kwoff_id = 9092;
The ABC reports on Conroy’s internet filtering bluster.
He uses exactly the same discourse strategy as used by half-wit anti civil liberties debaters everywhere: “Well if you don’t like it, YOU must be a pedo then! Eh? Eh? You like little girls, eh? Nudge nudge?”
Sue Gordon, on the post-“Little Children Are Sacred” NT intervention, used the same strategy when confronted by unanswerable criticism on her plan to “protect the children”:
“What I am feeling is that there’s a move that people don’t want change for traditional people in those remote communities.”
And here’s Conroy’s take on people raising valid, well-reasoned objections to mandatory internet filtering:
“Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”
So if it’s illegal child porn they’re planning to block, why talking about providing an opt-out method for adults? It’s just peachy for children to be molested for the camera, so long as the spectators can all drink ‘n’ drive? There is no earth logic here. Conroy is reported as wanting blocks much wider than child porn – X-rated, pornographic, and violent content appears to be up for blocking. “Pornographic” is not defined, and nor is “violent”. I’m thinking some sports competitions could run pretty close to the line here. Will we get a big CENSORED stamp over footy biffo? How about the odd all-in ice hockey brawl? Footage of the Cronulla riots? Images of the Iraq war? Oh, wait, I’m guessing there will be an “educational” exemption – decided by who? Will budding feminists be blocked from Hoyden About Town, with our “fuck”s and our “cunt”s and our abortion access advocacy and conversations about anal sex? Will Australia be blocked from all of Livejournal, from all of Facebook, Youtube, Myspace (including Conroy’s personal page)?
There is no way this can work as advertised – either useful sites will be blocked, or it will be a limp non-starter. You can bet I’m hoping for the latter, but then what is the point in the first place? Empty drivellous pandering or authoritarian censorship: only time will tell. We know that this scheme doesn’t have the backing of the Internet Industry Assocation. Will the more sensible parts of the Labor Party speak up for good judgement? Surely the Greens won’t back this (please tell me they won’t). Will the Libs, after their eventual opposition to the concept they birthed?