notion that all future Australian governments will be formed by Labor is optimistic of Conroy to say the least. That future governments, intent on censorship (probably under banners of "child protection" and "terrorism"), would listen to people "standing up and saying 'just a minute'" is more optimistic yet, given the contempt Conroy himself has shown to all the people disagreeing with him.
Kudos to Nick Ross for preparing this detailed argument against internet censorship, and brickbats to the mainstream media for not running hard with this story.
More brickbats to those commenters on Ross's article who claim it was too long. Do you people have the attention spans of gnats or something? Have any of you ever actually read a frakking novel, or any other kind of book if it comes to that? I, for one, appreciated the detailed analysis.
Still, it can be summed up in a few words: Just Say No To Censorship.
Another sample from earlier in the article:
Championed by Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, the $30million+ filter is being sold by Labor as an internet block for child pornography, bestiality and extreme pornography with 'wide ranging support from the Australian public' and 'only minimal opposition against'.
But after a new, lengthy investigation it transpires that virtually none of this is true. What Australia will get from this internet filter is a framework for censorship that doesn't stop "the worst of the worst" but will absolutely curtail discussion on politically incorrect topics like euthanasia, safe drug taking and graffiti while banning relatively-tame adult content.
Below we examine the filter from the point of view of the people who know most about it, Australia's tech community, which in the past week has united in one last ditch attempt to bring Labor's censorship policy into the open and bring its discussion into the mainstream media in the run up to the election.
This proposal is supported by a small group of interfering religionists, prudes, all-purpose nutcases with no understanding of the internet, and extreme social conservatives. Somehow they have managed to hijack policy in this area. It's time to take it back.
About Me
- Russell Blackford
- Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019); AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021); and HOW WE BECAME POST-LIBERAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF TOLERATION (2024).
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
My letter to the prime minister - have you written yours?
Subject: Censorship
Comment:
Dear Prime Minister,
I remain concerned about the government's plans to introduce further
censorship of the internet, and about the issues of censorship and freedom of
expression more generally. In particular, I remain angry about the highly
unhelpful response by the former prime minister to the attacks on Bill
Henson, and on the arts community in general, only two years ago.
In my view, there is no issue more important than the long-term protection
and extension of liberal freedoms. There has been far too much retreat from
strict application of the Millian harm principle and the principle of freedom
of speech and expression. This has affected many areas of government policy
under Prime Ministers Howard and Rudd. The current proposals to censor the
internet are of particular concern, given the endless possibility to use the
proposed mechanisms to censor expression that goes far beyond what is claimed
to be the main target: i.e., child pornography.
If child pornography is operating at a level that is causing genuine anxiety
within the government - and this is not just a matter of moral panic - then
more funding should be devoted to ordinary law enforcement to attack the
problem. However, the concept of child pornography must be kept within fairly
narrow limits, so that it can never attach to legitimate artistic images,
such as those created by Henson or the image of Olympia Papapetrou that was
used on the cover of a 2008 issue of Arts Monthly. In any event, it is likely
that child pornography is not spread mainly via publicly-accessible websites,
and that internet censorship will have little effect on it. If so, the
government's current proposals are a dangerous waste of resources.
We need to be confident that whatever steps are taken by the new government
will enhance, rather than further reduce, freedom of speech and expression.
If any measures are introduced, they must be protected from scope creep.
Restrictions on speech relating to such issues as euthanasia must be
liberalised, not hardened up. Importantly, Senator Conroy must stop attacking
free speech advocates as friends of pedophiles - this repeated slur has
caused enormous ill-will towards the government, to the extent where many of
us have lost all confidence in Senator Conroy and hope that he will be
removed from his current portfolio. That is obviously not possible during the
election period, but the signals from both him and yourself during the coming
weeks will be watched closely.
I hope that you will continue to give serious consideration to these matters
as 21 August approaches. Frankly, I am not eager to vote for the Opposition,
and will likely give my first preference to a minor party. Exactly how I vote
will, however, depend heavily on the responses of the major parties to free
speech issues. I need to know that these issues are taken seriously and that
I can look forward to further extension of our liberal freedoms, not to a
retreat into the mentality of censorship.
