Clive Hamilton, “public intellectual”, has been banging on about how wrong wrongitty wrong anti-censorship advocates are. Clive has been stampily regurgitating the mantra of the censors:
“I have heard no one argue that films, television, books and magazine should be a free-for-all. But somehow all of this goes out the window when it comes to the internet.”
There’s an obvious rebuttal to this that even Clive should be able to understand:
“The World Wide Web isn’t like ‘films, television, books, and magazines’. The World Wide Web is like films, television, books, magazines, speeches, lectures, meetings, soapboxes, panels, parties, coffee klatches, crafting circles, political rallies, noisy pubs, arts soirees, jam sessions, sports gatherings, fan conventions, and millions upon millions of people conversing with each other and showing each other stuff.
Unless you think the Government should be mandatorily and automatically filtering each and every one of these things, your analogy fails. Next?”
In other censorship news, two children’s rights groups have spoken out against the proposed Government filters. In “Children’s welfare groups slam net filters“, the SMH reports that Holly Doel-Mackaway from Save The Children, the largest independent children’s rights agency in the world, said that the filter system is “fundamentally flawed”. James McDougall, director of the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre, agreed:
“This is called a child protection measure yet the vast majority of all serious child abuse does not occur on the internet, it occurs in the home,” said McDougall.
“I take issue with the minister’s perspective that children are themselves the danger in a sense that we have to make this decision for them because they are not capable of making it for themselves – I think there’s very little evidence to support that and plenty of evidence to show that children are responsible decision makers given the skills and information.”