Apparently, we're thoughtless libertarians
Idly breaking from uni work to browse, I decided to see exactly how few or many articles had been published in local Australian news sites concerning the proposed "clean feed" internet filter.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm
I am a little upset that the best the ABC can do, apart from a few three-line entries about the rally in Brisbane, is an article over two weeks old written by an academic philosopher.
He brands those who protest the filter as "a new cohort of libertarians who see the medium as the source of ultimate freedom.", chosing to seek out and quote generalisations.
He seems to hint that people who are opposed to technical issues and concepts of free speech, affordability, and useable net speeds are instead online anarchists who abuse their net for downloading films and music, and see the proposed filter as a threat to their fun.
While, on the other hand, children suffer at the hands of pornographers. He likens the issue to that of the film censorship regulations, but ignores that there is the allowance for an adult rating for films where there will not be one for the "clean feed".
He ignores all technical aspects, such as that of child porn p2p file-sharing being the predominant form of distribution, and likens the voice of protesters to that of pro-gun lobbyists clamouring for a right to own firearms.
There are a huge amount of upset comments, but it's drawn to my attention that the news coverage on this is really sub-par and insulting at best. He finishes by saying that until we know whether or not we should ethically attempt to filter child porn, we should not consider whether or not we can.
In my mind, it's very simple. Should we try to prevent the sexual exploitation of children? Yes, absolutely. The question is really, can we protect them from sexual exploitation by blacklisting sites and enforcing ISP-level filtering, or do we have any other smarter options?
It does remind me of when a journalist attempted to expose a public library here for allowing porn to be accessed on their free net computers. The Librarians turned to the journalist, and told them that as they'd agreed to the library's terms of service, which included no porn, the journalist was personally responsible for any transgressions.
Sorry about the rant, everyone. I just feel so impotent and frustrated that I need to express myself with words somewhere.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm
I am a little upset that the best the ABC can do, apart from a few three-line entries about the rally in Brisbane, is an article over two weeks old written by an academic philosopher.
He brands those who protest the filter as "a new cohort of libertarians who see the medium as the source of ultimate freedom.", chosing to seek out and quote generalisations.
He seems to hint that people who are opposed to technical issues and concepts of free speech, affordability, and useable net speeds are instead online anarchists who abuse their net for downloading films and music, and see the proposed filter as a threat to their fun.
While, on the other hand, children suffer at the hands of pornographers. He likens the issue to that of the film censorship regulations, but ignores that there is the allowance for an adult rating for films where there will not be one for the "clean feed".
He ignores all technical aspects, such as that of child porn p2p file-sharing being the predominant form of distribution, and likens the voice of protesters to that of pro-gun lobbyists clamouring for a right to own firearms.
There are a huge amount of upset comments, but it's drawn to my attention that the news coverage on this is really sub-par and insulting at best. He finishes by saying that until we know whether or not we should ethically attempt to filter child porn, we should not consider whether or not we can.
In my mind, it's very simple. Should we try to prevent the sexual exploitation of children? Yes, absolutely. The question is really, can we protect them from sexual exploitation by blacklisting sites and enforcing ISP-level filtering, or do we have any other smarter options?
It does remind me of when a journalist attempted to expose a public library here for allowing porn to be accessed on their free net computers. The Librarians turned to the journalist, and told them that as they'd agreed to the library's terms of service, which included no porn, the journalist was personally responsible for any transgressions.
Sorry about the rant, everyone. I just feel so impotent and frustrated that I need to express myself with words somewhere.