Yours sincerely,
Russell Blackford
Comment:
Dear Prime Minister,
I remain concerned about the government's plans to introduce further
censorship of the internet, and about the issues of censorship and freedom of
expression more generally. In particular, I remain angry about the highly
unhelpful response by the former prime minister to the attacks on Bill
Henson, and on the arts community in general, only two years ago.
In my view, there is no issue more important than the long-term protection
and extension of liberal freedoms. There has been far too much retreat from
strict application of the Millian harm principle and the principle of freedom
of speech and expression. This has affected many areas of government policy
under Prime Ministers Howard and Rudd. The current proposals to censor the
internet are of particular concern, given the endless possibility to use the
proposed mechanisms to censor expression that goes far beyond what is claimed
to be the main target: i.e., child pornography.
If child pornography is operating at a level that is causing genuine anxiety
within the government - and this is not just a matter of moral panic - then
more funding should be devoted to ordinary law enforcement to attack the
problem. However, the concept of child pornography must be kept within fairly
narrow limits, so that it can never attach to legitimate artistic images,
such as those created by Henson or the image of Olympia Papapetrou that was
used on the cover of a 2008 issue of Arts Monthly. In any event, it is likely
that child pornography is not spread mainly via publicly-accessible websites,
and that internet censorship will have little effect on it. If so, the
government's current proposals are a dangerous waste of resources.
We need to be confident that whatever steps are taken by the new government
will enhance, rather than further reduce, freedom of speech and expression.
If any measures are introduced, they must be protected from scope creep.
Restrictions on speech relating to such issues as euthanasia must be
liberalised, not hardened up. Importantly, Senator Conroy must stop attacking
free speech advocates as friends of pedophiles - this repeated slur has
caused enormous ill-will towards the government, to the extent where many of
us have lost all confidence in Senator Conroy and hope that he will be
removed from his current portfolio. That is obviously not possible during the
election period, but the signals from both him and yourself during the coming
weeks will be watched closely.
I hope that you will continue to give serious consideration to these matters
as 21 August approaches. Frankly, I am not eager to vote for the Opposition,
and will likely give my first preference to a minor party. Exactly how I vote
will, however, depend heavily on the responses of the major parties to free
speech issues. I need to know that these issues are taken seriously and that
I can look forward to further extension of our liberal freedoms, not to a
retreat into the mentality of censorship.
Yours sincerely,
Russell Blackford
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Currently in word-wrangling mode
I'm working on a big chapter about religious freedom and freedom of speech. I've spoken and written on aspects of this before, but mainly in the Australian context. Most of what I'm coming up with now is new material, and a lot of it is based on case law from the European Court of Human Rights, which has developed a rich jurisprudence in this area. It's becoming apparent that there could be a whole book in this topic, but if so it'll have to wait for another time.
I do think that a lot of people (sometimes including the ECHR judges) tie themselves up in unnecessary knots finding conflict between freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The simplest way to understand them is as negative rights against the state. The state can't persecute you on religious grounds and it can't shut you up because it doesn't like what you're saying. In some cases, these freedoms can overlap (e.g. if you're expressing an unpopular religious message, as required by your religion's canons of conduct for its adherents), but they can never be in conflict.
But of course there can be a conflict if freedom of religion is somehow construed as freedom from criticism by fellow citizens, or as a positive right to call on the resources of the state to shut them up if you don't like what they're saying. I reckon we should resist that sort of interpretation. The real historical evils that led to modern ideas of freedom of religion related to state impositions of preferred religions and persecutions of dispreferred religions. Getting rid of those impositions and persecutions should be enough. After that, it's every idea, religious or otherwise, for itself.
I do think that a lot of people (sometimes including the ECHR judges) tie themselves up in unnecessary knots finding conflict between freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The simplest way to understand them is as negative rights against the state. The state can't persecute you on religious grounds and it can't shut you up because it doesn't like what you're saying. In some cases, these freedoms can overlap (e.g. if you're expressing an unpopular religious message, as required by your religion's canons of conduct for its adherents), but they can never be in conflict.
