Anglican canon and chair of the Melbourne Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee Dr Ray Cleary doesn't believe Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's proposed internet filter is the correct way to protect children from net nasties, instead espousing parental guidance.
commentary The Federal Government's planned internet filter has reignited the debate over how best to maintain civil liberties while simultaneously protecting children and other vulnerable members of the community from inappropriate and potentially harmful material.
Canon Dr Ray Cleary (Credit: Anglicare Victoria)
Whether or not one reads more sinister or potentially
controlling aims into the proposal depends upon your point of view.
Just how interventionist governments should be to protect the
vulnerable in our community is a very grey area. But when the
proposal is framed in the context of protecting children or
addressing terrorism most people will find it politically difficult
to argue against the basic premise of the plan.
Civil libertarians, however, fear government censorship of such
material is the thin edge of the wedge, while others point out the
ease with which even children can bypass filters within seconds in
a variety or ways (Google it to find out how).
But while debate rages across internet chat groups, blogs and
forums about the merits and dangers of government filtering, we
should pause and reflect on why, as a society, we need protection
and whose responsibility it is to provide that protection.
Some commentators may fear an over-regulated nanny-state or Big
Brother scenario, but I fear too many Australians are coming to
rely on government restrictions in place of family and community
values and expectations.
We demand a progressive democracy, but are shying away from the
responsibility of ensuring those around us exercise their rights
conscientiously without being exploitative or degrading of other
members of the community.
There are countless examples of the sexualisation of children
through the media, including the recent traumatic radio stunt
involving a 14-year-old girl being interrogated live-to-air about
her sexual history. The young girl's statement that she had been
raped at age 12 made the stunt a scandal. If not for that
revelation, however, the segment very likely would have passed
without community backlash.
I fear too many Australians are coming to
rely on government restrictions in place of family and community
values and expectations.
Dr Ray Cleary
The recent racist comments directed towards asylum seekers and
students from overseas, which appeared on Facebook, is another
example of inappropriate behaviour that has no place in a civilised
society.
We can't demand this kind of "entertainment" or perpetuate
racist and inciting behaviour yet bemoan the range of sexual or
explicit material easily available through the internet at the same time.
Parents and community leaders have a responsibility to be good
role models and to exercise control over the type of content
accessed by those in their care. While parents cannot watch over
their child's shoulder 24 hours a day, they can educate their
children, share their interests, discuss their concerns and lead by example.
Our failure to do so has led to the government attempting to
intervene. It is a sobering and embarrassing fact that the proposed
filter will be the first of its kind in a western democracy.
But is it the right solution? The available evidence suggests it
is not as there is the growing recognition that filters do not
work. People who want to find access will find a way.
For a start, it will not filter peer-to-peer material, it will
not help parents control under-age access to legal R-rated
pornography and, significantly, it may block what might be
considered "false positives", such as safe forums where people
discuss issues that involve explicit details.
A recent report by Professors Catharine Lumby, Lelia Green and
John Hartley found "material that could feasibly be deemed RC on
the basis of the current Classification Code includes:
A site devoted to debating the merits of euthanasia in which
some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia
practices
A site set up by a community organisation to promote
harm minimisation in recreational drug use
A site designed to
give a safe space for young gay men and lesbians to meet and
discuss their sexuality in which some members of the community
narrated explicit sexual experiences
A site that included
dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's
Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as
Dr Alfred Kinsey's famous Adult Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male
A site devoted to discussing the geopolitical causes of
terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist
organisations as reference material."
Many, including myself, would argue that while the content
mentioned above is not appropriate for children, it should not
always be blocked, and may in fact serve a purpose in stimulating
debate in a healthy democracy. It would be heavy-handed and
retrogressive, therefore, to impose such a broad filter.
It is a sobering and embarrassing fact that the proposed
filter will be the first of its kind in a western democracy.
Dr Ray Cleary
Senator Stephen Conroy defends the filter and claims it is "just
one part of a range of measures designed to make the internet a
safer place". But questions remain. If there is to be a filter on
selected subject matter such as child pornography what are the
safety nets and accountability structures in place to prevent
present and future governments censoring a range of political
views, opinions and expressions which they find politically
unacceptable or enabling them to track what individuals are looking
at or accessing.
Senator Conroy is right in suggesting we need a multi-pronged
response to inappropriate material. I'm just not sure the filter
should be one of those prongs.
Canon Dr Ray Cleary is the CEO of Anglicare Victoria and the chair of the Melbourne Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee. His comments
on the internet service provider level filter are published here with his permission.