But of course there can be a conflict if freedom of religion is somehow construed as freedom from criticism by fellow citizens, or as a positive right to call on the resources of the state to shut them up if you don't like what they're saying. I reckon we should resist that sort of interpretation. The real historical evils that led to modern ideas of freedom of religion related to state impositions of preferred religions and persecutions of dispreferred religions. Getting rid of those impositions and persecutions should be enough. After that, it's every idea, religious or otherwise, for itself.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
An exercise for the reader
I'm leaving this one as an exercise for the reader - analyse this nonsensical blather, which I found via the ABC's Religion and Ethics Portal, for yourselves. Enjoy!
Monday, July 12, 2010
ABC Religion and Ethics Portal
Now here's an interesting new resource, complete with an attached blog. Predictably, the whole shebang is edited by a religious bloke, whose credits include a stint as a Protestant pastor, lots of background as a theologian, and some experience in writing about "modern atheism's dependence on the Christian legacy" (that's what it says, right there on the portal, expressed uncritically). None of this entails that's he's not a good bloke. Maybe he is. At this point I could go into my usual song and dance routine about how I always like to have a beer or two with any genuinely moderate Christian who's prepared to shout. But still ...
I suppose they didn't think of the idea that this portal might have more credibility if set up so that it at least looks neutral about all the current religious controversies. I mean, all those Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Daoists, and so on, might think it's not really going to represent them if it's run by a Christian theologian and pastor who even has specific views about Christianity's contribution to atheist thought. Let alone all of us actual atheists, agnostics, humanists, sceptics, etc. And especially as it's a religion and ethics portal - some people would say those two things are opposed, or at least orthogonal, to each other ... and it would be nice if ethics were represented by, say, a moral philosopher. Yeah, I know someone's gotta be in charge, but it would have been easy creating something that looks more like, I dunno, a religious studies department and less like a faculty of theology. There's a big difference.
And of course it hasn't escaped me that this thing is being paid for by public revenue, so I'll be pretty cross if it ends up looking like a taxpayer-funded religious propaganda site.
But then again, let's not carp too much quite yet. I'm getting ahead of myself. The new portal should at least provide some interesting news from around the world. I'll wait until it has some material of substance before I judge its fairness and effectiveness. And then I'll probably carp - let's face it - but all things in their own good time.
I suppose they didn't think of the idea that this portal might have more credibility if set up so that it at least looks neutral about all the current religious controversies. I mean, all those Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Daoists, and so on, might think it's not really going to represent them if it's run by a Christian theologian and pastor who even has specific views about Christianity's contribution to atheist thought. Let alone all of us actual atheists, agnostics, humanists, sceptics, etc. And especially as it's a religion and ethics portal - some people would say those two things are opposed, or at least orthogonal, to each other ... and it would be nice if ethics were represented by, say, a moral philosopher. Yeah, I know someone's gotta be in charge, but it would have been easy creating something that looks more like, I dunno, a religious studies department and less like a faculty of theology. There's a big difference.
And of course it hasn't escaped me that this thing is being paid for by public revenue, so I'll be pretty cross if it ends up looking like a taxpayer-funded religious propaganda site.
But then again, let's not carp too much quite yet. I'm getting ahead of myself. The new portal should at least provide some interesting news from around the world. I'll wait until it has some material of substance before I judge its fairness and effectiveness. And then I'll probably carp - let's face it - but all things in their own good time.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
A reminder about Chained to the Alien
Over on Amazon, sales for Chained to the Alien don't look strong. Hmmm, maybe this means the interest in the late 1980s/early 1990s debates about science fiction - the kind of ferment that was reflected in the second incarnation of Australian Science Fiction Review - isn't there out in the Land of the Public. I dunno.
Here's the score: I can't twist your arms to buy this book - much as that might be fun. But consider passing on the message to those who might have an interest. As I've previously mentioned, Chained to the Alien contains nearly 30,000 words of my best literary criticism, and it shows me getting involved in rather different controversies from the ones I'm caught up in 20 years later. Maybe some of y'all might find that interesting or know someone who would. It's quite a nifty little book, reprinting much energetic and sometimes ferocious material from the halcyon of ASFR 2, so I wish it success.
Here's the score: I can't twist your arms to buy this book - much as that might be fun. But consider passing on the message to those who might have an interest. As I've previously mentioned, Chained to the Alien contains nearly 30,000 words of my best literary criticism, and it shows me getting involved in rather different controversies from the ones I'm caught up in 20 years later. Maybe some of y'all might find that interesting or know someone who would. It's quite a nifty little book, reprinting much energetic and sometimes ferocious material from the halcyon of ASFR 2, so I wish it success.
Web filter on hold ... but the war isn't over
I'm still absorbing the implications of this story , which seems to indicate a partial backdown by the federal government on the controversial web filter proposal (which, of course, I have consistently opposed).
The primary rationale for the Australian government's attempt to impose a technological filter on the internet has always been the need to restrict the online distribution of child pornography. It's unlikely that this goal would actually be achieved, since it seems to be accepted by all the experts that child pornography is not generally distributed via the web, and in any event criminals will find ways to get around the filter. What is needed to deal with child pornography is simply a more concerted and better-resourced enforcement of existing laws. This should include modifications to current laws to clarify and simplify them, to put beyond doubt that they do not catch legitimate artistic expression, and to make sure that they can't be used to waste public resources on achieving ridiculous outcomes that have nothing to do with the welfare of children.
What we don't need is any legislation that permits scope creep, making it easier for governments to interfere with more and more kinds of online speech. We need to study the proposed revisions to the policy, take part in the review that Gillard and Conroy now are talking about (and insist on public involvement), and generally hold the government's feet to the fire as the issue develops. We should not accept any outcome that restricts legitimate speech on the internet (I'm especially thinking here of such things as sites discussing euthanasia) or that will make it easier for the government to widen the scope of internet censorship going into the future. I welcome the fact that the government is now at least reconsidering and talking, but I'm not sure that any compromise is acceptable on such a fundamental issue. Even if it is, in the end, any further proposals will need to be worked out carefully, and with a genuine net gain for our liberty.
This is a start, but there's a long way to go yet in the fight to defend freedom of speech in Australia.
The primary rationale for the Australian government's attempt to impose a technological filter on the internet has always been the need to restrict the online distribution of child pornography. It's unlikely that this goal would actually be achieved, since it seems to be accepted by all the experts that child pornography is not generally distributed via the web, and in any event criminals will find ways to get around the filter. What is needed to deal with child pornography is simply a more concerted and better-resourced enforcement of existing laws. This should include modifications to current laws to clarify and simplify them, to put beyond doubt that they do not catch legitimate artistic expression, and to make sure that they can't be used to waste public resources on achieving ridiculous outcomes that have nothing to do with the welfare of children.
What we don't need is any legislation that permits scope creep, making it easier for governments to interfere with more and more kinds of online speech. We need to study the proposed revisions to the policy, take part in the review that Gillard and Conroy now are talking about (and insist on public involvement), and generally hold the government's feet to the fire as the issue develops. We should not accept any outcome that restricts legitimate speech on the internet (I'm especially thinking here of such things as sites discussing euthanasia) or that will make it easier for the government to widen the scope of internet censorship going into the future. I welcome the fact that the government is now at least reconsidering and talking, but I'm not sure that any compromise is acceptable on such a fundamental issue. Even if it is, in the end, any further proposals will need to be worked out carefully, and with a genuine net gain for our liberty.
This is a start, but there's a long way to go yet in the fight to defend freedom of speech in Australia.
Friday, July 09, 2010
I'm back ... okay?
I had a great time at the AAP conference. Among the many highlights, for me, were the papers by Kim Sterelny, David Chalmers, and Michael Smith. Some of the young up-and-coming philosophers were very impressive.
My own paper didn't attract a huge audience: about 15, which is typical at the AAP for those of us who are not philosophical superstars, what with twelve strands going at once in what isn't a huge conference (besides, I was on at 9 am). However, it was well received and left me with some thinking to do - mainly about issues to do with moral semantics. That's not a topic I'm in love with, but some of my thinking about the phenomenon of morality hinges on it to an extent.
My own paper didn't attract a huge audience: about 15, which is typical at the AAP for those of us who are not philosophical superstars, what with twelve strands going at once in what isn't a huge conference (besides, I was on at 9 am). However, it was well received and left me with some thinking to do - mainly about issues to do with moral semantics. That's not a topic I'm in love with, but some of my thinking about the phenomenon of morality hinges on it to an extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)